1904-06-28

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 132) to amend the Railway Act, 1903 (Mr. Fitzpatrick), was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. In order so the ascertainment of the true net earnings of the eastern division of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for the purposes of the scheduled agreements referred to in the Act of the present session intituled ' An Act to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act,' the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada shall, upon the request of the Minister of Railways and Canals, inquire into, hear and determine any question as to the apportionment of any through rate or rates between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and any other transportation company, whether such company is or is not a railway company, or, if a railway company, whether it is or is not as such subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, for the purpose of determining whether such apportionment is Just and reasonable, having due regard to the interests of the government of Canada as owner of the said eastern division and of the Intercolonial Railway, and to the provisions of the National Transcontinental Railway Act, and of the said Act of the present session, and of the said scheduled agreements.-which Acts and agreements are hereby declared to he part of the special Act of or respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company within the meaning of paragraph (w.) of section 2 of the Railway Act, 1903 ; and in any such case the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has agreed to such apportionment shall he material evidence only and not conclusive ; and such net earnings shall then be ascertained upon the basis of the receipt by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of such share of such through rate or rates as,
[Stage Direction]
in the .opinion of the said board, that company should have received under a just and reasonable apportionment.
Hon. OHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: This clause was introduced for the purpose of giving effect to an undertaking that was entered into by the govern rneut when the National Transcontinental Railway Act was under consideration. It was suggested that it would be possible for the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific to enter into an arrangement by which the Grand Trunk Railway might divert all the traffic of the Grand Trunk Pacific down by way of North Bay, and that it would be impossible for the Railway Commissioners to exercise any control over it. It was argued at the time that under the different sections of the Railway Act (263, 266, 267 and 309) the Railway Commissioners would have the power to control such an arrangement. It was thought that these sections did not go quite far enough and were not quite clear enough, and in that view this amendment is introduced for the purpose of carrying out the undertaking that the Railway Commissioners would be given absolute power and control to investigate any traffic arrangement that might be made between the two companies.


Mr. BARKER.: I call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the limit he has placed upon the first section. It says it is only for the purpose of ascertaining the net earnings of the eastern division.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The apportionment.


Samuel Barker: Yes, so far as it affects the net earnings of the eastern division. The government of Canada as guarantor of the bonds of the western division are equally interested, because if an undue proportion of the through rate is applied upon the Grand Trunk Railway proper, to the depletion of the earnings of the Grand Trunk Pacific, it may result that there will be default in the payment of the interest upon the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific. It seems to me, therefore, that at the very inception of the clause there has been an oversight, and that the country is equally interested in the proper apportionment of the through rates, whether it affects the rental of the eastern division or the earnings that will be available to pay the bonds on the western division.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The question raised during the discussion was with respect to the apportionment of rates between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway, in so far as this apportionment of rates may result in a diversion of the traffic. My intention is to do what is necessary to give the Railway Commission absolute control over the through-traffic arrangements made . between these two companies, and I am quite prepared to accept any amendment that will tend in that direction. If my hon.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: friend would suggest any amendment that he would think effective I would be glad to consider it between this and next Tuesday, when the Bill will be discussed again under an arrangement with my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean).


Samuel Barker: The country are just as much interested in the proper apportionment of * the rates so long as they remain guarantors of the -bonds, as they are in regard to the rent of the eastern division. I will be very glad to do what the hon. gentleman says.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would move that to that section be added the following amendment :
Provided, however, that either party shall have the right without leave, to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from any order or decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners under this section.
It may be prudent to reserve to the government the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, for it is a matter of so great importance that we should have it settled there. We can leave the clause in abeyance. *
On section 2,-majority of directors of subsidized company to be British subjects.
Mr, CASGRAIN. I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to section 10 of the Act incorporating the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company7, which reads as follows :
The directors may annually appoint from among themselves an executive committee composed of at least three directors, for such purposes and with such duties as the directors by by-law determine ; and the president shall he ex-officio a member of such committee.1
It seems to me evident that the amendment which my hon. friend is now proposing to the General Railway Act should have been proposed to the law which ratified the contract, and the subsequent amendments, with respect to the National Transcontinental Railway. Suppose the majority of this executive committee should not be British subjects, it seems to. me that the amendment my hon. friend proposes would be nugatory so far as the Grand Trunk Pacific is concerned ; because the board of directors, although a majority7 of them may be British subjects, may appoint on this executive committee a majority who are not British subjects. They may even appoint the whole committee from gentlemen who are not British subjects. This safeguard is all the more important in regard to the National Transcontinental Railway, because, as was indicated before, the company may divert its traffic from Canadian ports to American ports, and the whole policy of the company may be in the hands of an executive committee of directors. Therefore it seems to me that some provision should be made in the Act, specifying that when an execu-
56S1

five committee of the board of directors is appointed, the majority of the members of that executive committee should also be British subjects.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This provision is general in its effect and it was intended to make it applicable to all railway companies in Canada. The only company in Canada to which such legislation is now applicable is the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is no reason why it should be applicable to the Grand Trunk Pacific alone. I think it is proper that it should be applicable to all railway companies in Canada which receive government aid. It seems to me that the executive committee must of necessity be subject to the control of the board of directors. I do not know whether there is anything in the Act which takes them out of the jurisdiction of the board of directors : but unless there is something exceptional, an executive committee would of necessity be under the control of the directors and could do nothing without the sanction of the board.


Samuel Barker: The executive committee might accomplish many things before the board could have an opportunity of revising their proceedings. If there is any object in having a majority of the board'British subjects surely there must be a like object in. providing that those who actually execute their own resolutions should also be, at least a majority of them, British subjects. I cannot see why there should be
a board of twelve might have seven British subjects and five the subjects of some foreign nation. It seems to me that we have already had an indication of that in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The statement has been made that some of the best offices have gone already to United States people : and during the recent investigation, some of these have been compelled to go back and Canadians have taken their places, so that we may say that the thin edge of the wedge has been introduced. While we lie so close to the United States, it might be in the interest of Canada to have some American directors on the board ; but I do not think it is in the interest of Canada to have such a large proportion of citizens of some other country.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would not be prepared at first sight to agree to the suggestion made by my bon. friend. In Canada the majority of our railroads require foreign financial aid. In the United States and other foreign countries those who invest their money in our enterprises are anxious to have some sort of representation on the board of management, and I think while we ought to keep in our own hands the absolute control of the policy of the company, and its general management, it is equally fair that those who invest their money should have some representation on the board. For that reason, I would not be disposed to go so far as my hon. friend suggests.
any desire to have a majority of the, board British subjects if the men on the spot who have actual control and put their plans into effect should not also be British subjects [DOT] a board in England or elsewhere could not always reverse their decisions if they desired. I do not see why these men, having such power of action, should not be themselves restricted in the same way as the board of directors are.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In any event, the question arises whether or not this is a proper amendment to the General Railway Act. The other matter will require to have an amendment to the special Act respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Would it not meet the ease to make the clause read : ' A majority of the directors or any permanent executive committee of the directors ? ' I think we ought to have that provision in the Act, because we are trying to keep the control of this road in the hands of British subjects, and an executive; committee composed of three members, not British subjects, might be the actual controlling influence on the board.	'


Mr. BLAIN.: Why should not the Minister of Justice go further and provide that all the directors of a railway company which receives aid from the public treasury of Canada should be British subjects ? While we may keep the control under British law,


Mr. CASGRAIN.: There may be a great deal in what my hon. friend spys ; but I do not think there is much in his remark about the majority of the executive committee being British subjects.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My difficulty with respect to that suggestion now is that I should not like to adopt it offhand, without ascertaining how far it would affect other corporations, for instance the Canadian Pacific Railway. I see the fairness of the re marks made by the hon. member for Montmorency and my hon. friend from Hamilton, and the desirability of meeting their wishes ; but I do not like to agree to it without seeing what would be the effect of the legislation.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I was going to suggest that after the words ' majority of directors ' we should add the words ' and of any exeen-tive committee of any company.' The directors of this company may be composed of gentlemen residing in the United States and also in England, and of course the executive committee will, to a great extent, control the policy of the company, because by section 10 of the Act incorporating the Grand Trunk Pacific, it is provided that the board of directors may vest the executive committee with such duties as the directors may by by-law determine. Suppose the directors, composed of a majority of British subjects, invested the executive committee

with powers involving to a great extent the policy of the company, then it seems to me that the executive committee would have the right to carry out that policy, I quite understand that this policy will be subject to review by the board of directors, but in a great many instances this board would only meet very seldom and a great many things might happen between the meetings of the board by which the policy of the executive committee would be carried out notwithstanding the wishes of the board of directors.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We could allow that section to stand also, as I have to add several other sections to the Bill. I beg to move that the following be inserted as clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill -
1.	Notwithstanding anything, contained in the Railway Act, 1903, the Governor in Council shall have, and shall be deemed to have had since the date upon which the said last-mentioned Act came into force, power, authority and jurisdiction to sanction, confirm, rescind, change or vary, or to take other action upon any report, order or decision of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council made before the said date under the Railway Act of 1888, or any Act in amendment thereof, in as full and ample a manner as if the said Railway Act, 1903, had not been passed or had not come into force, and as if the said Railway Act of 1888 and the said Acts in amendment thereof had not been repealed ; and any order or decision so sanctioned or confirmed shall have the same validity, force and effect as if the said order or decision had been so sanctioned or. confirmed prior to the issue thereof.
My hou. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) will see at once the reason. As the result of the repeal of the Railway Act, the jurisdiction of the Governor in Council, with respect to sanctioning the orders of the old Railway Committee has departed, and in the case of Yonge street, the Governor General in Council is without jurisdiction to give effect to the ruling of the Railway Committee, and the Railway Commission is equally without jurisdiction. The next clause will read :
2.	The said Railway Act, 1903, is amended by inserting after section 6 the following section :-
6a. Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other Act contained every railway, steam or electric street railway, and tramway wholly situate within one province of Canada, but which in its entirety or in part is declared by the parliament of Canada to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, and every person employed thereon, in respect of such employment, and every person, company, corporation or municipality owning, controlling or operating the same wholly or partly, in respect of such ownership, control or operation, shall notwithstanding such declaration be subject to any Act of the legislature of the province in which the same is situate prohibiting or regulating work, business or labour upoi^ the first day of the week, Mr. CASGRAIN.
commonly called Sunday, which is in force at the time of the passing of this Act, and every such Act is hereby, in so far as the same is in other respects within the powers of the legislature, confirmed and ratified, and made as valid and effectual ror the purposes of this section as if the same had been duly enacted by the parliament of Canada.
This last amendment is intended to leave railways, electric lines and others, which are situated wholly within a province, but which have been declared by the parliament of Canada to be works for the general advantage of Canada, subject to Sunday legislation within the provinces.


William Findlay Maclean: If a road touches the international boundary or the boundary between two provinces, would that apply ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It applies to works which are of a nature merely local concerns.


William Findlay Maclean: There would be a good deal of discussion as to what road would come under it, but that would be for the courts to determine.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I beg also to move:
2. The Governor in Council may at any time and from time to time by proclamation confirm for the purposes of this section any Act of the legislature of any province passed after the passing of this Act for the prohibition or regulation of work, business or labour upon the first day. of the week, commonly called Sunday, and from and after the date of any such proclamation the Act thereby confirmed, in so far as the same is in other respects within the powers of the legislature, shall for the purposes of this Section be confirmed and ratified and made as valid and effectual as if the same had been enacted by the parliament of Canada ; and notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other Act contained every railway, steam or electric street railway, and tramway, wholly situate within such province, but declared by the parliament of Canada to be in its entirety or In part a work for the general advantage of Canada, and every person employed thereon, in respect of such employment, and every person, company, corporation or municipality owning, controlling or operating the same wholly or partly, in respect of such ownership, control or operation, shall thereafter notwithstanding such declaration be subject to the Act so confirmed in so far as the same is otherwise ' intra vires ' of the legislature.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Fitzpatrick: I now move that the Bill be printed in its present shape and that the committee rise and report progress, so that on next Tuesday we may vote certain amendments to it.


William Findlay Maclean: On that understanding I have no objection to the committee rising and reporting progress.
Progress reported.



PROVINCIAL ACCOUNTS AND THE AUDITOR GENERAL.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (.Minister of Finance).: I beg to lay on the table a memo-

randum by the Deputy Minister of Finance on the subject of provincial accounts, and. also a copy of the resignation of the Auditor General.



SUPPLY-EMPLOYMENT OF ALIEN ENGINEERS.

['FIELDING (Minister of Finance) delivered a Message from His Excellency the Governor General.\nMr. SPEAKER read the Message as follows :\nMINTO :\nThe Governor in Council transmits to the House of Commons further supplementary estimates of sums required for the 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.\nGovernment House,\nOttawa, 28th June, 1904.\nMr. FIELDING moved that the Message of His Excellency and the estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.']
The Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: May I ask the lion. Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) if any further correspondence has been brought down respecting the employment of alien engineers on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ? There was an order of the House passed on the 30tli of May and a subsequent order on the same subject. It is to the return to the subsequent order that I refer.


The Hon.  W. S.@: I have the return here.
I beg to lay on the table a return to order of the House of Commons of lath June, 1904 for copies of additional correspondence since the last order respecting the employment of alien engineers on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether it is likely that we shall have the report of Judge Winchester before the House closes, and also whether any arrangement has been made to print the evidence and lay it before the House ?


William Mulock: I am in hopes that we shall get the report. Judge Winchester is to come to Ottawa to morrow on his way to Montreal, and he will stop over to report progress. He has been very actively engaged in the inquiry ever since his appointment ; I am confident he has not lost a moment. The evidence is being taken down in shorthand with the view to laying it before the House. I do not know how far Judge Winchester has gone, but he has made excellent progress, and I think his work has already borne fruit.


William Findlay Maclean: I think that judge Winchester has made admirable progress and it is for that very reason that I would like to have the evidence in the hands of the House, if possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Post Office-outside service-mail service, $2,561,700.
['I think that judge Winchester has made admirable progress and it is for that very reason that I would like to have the evidence in the hands of the House, if possible.']
Mr. LANCASTER.: While we are on this item, I would like to say a word or two on the general question of the service at the post offices in the country, and particularly at the post office of the incorporated village of Grimsby in the county of Lincoln. The Postmaster General may remember that complaints were made to him early in the year, and that these complaints are of considerable standing, and last session I spoke in regard to the scant accommodation for the public at that post office. The village of Grimsby is a centre where an efficient mail service is required more, perhaps, than in most parts of the country. It is most important that the residents should be given facilities to get their mail delivered and sent out promptly. Especially during the fruit season, they must get many reports and other matters by mail that especially affect the business they are carrying on of shipping perishable fruits. Complaints were made to the Postmaster General which, I am advised by my constituents, have not resulted in any improvement.
I am not suggesting at present that the Postmaster General has not done all he can to get the postmaster at Grimsby to effect an improvement. I would draw the attention of the Postmaster General to a letter written to him by Mr. James Doran. Mr. Doran is a man of great prominence in the locality, and one very highly respected by everybody. And, if it is a testimonial of character in the eyes of the Postmaster General, I may say that Mr. Doran is a very prominent Liberal. He contested the countv of Lincoln for the local legislature in 1898. He is one of a family that have been very staunch supporters of the Liberal party in the Dominion and provincial elections. His brother was an unsuccessful candidate in the city of Hamilton for this parliament a few years ago. Mr. Doran would not make these complaints to the Postmaster General, unless he felt that the interest of the village of which he is a prominent citizen required it :
Grimsby, Out., January 14th, 1904.
Hon. Sir William Mulock,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-You are probably aware that when Mr. Wm. Forbes, the present postmaster here, was appointed it was urged as a reason for moving the post office from where It then was to Mr. Forbes' own premises that there would be much more accommodation for the public. We, residents of the village and locality, have waited patiently now more than four years for the accommodation and improvement, hut instead of it coming we have no such accommodation as we had before, or are entitled to, or as any other place of the same importance enjoys. Over 2,000 people use this office for their mail, and the fruit growing and other business of the locality is of a kind that suffers very much by want of proper post office arrangements.
What we all complain of is as follows :
1.	The whole space for the public in the office is a passage, with the street door at the end, about four and a half feet wide running past the letter boxes and ending at the postmaster's private quarters, and is utterly inadequate for the needs of the people, numbers of whom can be seen every day standing on the street because there is no room Inside.
2.	We cannot buy postage stamps or post cards, or get any mail handed out, until after

eight in the morning, although a mail goes to *the west at half past jeven a.m., and in the evening although the mail from the east gets in at six o'clock it is not distributed until after the mail from the west, which is due one-half an hour later, but is generally an hour or more late, and although such lateness is at the time known to the postmaster, and people have to wait notwithstanding the want of accommodation because no matter at what hour the mail is distributed the wicket is finally closed for the night at 7.30 in any event, and only those having lock boxes can get mail until 8 p.m.
There are other complaints, but these are the principal ones.
I think your inspector ought to make a visit here on some Saturday evening about six o'clock and wait for an hour or two, and he would see how'' things are for himself, unless the postmaster, knowing he was expected made some special arrangements for the occasion.
There is so much complaining about these matters, and has been now for a long time, by the people that I have now been asked to write you about it, and have thought best to do so.
Hoping that a substantial improvement for the people will be brought about without much delay, and thus prevent any other action being necessary, I am.
Yours faithfully,



[Stage Direction]
Mr. Doran informs me that that letter was acknowledged by the secretary of the department, and a promise was given that the inspector would make a visit and would look into the matter. I do not say that the first letter promised any more than that the matter would be investigated. He informs me that the inspector had been there and that he told Mr. Forbes that he must provide better accommodation for the public, and Mr. Forbes agreed to do so. But Mr. Doran says that nothing has been done.
It is now getting well into the fruit season in that part of the country. For some years the people have suffered for want of sufficient post office accommodation. They have to go down to the village to ship their fruit and other produce upon trains which nearly all start at the same hour, and they feel that they are entitled to get their mail matter in time to be of some use to them for that day's operation. The only accommodation for receiving the mail is a corridor 4™ feet by fifteen or twenty feet, for which the postmaster receives a rental of $120 a year, and very few people can get into that " passage-way to receive their mail. They also complain that the post office is not open to the transaction of business, the sale of stamps, the registration of letters, &c., until S o'clock in the morning, although the mail for the west, for Toronto, Hamilton, &c., leaves the post office at 7.30. There is no other mail west until 6 in the evening, this late mail connecting with the late "trains for Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, &c. The trouble seems to be that the postmaster, Mr. Forbes, thinks he can do as he likes.
I ealled the attention of the Postmaster General to this matter last year, and during Mr. LANCASTER.
the winter Mr. Doran, acting in the public interest, wrote the letter to the Postmaster General, complaining of the inefficient service and insufficient accommodation, they are compelled to loiter about the streets to await their turn to receive their mail and in the cold weather this of course is a hardship. The Postmaster General acted on Mr. Doran's letter and sent his inspector to investigate the complaint. The inspector, I am informed, told Mr. Forbes, the postmaster, that he would have to provide better accommodation, and Mr. Forbes, I believe, promised to increase the accommodation but said that he could not do anything in the way of building until spring and the inspector took his word. However, the summer is well advanced but nothing has been done. Had this postmaster been treated with one-quarter of the -discipline that was displayed in the case of Mr. Gallagher, postmaster of Wilton, which we discussed last night on the initiation of my friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson), he would have been dismissed from his position.
I have culled some figures from the report of the Postmaster General and I find that the revenue from the Grimsby post office if $2,862, the postmaster gets in salary and commissions $870 besides commission on box rents and he gets a rental for the use of the post office of $120. Thus the postmaster at this point receives about $1,100 and there is a revenue of nearly three times that much. On comparing it with some of the county tow'ns, I find that the town of Cayuga has a revenue of $1,631, the town of L'Original has a revenue of $1,042, and the town of Milton has a revenue of $2,648. All of these have less revenue than the village of Grimsby, which, although it is only a village, is a very important place, and a place where the people use a lot of mail matter. As I have said, the postmaster at Grimsby also gets a larger income than is received in any of these county towns.
He gets $876 with box rents and a rent allowance of $120 for which he gives the very scant accommodation that I have endeavoured to describe. The postmaster at Cayuga gets $620 a year and no rent, the postmaster at L'Original, $434 a year with box rents and $40 for rental allowance and the postmaster at Milton $S60 a year with box rents and the same rent for premises as the postmaster at Grimsby, $120 a year. All these offices yield the Dominion a smaller revenue than Grimsby does and the postmasters get less salary than the postmaster at Grimsby. I trust that the hon. Postmaster General will be able to give me some assurance and through me the residents of this very important part of the very thriving county of Lincoln, the very heart of fruit growing and agriculture in its highest state of perfection, that we will be better treated by this postmaster and that he will

be caused by some more stringent means to remove the complaints which have been made against him. Mr. Doran who makes these complaints knows what he is speaking about. There are no politics in the matter. The people of Grimsby on both sides of politics unite in stating that this postmaster is altogether too clever for his position. Notwithstanding the complaints made by public men and others he will not listen to them. He does not consider that he is a public servant at all. When the complaint is made to the hon. Postmaster General, the Postmaster General sends his inspector there, the inspector tells the postmaster that the complaint is well founded and requires a remedy and he trusts to the promise of the postmaster that he will provide a remedy, but, notwithstanding that, the complaint of the people is that this postmaster defies them and refuses to do anything in the hope that the agitation will die out or that probably the people will go somewhere else to mail their letters. The post office at Grimsby park is only two and a half miles away and I know that some of the fruit growers have very often gone there during the summer months because of the very satisfactory condition there in dealing with the postmaster as compared with tlic condition of the post office at Grimsby. The post office at Beamsville, which is the post office that my hon. friend had in his mind in speaking of the dismissal of a young man who was there, is four and a half miles east of Grimsby and the post office at Winona near which my hon. friend from South Wentworth (Mr. Smith) resides and where I have no doubt he gets far better accommodation than we do at Grimsby is only four and a half miles west of Grimsby. The people who patronize this post office feel that they have a right to ask the Postmaster General to see that this postmaster complies with the requirements of the public service and provides the accommodation that he ought to provide without any complaint being made. He should recognize the direction of the post office inspector sent by the Postmaster General to investigate these complaints or he should be obliged to give the accommodation which the people demand.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIv. I have just sent for the file of papers so as to understand something about the facts of this matter. I have just a moment ago received it, and perhaps while I am reading the papers over some other matter may be discussed.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: W7ill the Postmaster General answer later on ?


William Mulock: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: There is a great deal of inconvenience all over the country bn
the same lines as those mentioned by my hon. friend trom Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) but there is a solution of the trouble and that is by combining several businesses in one. If the government took over the telephone and telegraph business which would be combined with the post office in all the small towns and villages we would have one central office which would be open day and night no matter whether the community was a large or small one. With a combination of the telephone, telegraph and post office we would have one well paid official and we could afford to pay one man a good salary. The public service would be trebled or quadrupled in its usefulness to the people. The way to improve the post office is by combining it with the telephone and telegraph service, centralizing it and paying the officer in charge a half decent salary. Then, the public will get proper service.


Mr. TAYLOR.: If the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) is not prepared to answer my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), I want to bring to his attention what I consider to be a very serious breach of duty on the part of the hon. gentleman and some of his postmasters. 'When the hon. Tostmaster General was on this side of the House he made very serious complaints against the postmasters for acting as agents for political papers. When he assumed office he cut the heads off a great many postmasters throughout the country, their only offence being that they happened to vote for a Conservative candidate. There was no other complaint, no charge and no trial, but their heads were simply cut off because they voted for Conservative candidates.


William Mulock: I never dismissed anybody for such an act.


George Taylor: The hon. Postmaster General dismissed the postmaster at Elgin, Mr. John Dargavel, for nothing more than that


William Mulock: For voting ?
Mr. TAYLOR, Just simply for voting.


William Mulock: That is incorrect.


George Taylor: There was nothing more than that against him.


William Mulock: I met Mr. Dargavel on the platform myself.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman never met Mr. Dargavel on the platform, but he dismissed him simply for recording his vote.


William Mulock: I am sure that is not correct.
Mr. TAYLOR, I have made the statement and the hon. gentleman cannot contradict it.


William Mulock: I most emphatically do.


George Taylor: Well then let him bring down the papers. Last winter I was driving through my county and at every post office I found this notice :
The ' TORONTO DAILY STAR.'
One year. One dollar. One year.
Toronto's best daily.
This is the hon. gentleman's personal organ.


William Mulock: No, it is not.


George Taylor: Surely the hon. gentleman would not say that this paper exceeds the ' Globe.' The notice goes on :
As good as money can make it.
Subscribe with the postmaster.
No matter whether that postmaster is a Grit or Tory he has to canvass subscriptions for the hon. gentleman's organ.


William Mulock: That is quite untrue.


George Taylor: How is it untrue ? Here is a document asking the postmaster to act as the agent of this paper.


William Mulock: Who asks him?


George Taylor: The Toronto ' Daily Star,' a paper which is owned by the hon. Postmaster General and is his own organ.
Sir WILLIAM, MULOCK. The hon. gentleman need not take my word for it, but I will say that his statement is wholly without foundation. I have no more interest in the ' Star ' than the hon. gentleman has. I never had. I took an interest in seeing that it got into the right path, but ns to the postmasters acting as agents for papers, that subject has been discussed ad nauseam. I never when in opposition, took exception to the postmasters acting as agents of newspapers. The hon. gentleman cannot show anything to that effect in the debates that I took part in. I stated last year when the subject was under discussion, and I say it now, that the postmasters all through Canada are at liberty to act as agents for newspapers. They can do so according to their own will and inclination without any interference from the government or from me ; they can act as agent for one paper just as well as for another. If this House reaches the conclusion that no postmaster should act as agent for a newspaper, I am prepared to give effect to that decision, but it will cut all around. At present the postmasters are free to act as agents for newspapers provided it does not interfere with the proper discharge of their duties.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman not only allows them to act as agents, but by this document sent out by his order, he Mr. TAYLOR.
asks them to take subscriptions for the Toronto ' Star.'


William Mulock: That statement is absolutely without foundation. I will not allow the hon. gentleman to make such a statement without contradicting it.


George Taylor: I am speaking by the book.


William Mulock: It is not true.


George Taylor: Every postmaster in Canada knows that the * Star ' is identified with the Postmaster General.


William Mulock: No one knows It; that statement is untrue.


George Taylor: It is his organ.


William Mulock: That is untrue.


George Taylor: Every minister is supposed to have an organ and the Postmaster General is not going to be behind the others. He has the 'Star' to boom him. In this document he authorizes the postmasters, whether they are Tories or not, to collect subscriptions for the ' Star,' and he says : You are my postmaster ; you have to take subscriptions for the ' Star.'


William Mulock: Perfect rubbish.


George Taylor: I have no doubt that the Postmaster General is keeping a record of every postmaster in the country to know how many copies of the Toronto ' Star ' he puts in circulation.


William Mulock: The statements of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) are absolutely untrue. I never had a communication direct or 'indirect with any postmaster in Canada as to what paper he should or should not represent, I ask the hon. gentleman to speak the truth.


George Taylor: If I move for the correspondence between the Postmaster General and the different postmasters throughout the country with inference to the Toronto ' Star,' the Postmaster General will say that these documents are private and confiderl-tial.


William Mulock: No, Sir. Let my hon. friend make his motion and I will see that it is complied with at once. Or, let him move for a committee and it will be at once shown that he is making misstatements.


George Taylor: I have a distinct recollection that when this matter was discussed in the House some years ago, the Postmaster General then in opposition condemned postmasters for taking subscriptions for the Toronto ' Daily Mail.'


William Mulock: I hope the hon. gentleman will be more correct 'in his statements in the future.
i


George Taylor: I think the ' Hansard ' will hear me out about that. This document is hanging in every post office throughout the country, and I want to know what authority the Postmaster General gave the ' 8tar ' to send out these circulars as much as to say to the postmasters : You have to act as agent for that Grit organ rag at Toronto called the Toronto ' Star,' which says it is the best Toronto daily. Everybody knows that since the day it started, the Postmaster General is identified with the ' Star,' and! it has the reputation of being his own personal organ ; not that he owns it, but that he controls it and directs its policy. If the postmasters did not send in the proper number of subscriptions they feel that the Postmaster General would reprimand them. I want the Postmaster General to say if the postmasters throughout Canada have no authority for acting as his agents in canvassing subscriptions for the Toronto ' Star.' I want him to say so publicly.


William Mulock: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the Postmaster General give the information asked for ?


William Mulock: The report is somewhat lengthy, and I have trot read it all, but it appears that on the 19th of February the state of the accommodation at that office is reported on by the inspector who says :
The office is kept in a good substantial frame building and is situated on the north side of South Main street. The width of the lobby, inside measurement, is four feet eight inches, the length being about forty-four feet eleven inches.	,
Did the hon. gentleman say eleven feet?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 1 said fifteen or twenty feet ; he must be taking in part of the private quarters of the postmaster. The postmaster has a private office behind where he does conveyancing and that sort of thing.


William Mulock: Perhaps so; I will read on ;
The inside measurement of the lobby is four feet eight inches in width, the length being about forty-four feet eleven inches. At the rear end of the lobby there is a desk adjoining the wall for the public accommodation so that letters can be addressed or business transacted by those who may require to do so. The com* partment where the post office business is trans-

t
acted is about the same length, forty-four feet eleven inches by about four feet eight inches in width, which is sufficient accommodation for carrying on the general work connected therewith. The postmaster has his office fitted in a very neat and commodious manner, and I have not found any country post office which has any better interior arrangement. I regret however to state that the public lobby is rather too narrow and that when the mails arrive late and a larger erovd is in attendance than usual, it is considerably cramped and there is occasionally a little discomfort I believe caused to the public. From inquiries, however, I find that there are very few who complain of the narrowness of the post office lobby.
He goes on to say :
The public lobby, although small, is well heated and is comfortable in every other respect, except that it is a little too narrow. As far as I could judge, seventy-five people could find standing room in the lobby. The difficulty this winter has been on account of the late arrival of the trains, chiefly the night trains, arriving at Grimsby, one at about 5.45 p.m. and the other about half-an-hour later, which caused the lobby to be crowded by those waiting on the distribution of the mails. In the summer season, when the trains are running regularly, I understand that little or no complaint is made of the smallness of the lobby. The postmaster at Grimsby admits that the lobby is a little too narrow, and he would like to make it larger if he could ; but on account of the other part of the building being used as a store, he could not increase the size of the lobby. He states also that it is only Mr. Doran and a few of his friends who are agitating the complaint against the size of his office. He informed me, however, that next summer he would see what he could do in the way of providing a larger space for the public. He said that as he only receives $1.20 a year rental, he could net afford to put up a post office building which would cost $2,000 or $3,000. Regarding the second complaint that Mr. Doran makes, that he cannot buy postage stamps or post cards until 8 o'clock in the morning, I may say that the morning mail is despatched at 7.30 a.m., and as there are two stamp vendors in the village, there is no difficulty whatever in getting postage stamps the night before, and it would be unreasonable to ask the postmaster to open his office at 7 o'clock in the morning just for the purpose of selling a few postage stamps. I think it would be unreasonable to compel the postmaster at this season of the year to take immediate action in the matter, and would recommend that he be allowed to continue the office as at present until the summer months, when he will make full inquiries as to what better accommodation he can provide, believing that the agitation which has been gotten up by Mr. Doran, largely emanates from him and a few of those people living in the place who are unfriendly to Mr. Forbes, who is a justice of the peace, a wealthy merchant, and otherwise is one of the more popular men in the community.
This is the report of the inspector. It floes not disclose a very serious state of affairs. At the same time, if it is possible, in a reasonable way, to secure .better, accommodation, I will have the matter'Joplted into with that object in view.	: [DOT]


William Mulock: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to know if there is any objection to my seeing that report ?


William Mulock: No, I will show it to the hon. gentleman.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The inspector seems to have allowed Mr. Forbes to tell him what he should say. I do not think anybody in the village except Mr. Forbes could say that this is a trumped-up matter. The people who have made this complaint are business people in the community, and are of the same political stripe as Mr. Forbes.


William Mulock: I will make another suggestion to my hon. friend. I do not think Mr. Henderson would be deceived by Mr. Forbes or by any one else. He has been in the service twenty-five years. At the same time, if my hon. friem is not willing to accept his report, I am willing to send another officer in Ontario, or any other officer my hon. friend names, to make a further inquiry.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is not for me to name an officer. What I complain of is the manner in which the inspector does his work. He says that he is satisfied that these people are complaining without good cause. Whether that gentleman or any other goes there, what he ought to do is to hold an investigation face to face with Mr. Forbes, and hear these people and find out what is happening. It is quite clear that the inspector has been misled by somebody. I do not say anything against him other than that. The best judge in the world will make mistakes if he has not the actual facts before him. This inspector must have made a mistake in saying that there is no opportunity of providing better accommodation for the public. This postmaster before his appointment kept a grocery store there, and he has rented practically the whole of that store to another grocer, partitioning off a small portion of it for use as a post office. The post office and fhe grocery store together contain exactly the same number of square feet that the grocery store had before. So he is himself to blame if the walls are not in the right place to give accommodation to the public. The store was formerly 25 or 30 feet wide, and Mr. Forbes took so little of that for the post office that he could rent the store for practically as good a business as he had before. He deliberately made that lobby not more than 4 feet 8 inches wide-I said about 4 feet 6 inches before. He has plenty of accommodation in the interior, but that does not do the public any good. It is for the cbnvenience of Mr. Forbes and those who assist him in the post office work behind the partition and away from the public. If the lobby which the hon. gentleman refers to is 40 feet long, some partition has been taken down since Mr. Doran wrote that letter, because it was not more than 15 or 20 feet

long when I was there about last Christmas. A lobby 4J feet wide is altogether too liar row. The people are entitled to more accommodation.
_ Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. The only object of the department is to see that proper accommodation is given. If my hon. friend thinks that the inspector has not made an accurate report, if he thinks that the lobby is only twenty feet long when the inspector says it is forty-four feet long. I am quite willing to have the matter looked into again.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I can only assume that, knowing that the inspector was coming. Mr. Forbes took- down that partition, and added the space which was formerly used by him as a private office, to the post office, and the inspector saw it in that improved condition.


William Mulock: If a change was made, then the office is so much the better.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In that respect, yes.


William Mulock: If the accommodation is not satisfactory, I am prepared to send the inspector there again and have him make another report. The inspector hud no object but to discharge his duty, and I cannot understand how he made a mistake. Nevertheless, if my hon. friend would like him to go there again, I will send him and instruct him to make an examination of the premises in the presence of Mr. Doran, or, if he prefers it, I will send another officer.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have not seen the report and would like to look at it for a minute. I am not saying that the gentleman who went there was not a proper man to send. I would not say that of any officer, without knowledge of him, but he probably only had one side of the story. Here is what Mr. Doran writes me last month :
The inspector visited Mr. Forbes and advised that a new office be built. This Mr. Forbes agreed to do in the spring, but up to this date there is no sign of its being done. In a conversation with Mr. Forbes some time ago, he said to me that he would be glaS if the matter was not pushed as he intended to do as the inspector had advised. However, as there is no apparent sign of this being done, it would be well to have the matter discussed when the estimates are up.


William Mulock: I will send the report to my hon. friend and he will then tell me if he concurs in my suggestion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Has the hon. gentleman any objection to my sending Mr. Doran what the inspector says in his report ?


William Mulock: There is some purely personal matter in it which need not be sent, but I will let the hon. gentleman send whatever portion of the report lie thinks proper.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I will only send what has to do with this matter.


Mr. MONK.: I would like to call attention to the state of the Montreal post office. There is great need there of a complete reorganization, because the postal service in the city of Montreal and the surrounding suburbs is not satisfactory. The delivery is not what it should be, but I think that probably a great deal of the shortcoming depends upon the existence of a grievance to which I am about to refer. If that grievance were removed and the post office itself placed on a proper footing, the complaints regarding delivery might be removed. What I refer to principally is the insufficiency of the staff of letter carriers and other officials in the Montreal post office, and the unjust treatment to which they are subjected. I have received since the beginning of the session and previously, a very large number of communications-some signed and some unsigned-and the matter has been fully discussed in the public press of Montreal within tlie past few days. The statements contained in these communications harmonize with one another pretty exactly. I find that the substance of the grievances complained of is absolutely true, and in order to best lay the grievances before the Postmaster General, I wiii quote from a communication published some time ago in the press of Montreal. It is in French, but I will translate it for the benefit of my hon. friend :
We wish to be brief. We do not blame anybody. We do not accuse anybody. The administration of which we form part is a very extensive one and very much divided, and each head of the department is responsible only for the special function which has been assigned to him. Strict equity, therefore, forbids us from attributing any of the grievances to which we are about to refer to any particular head of department. 'We want to give a resume of the gravity of the evil which affects the administration of the post office in Montreal.' At the same time we think we are able to indicate a proper remedy, but all we desire is to make an expose of our situation which may influence the minister. We are two classes of officials, each of which has a distinct work to perform, namely, the distributors and the letter-carriers. The distributors prepare the work of the carriers. Their occupation consists in separating the mails and giving to each letter-carrier what belongs to his division.
This work, easy in appearance, in reality requires a great deal of attention, a great deal of energy and the exercise of a very active memory. During several hours each day and several times a day. And, in spite of the strict observance of that double condition the poor employee remains still subject to a number of serious errors occasioned by the extreme rapidity which this work requires at the present moment and under the present organization. He may, therefore, find himself subject to many reports and, in consequence, condemned to many fines. This work, requiring intense application is wearing on the nerves, fatiguing to the temperament,

ruinous to the organization, and, after twenty years have been spent in this service, it becomes necessary for the employee to take his retiring allowance. The government itself has realized the difficulty of this work and has prescribed a reasonable measure of the exercise of this difficult function. But, as will be seen, this measure determined upon by the government i3, in practice, violated every day. These are the j hours of work according to the official bulletin :
From 7 a.m until 11 a.m., 4 hours ; from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., 4 hours ; total, 8 hours.
Extra work ordered by the Montreal office :
From 11 a.m. to 12 noon, 1 hour ; from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., 1 hour (very frequently) ; from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., 2 hours (about three times a week) ; total of extra work ordered by the office average 3 hours a day.
And not one cent of extra remuneration,
I mention this because in the United United States, throughout the civil service as I am informed, every official working extra time receives extra pay. The statement I have just made shows the extra work during the week. I asked the Postmaster General some time ago whether, when extra hours of work exacted from the employees there was any extra pay. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) at that time acting for the Postmaster General said there were no extra hours, and therefore, there was no extra pay. Now, let us take the Sunday :
On Sunday work ordered by the official bulletin, 4 hours once a month. A total in one month of four hours. Work ordered by the office for Sunday, 8 hours every Sunday. Say 4 Sundays a month, 3 with 8 hours extra and one with 4 hours extra. This makes 28 hours per month extra, or four days of ordinary work per month. And not one cent of extra remuneration.
Some time ago an answer was given in this House to a question put as to whether any Sunday work was exacted, and the answer was that there was nothing but strictly indispensable work called for on Sunday. Now, the memorandum says :
Let us now examine the work demanded of the greater number of letter-carriers, because, ordinarily, there are only five or six distributors employed. The work of letter carrying is hard work. Under ordinary circumstances, the letter carrier easily covers each day eighteen miles ; and it seems to us that this work every day during twenty or thirty years in all kinds of weather, the streets being in every imaginable condition, constitutes in itself remarkable work. Let us add to this the ascending and descending staircases, an exercise that is becoming quite extensive since the existence of flats and office buildings with many stories. Those who attend to these high buildings are obliged to walk up the stairs at least once or twice. If they can use the elevator, beginning their delivery in the top flat, they have not the advantage of waiting for the elevator from flat to flat, and they come down the staircase instead of using the elevator. If you added to this condition of things the fact that the letter-carrier carried from 40 to 100 pounds, the work becomes one of considerable difficulty. The government having in view these conditions, has fixed the day at eight hours. It will be seen by the table given below that the Mr. MONK.
office has extended very considerably the official measure of work.


HOURS FROM THE OFFICIAL BULLETIN.
[Stage Direction]
Hour.
From 7 to 8 a.m., classing by streets and
numbers the first jnail	 1
From S to 9 a.m., first mail	 1
From 9 to 10 a.m., classing of the second
mail	 v .. i
From 9.30 to 10.30 a.m., 2nd mail	 1
From 10.30 to 11 a.m., classing of the 3rd
mail	 1
From 11 aim. to 12 noon, 3rd mail	 1
From 1.30 to 2 p.m., classing of the 4th
mail	 1
From 2 to 3 p.m., 4th mail	 1
From 3 to 3.30 p.m., classing of the 5th
mail	  i
From 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., 5th mail ....	1
Total of days' work	 8

[Stage Direction]
From 11 to 11.30 a.m., 3rd mail	 i
From 3.30 to 5 p.m., 5th mail	 li
Or, in all, 1| to 2 hours' extra work.
The same observations are applicable to all the sub-offices in the Montreal district -which do the extra work although they have not as many deliveries to perform. For all this extra work ordered by the office, and not contained in the official bulletin or calendar, not one cent of remuneration is paid.
Once more we state that our role is not to criticise the administration of which we form a part, but to expose the critical conditions in which we find ourselves and to give our opinion of the improvements absolutely essential. We wish to add a last remark in regard to the last delivery. This last delivery, which ought to take place at 3.30 p.m., is never ready before 5 o'clock. The mail from New York in the afternoon, which is awaited before that delivery i3 made, is the cause of unnecessary delay. This mail arrives at the station at 3.20 p.m. and
reaches the office at 3.45. We do not understand why it is kept from the public until 5 o'clock, and why we are kept until that hour in order to make delivery thereof.
It is an important mail, contains the financial news and newspapers treating of important transactions. In that case why is the delivery retarded in the city of Montreal until financial men have left their offices ? The greater part of the time we are obliged to bring back this last important mail to the offices, because business men's offices are closed at that hour. Four distributors should be assigned for the newspapers and one distributor for the letters. On the contrary, four distributors should be appointed for the letters. These would be procured, that is to say, the most important part of the mail, at the very latest at 4.15 o'clock, and we could deliver them all before five o'clock without the newspapers, which might be distributed on the following morning. We understand that it is necessary no doubt to expedite the newspapers as well as the letters, but if that be the case why have we not in Montreal a larger number upon the staff of distributors T As a general rule a greater number of letter carriers would be necessary as well as a greater number of distributors of mails, which are a little late In reaching correspon-pondents because the staff is insufficient, and

in spite of the ten hours' work which we give, sometimes of the twelve hours of daily occupation, every day there is an accumulation of newspapers in the post office, the delivery of which is indefinitely postponed. Thus', * The Weekly Courier ' reaches its destination two days late, the ' Journal of the Independent Foresters ' three days late, and the ' Journal of the Catholic Forresters ' the * Journal of the Hibernians ' and of that of the ' Workmen ' are submitted to a similar delay. Nobody ought to be obliged to work in the post office longer than the hours set forth in the official bulletin. He should be obliged to conform himself to the official bulletin of the post office, but if it is necessary to furnish extra work upon the demand of the Montreal office, it seems to us but strict lustiee that those who work overtime should receive some additional remuneration proportionate to the time and the importance of the service they render to the post office. The interest of their families exacts it ; as soon as they go beyond what the official bulletin exacts from them after due consideration by the higher authorities, they expose themselves to extra fatigue and to being incapacitated from work. It is no doubt difficult to foresee exactly in what degree their capacity for work will be abridged by these extra services. This total abridgement is necessarily proportionate to the physical strength of each one of those employees and to the quantity of extra work which they perform. Nevertheless many of these employees instead of .taking their retiring allowance after thirty years of service, will be forced to shorten their terms of service to twenty-five or twenty years, if they continue in this manner giving extra work which is not exacted by the official bulletin, and which is thrust upon them from day to day by the local authorities. Their families will thus be deprived of the regular work which they might have performed during a much longer time, and yet this five or ten years extra work which they have performed without extra remuneration will be a profit to the government and will allow the government to economize by the salary of an additional employee during the full period of time.
To show the extent of this grievance, suppose that two hours of additional occupation are given every day for additional work. In five years what is the extent of the remuneration to which the extra worker is entitled at $2 a day ? He -would be entitled at the end of five years to some $3,650, which the government has economized and which has been taken out of the regular officers against the rules of the department. What we ask is the usual fruits of labour ? What we ask is the opportunity to protect our physical health, which is the only asset which most of us possess ? It seems to us that this demand is just and fair and that the government ought to accede to it.
Sir WILLIAM MTJLOCK.: Is there any signature to that letter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is signed * a number of the King's servants.'


William Mulock: In what papers was it published.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It was published in ' La Pres-se ' and other French papers published at the time in Montreal. The statement of facts contained in that memorandum is corroborated on all sides. A very large amount of extra work is exacted from these employees and they are subjected to that extra work contrary^ to the regulation of the department and that appears to be the main cause why the service in Montreal is inefficient. The post office is a great deal too small and the delivery of letters is consequently not satisfactory. I have myself tested it in many cases (luring this session and have found an extraordinary delay in the delivery of letters from Ottawa to Montreal. This I do not attribute to carelessness on the part of the distributors or letter carriers. The staff of both classes is insufficient. My hon. friend is Postmaster General and he entertains the very high ambition of showing a satisfactory statement of post office expenses at the end of the year but he must not forget that he is at the same time Minister of Labour. That quality which he has he seems to lose sight of entirely, when there is a question of remunerating the employees of his own department. As I have stated this state of affairs in the city of Montreal is injurious. The imposition of fines, the working of extra hours, the insufficiency of the staff at headquarters and in the sub-offices, the extra work put upon the letter carriers, are all improper. It seems to me that the city of Montreal contributes a sufficient amount to the revenue of my hon. friend to enable him to maintain there a sufficient staff of employees, for the requirements of that large business centre, and to remunerate these employees in a proper manner. They are as a class honourable and trustworthy. They work very hard, they are courteous, and they do their best to fulfil the duties assigned them, but the staff is insufficient, tile bureau requires to be re-organized and if they are called upon to work extra hours, they should receive extra pay. I am not quite sure, but from what I have heard I believe a similar state of affairs, prevails in the large city of Toronto at least to a certain extent, but as regards Montreal I know whereof I speak. These complaints are well founded and I think my hon. friend should remedy these grievances without any delay. This has been going on for two years.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman has read an anonymous letter from a newspaper containing statements and then proceeds to build an argument upon these statements. Let me say that I happen to know the writer of the letter in question. It was not written by a number of persons. The officer, I understand, who has written that letter is one of those unfortunate men in the service who are ever restless and discontented and constantly fomenting trouble.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend knows the name of the author of this communication will he give it to the committee ?


William Mulock: No. I know the name, however, and I am extremely sorry for him. He has such a disordered mind that he is eternally endeavouring to make people think they have grievances.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend deny the statement of fact as to extra work ?


William Mulock: I deny it, of course. The letter is of course full of inaccuracies, and I shall proceed to dispose of it. It happened that last winter there was a good deal of irregularity in the running of the trains owing to the severity of the weather. During that period some of the staff had to remain on duty longer than usual. But, as to the clerks and letter carriers in Montreal I would say that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that they were obliged to work overtime unless it be some who are paid extra for any extra duties they perform.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if when there is overtime there is extra pay.


William Mulock: If my hon. friend will listen to my whole statement I will answer his question. I am going to read for the hon. gentleman a statement and then he will be able to draw his own conclusions.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend deny me the right to ask him if there is extra pay when there is extra time ?


William Mulock: No, I will read the document and I will give the answer the hon. gentleman wants.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would rather have the answer of my hon. friend.


William Mulock: Well, my hon. friend will have it from me as well, but I would like to read this document first. Let me say that the late government organized the system as I found it on taking office, in the outlying districts of St. Henri, Westmount, Mile End and perhaps at some other points there was a system by which the letter-carriers at night had to collect the letters. That duty, I am told, involved an hour and a half of overtime. That system was inaugurated by the government of my hon. friend opposite. It was not brought to my attention until this year and as soon as it was I discontinued it. I will read a memorandum from one of my officers on this point which is as follows :
In the organization of the postal service in the outskirts of Montreal, namely at St. Henri, Westmount, Mile End and such points, the letter-carriers were called upon to make night and Sunday collections from street letter boxes. The time occupied in this work was from one and a half to two hours, the night Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
collection averaging about one and a half hours. The system was organized many years ago and has been in operation continuously since the commencement and was1 looked upon as the regular duty of the letter-carriers in those districts. The attention of the department having been called to the matter by the letter-carriers the chief post office superintendent recommended that each letter-carrier should be allowed a full day's pay on Sundays for the one and a half hour's work performed and that in addition that he be allowed one half day off duty in the week in which the collection was made to compensate for the overtime worked each night during the week in the night collection. This went into effect in the month of May and has continued until within a few days when a regular system of collection by courier was organized and the men relieved from extra duty.
Does my hon. friend appreciate the point made here ? This is the answer which I desired to give him. I thought he would prefer to get it in the language of that memorandum rather than in my own language. If any letter-carrier worked on Sunday he was allowed a day's pay for overtime. But now7 even that has been done away with and the carriers are entirely relieved of the collecting that they had done for many years in consequence of the old system established by the Conservative government. This work is now entirely separated from them and done by contractors. My deputy informs me that even then they only had to perform this duty once in every sixth week as there were six carriers and each man took his turn. In reference to the statement that there is overtime in the city post office and that the men are generally downtrodden I have to read first of all a communication under date of 28th March, 1904, from the chief superintendent of the city post offices, Mr. George Ross, to the Deputy Postmaster General. When this mattar was brought to my attention by that anonymous letter in the newspapers I took notice of it to the extent of inquiring as to the fact with the object of removing any grievance should it be found to exist. Mr. Ross accordingly was instructed to look into the matter and he writes as follows :
Immediately upon receipt of your inquiry, touching the question of overtime being worked by the clerks in the Montreal post office, I asked for a report from the postmaster by the office superintendent, Mr. Barcelo, and now I beg to inclose herewith a transcription of a report by the office superintendent.
Then he proceeds :
It will be observed from Mr. Barcelo's report that very little, if any, time has been worked by the clerks in the Montreal post office, and moreover, whatever extra time they have been called upon to perform was owing to the very irregular and erratic train service, in consequence of a tying up of the railroads through their being blocked with snow. It is also observed that the office superintendent purposes making provisions by which the men will be allowed ' off duty ' to repay them for the time worked during the winter season, which,

under the circumstances was unavoidable for the reason above stated.
You will also see that the office superin-intendent intended to ascertain the amount of overtime that any man had put in and to compensate them by allowing them off duty. He goes on to say :
I may say that the Montreal post office is sufficiently manned and if the train service is fully maintained there would be no. necessity for any extra work being performed by the clerks. The1 nature of post office work, however, is such that from time to time the men are called upon to meet emergencies at Montreal, and the same conditions apply throughout the world.
Sincerely yours,
(Sgd.) GEORGE ROSS, Chief Superintedent.
My hon. friend asserts that the office is undermanned, but Mr. George Ross declares that the Montreal post office is sufficiently manned.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He says they work overtime too.
Sir 'WILLIAM MULOCK. I beg my hon. friend's pardon. He says that the same emergencies have to be met at Montreal as are met throughout the whole world. The carrier system does not run with regularity, trains do not always arrive on time and if a train comes in late it is one of the incidents of the service that the men must remain and perform the service, but even that has its compensations. This is a letter from the superintendent, Mr. Barcelo, to the postmaster at Montreal, dated the 26th of March, 1904 :
Referring to Mr. Geo. Ross's letter re overtime worked by the clerks in this office, I have to state : In the delivery branch overtime was worked by some of the clerks in that branch averaging half an hour daily over eight hours.
That is, referring to the time when the trains were running irregularly because of the severity of the winter.
In the letter despatch branch, ten or fifteen minutes have been required over the eight hours average. In the newspaper despatch branch, the overtime work did not exceed the average of eight hours ; half an hour or one hour having been required from the clerks in that branch occasionally. The exceedingly late arrival of the mail since January was the cause of the overtime in question. Now that the trains are commencing to run on schedule time, it is the intention to repay the men who worked extra.
I may say, speaking of overtime, that this is a term of very recent application in the postal service. When I took office thire was no such thing as eight hours fixed. I did not inaugurate the eight hour limit at once, but, by degrees, it came to be adopted and the government has adopted the eight hours as the extent of daily service in the post office, and by the letter-carriers as 1811
well. Therefore, when we speak about overtime of half an hour or fifteen minutes, it is not an excessive service, even if it were eight hours and a half, or eight hours and fifteen minutes. But when you remember that the men who work that little overtime, are compensated for it, I think it can be said that the time of service is a most reasonable one. The sanction of the eight hours by regulation is of very recent date, and was not in existence when we took office. Running through the Montreal Post Office, I may say the following schedule regulates the time of service, in the different branches.
In the registration branch the average time is seven and a half hours ; no clerk is called upon to put in any extra time over the average eight hours. In the money order branch no extra time over the average eight hours. In the international exchange branch, eight hours. In the delivery branch, seven hours and fifteen minutes. In the letter despatch branch, seven hours and a half ; newspaper despatch branch,, seven hours forty-five minutes ;	night despatch branch (eleven
o'clock to seven o'clock, with half an hour for lunehl, that is seven and a half hours. All overtime compensated for by allowance of extra leave during the less busy time of the week.
I do not think that the people of Canada will be willing to allow any easier time of service than this. It is reasonable to a degree, and I doubt if the employers of Canada as a rule are as moderate in their requirements from their staff as this department is.
With reference to the alleged insufficiency of the letter-carriers, I have to say that throughout the United States the rule is one letter-carrier for 2,500 people ; while in the city of Montreal, there is one letter-carrier for each unit of 1,660 people. As to the statement in that letter, that letter-carriers were required to walk six leagues a day, I think I may say that such is- not the fact. 1 am surprised that my hon. friend would pin his reputation to an anonymous communication of that kind. It may be all right for him to read it and call attention to it, but without venturing to advise him, I would not recommend him to pledge himself to the accuracy of the statement. As to the statement that the New York mail, arriving at 3.30 in the afternoon was delayed until five o'clock, thus delaying the mail delivery to the people, and at the same time inconveniencing the letter-carriers ; it is a very extraordinary thing that if such an important mail as that, bringing to the people of Montreal financial news that they most anxiously desired, were delayed to that extent, that the department has never had a complaint from any person who is interested in the delivery of that mail matter. I am assured by my officers that never once has there been a complaint

recorded by any person in Montreal that the mail due by that New York 3.30 train was delayed. If no person has complained, I think it is very strong evidence that the alleged delay does not take place. I am so satisfied with the efficiency of the work in Montreal in this respect, that. I can say, without of course absolutely knowing the facts, that that portion of the letter is wholly without foundation.
My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) proceeds to say. that the Post Office building in Montreal, is inadequate. He has now got on to a larger question, and is on ground where I can perhaps meet him. The post office building in Montreal does appear to have been vjery! inconveniently constructed, and not to be in keeping with the proper requirements of the service. The department has been looking into that matter, and I hope we will be able before this session goes by, to bring the attention of parliament to the subject in connection with the estimates that will be laid before the House. I suppose that when it was built, the Montreal post office met the requirements of that day. The city, however, has grown and additional accommodation is required. Different views have presented themselves ; some people have advocated the enlargement of the existing building, the acquisition of more land and the erection of an addition. Others have recommended the purchase of a new site and the erection of a new building altogether. Having looked into this matter, my officers have recommended an entirely' different proceeding. This is not an age in post office management when concentration of work is considered the correct system. Instead, the modern policy is one rather of division of work, and it is considered better for the service. It is in contemplation to acquire a site somewhere in the vicinity of the great stations' and to make use of the building on that site as an adjunct, and to distribute from it a certain portion of the mails which now congest the city post office. Further, a considerable portion of the mail matter that now passes through the Montreal post office, will, when this new system is inaugurated, be delivered at this new postal station, and go off by train, without ever having passed through the Montreal post office. It is also hoped to be able to connect that postal station, with the city post office by the pneumatic tube system, as is contemplated in the city of Toronto. I recently received a communication of a semi-confidential nature from the representative of a very large commercial body in Montreal, calling my attention to the state of the Montreal post office, and suggesting elaborate improvements. But when I explained the scheme we had in view, it commended itself to the representative as infinitely better than the Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
old policy of simply having a grand structure, a pile of buildings, but not a practical work-shop such as the postal service of modern times seems to demand. I hope we shall be able to get over the congested state of affairs in the city post office before a great length of time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a little surprising to hear my hon. friend, who is Minister of Labour, say that the extention or enlargement of the present post office is really a large and important matter, whereas the treatment of the staff employed there appears to him to be a very secondary matter. That is a strange assertion for the Minister of Labour to nlake. I should have thought that what would have been prominent in his mind would have been the treatment of what one might call the human slaves employed there by my hon., friend. But what is still more singular is this. The hon. gentleman takes the ground that I Lave given as my authority an anonymous letter. I did not give that communication as my authortiy at all. I said expressly that I was using it because it put in complete and concentrated form the grievances to which I referred. As a matter of fact, it is not an anonymous letter. It is a communication that was sent to the public press of Montreal generally by parties who knew whereof they were speaking, and I defy my hon. friend to attribute the authorship of that letter to any particular man. What I did state, and what my hon. friend has not denied, was that extra labour was exacted from these men. I said I knew it of my own knowledge, and I had a score of letters supporting that statement. My hon. friend has not denied it categorically, but he gave quotations from some officers of the department which practically admitted it. If these men are obliged to do extra work, how can my hon. friend maintain that the normal staff at the post office in Montreal is sufficient ? My hon. friend has carefully refrained from denying my statement that they do not get any extra pay. I stated that in the United States for years the custom has been that post office employees are paid extra for extra time. My hon. friend will find that the postal official guide of the United States, published in 1896, at page 393, states that any postmaster who will exact extra work for more than eight hours from any employee after the first of May, 1893, will be liable to be dismissed from his functions.


William Mulock: That is not a correct quotation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a correct quotation. Does my hon. friend deny that in the United States post office employees who work extra are paid extra ?


William Mulock: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Distributors also. I am informed ; and it seems natural. Why should a man be expected to give seven or eight hours a week more than his regular hours without receiving any extra pay ? Let my hon. friend go to Montreal and he will ascertain for himself the truthfulness of this memorandum which I have read.


William Mulock: It is entirely in error.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is mistaken I live there, and I know what is going on, and I defy ,my hon. friend to meet me there and institute an inquiry. If he does he will find that both sorters and distributors, as well as letter carriers, have to work extra time.


William Mulock: We have a record of the time of every person in the service, and that record speaks for itself. My bon. friend is entirely in error.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is in that record itself that my hon. friend will find out the truth of what I say. I understand that there is a book in the post otiice where the employee records the hour that he arrives and the hour that he leaves, and that book will show that the employees are constantly called upon to furnish extra time. They do not object to doing that, but they object to not receiving proportionate pay for it. That is a fair demand. Why should not my hon friend find out whether the statement I make is true or not ?


William Mulock: I have found out that it is untrue. The chief superintendent, Mr. Ross, was instructed to inquire into the matter, and he has made his report. It is no hardship to a clerk to work overtime occasionally when an emergency requires it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think my hon. friend has undergone the test, or he would not speak in that light way of a workman who sometimes works twelve hours in a day.


William Mulock: If a man works overtime one day, he has to work less time another day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend say that if a man is obliged tp work extra time one day, that time is made up to him another day ?


William Mulock: Yes ; my deputy informs me that it is allowed to him in the succeeding week.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the deputy is misinformed. My information is that when they work extra time, they do not get extra pay.


William Mulock: My hon. friend is wrong there, too. I adopted a system of classification, or a grade system, by which men are paid by the day, and in these cases,
where the scheme is possible, they are even paid extra time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Could toy hon. friend tell us how much has been allowed during the past year under the head mentioned ?


William Mulock: It must be very trifling, because there has not been much extra time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is either in bad faith or badly informed.


William Mulock: I am correctly informed and in good faith.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The facts are as I have stated. It would be very easy for my hon. friend to hold an inquiry. If he does, I will undertake to convince him that these men are obliged to give extra time for which they get no extra pay.


William Mulock: I will make a proposition to my hon. friend if he wants to get at the facts. When that anonymous letter was published, I took notice of it by ascertaining whether the statements made in it were true or untrue. Mr. Ross, the chief superintendent, was instructed to inquire and report, and my statements are based on his report and on the report of Mr. Bareelo in the department. My hon. friend challenges 'the statements in Mr. Ross's report. My hon. friend challenges the accuracy of Mr. Ross's report. Well, I will have Mr. Ross go to Montreal and meet the hon. gentleman in the post office, and the hon. gentleman will then have an opportunity to produce what evidence he has, and we will see what Mr. Ross will report.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will my hon. friend come to Montreal and meet me face to face and give me the opportunity of proving the truth of my allegations ? If he will do that, I am prepared to accept the result. There is no question of anonymous letters. I have a lot of correspondence signed by men whom I know but whose names I cannot give and I am able to substantiate the grievances I have stated.


William Mulock: No, you are not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The result is that we have a bad postal service in Montreal. The mails are not delivered in time and the root of all tlie evil is in the policy of my hon. friend to try and obtain a surplus at the expense of the working men.


William Mulock: My hon. friend says we have a bad service and that the letters are not delivered in time. In saying tiiis, he attacks the letter-carriers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not.


William Mulock: That is what it amounts to, because we have a staff of letter-carriers sufficient for the requirements of the service and there are no com-

plaints from the general public. When he says that the mails are not delivered on time, that is a matter between him and the carriers, and they would probably bring him to account.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would undertake to prove to my hon. friend, when he comes to Montreal, in a manner beyond doubt, that the delivery is not satisfactory and that it is due to his policy.


Mr.   I@: It is desirable to have a surplus in the Post Office Department as well as any other department, but not by means of overpaying or overworking the officials. I do not pretend to know anything of the facts in controversy betw'een the hon. gentleman and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), but I could not very well gather from the Postmaster General whether he considers that these men should not be paid for over work or that no overwork is imposed on them. He was not very clear on that point. In the railway service I understand that a system is adopted under which a certain number of miles is regarded as a day's work of an engineer or conductor or other trainman, and any additional number of miles is paid for extra. If the problem which has been brought to our attention by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier could not be solved in any other way, perhaps it could be dealt with on some such system as that. If I am not interfering in the discussion which my hon. friend has raised, I would like to draw attention to the presentment of the grand jury of the county of Halifax, made in the term of last March. It is reported in the press as follows :


THE O'CONNELL CASE.
[Stage Direction]
In the case of O'Connell, charged with stealing from the Postmaster General, the grand jury yesterday made the following presentment :-
As a result of investigations in the case of the King vs. O'Connell, charged with stealing registered packages from the bag of a letter-carrier, and from personal observations, the grand jury beg to call attention to the urgent need of largely increased facilities for the more prompt delivery of, and greater protection to. letters and other mail matter for the people of Halifax.
From the facts within the knowledge of the grand jury, it appears that though the amount of mail matter received at the Halifax post office has increased fivefold within a period of twenty-five or thirty years, the staff of letter-carriers, though increased from five to twenty-three, is not enough for the needs of the service now demanded ; while it is a very suggestive fact that the inside staff has actually decreased in number during that period.
The inevitable result follows, viz., that the men are not only overworked and the people do not obtain that prompt delivery of the mails enjoyed by much smaller cities all over the Dominion, hut, because of insufficient staff, ordinary letters as well as registered Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
matter are not accorded that protection from robbery that the public expect and demand.
The grand jury beg to recommend that, in order to insure the ample protection to all mail matter, and for more prompt delivery to the people of Halifax, the Post Office Department be urged to provide additional help both for the inside and outside service ; and that the postmaster should take the necessary steps to see that no carrier be permitted to leave the office with a heavier load and larger bundles than he can handle with despatch and safety from loss, as is now frequently the case.
If this statement is in accord with the facts, it discloses a somewhat serious condition of affairs. Men are described as overworked and the public is not receiving that accommodation from the public service to which it is entitled. No doubt this presentment has been brought to the attention of the Postmaster General. Has he made any investigation into its allegations and with what result ? The body which has made these presentments is an important one, selected from the most influential citizens of the city and county of Halifax, and I am sure they would not make statements without having the proofs of what they allege.
William Mulock: This is the first I have heard of the presentment in question, but my deputy informs me that the chief city superintendent of post offices, Mr. Ross, visited Halifax a short time ago on his usual round, and reported the staff as up to par. There is no insufficiency in it. As to the general presentation itself, it has been referred to Mr. Ross for investigation, and he will investigate as soon as possible. It is very easy for people in the best of faith to be carried away with the idea that the remedy for any evil or misfortune is an increase in the staff. It is a chronic idea throughout the whole public service that if anything is wrong, the best way to right it is to engage additional hands. I do not want to reflect on the service, but whoever has charge of the transaction of business in any walk of life knows that an increase in the staff is always very popular among the employees. There is no intention of skimping the service anywhere, but I believe you could not do any greater injury to the service itself than to have it overmanned. The statement that the employees are overworked is without foundation. Of course there are emergency occasions in every post office when the clerks must work overtime, but that is inseparable from the duties of the office and is part of their engagement. But as to that being the normal condition, such a statement is altogether unfounded, and those who made it have been misled.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I shall not enter into any controversy on that point. The report of Mr. Ross seems singularly inconsistent with the statement of these gentlemen who

had this matter investigated before them under oath. I have discharged my duty by bringing the matter to the attention of the Postmaster General. I should be inclined to think that men such as those of whom, to my own knowledge, the grand jury of Halifax, is composed, would not make a statement of that kind without very good foundation for it; and until I was more sure of the thoroughness of Mr. Ross's investigation, 1 would not be prepared to accept his statement rather than that which has been made by the grand jury.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General another matter as to which I have had some communication through the public press and otherwise-the salaries of the second-class clerks in the outside service in the post office at Halifax. I understand that some representation has been made to the Postmaster General on that point, and that those interested have put forward cogent reasons why their salaries should be taken into consideration, especially, I believe, some who have been in the service a long time and who have not received the consideration which has been extended to others of more recent appointment. I would like to ask the Postmaster General whether their representations have been taken into consideration, and whether it is likely that any change for the better will be made in their case, especially those of long service in the department ?


William Mulock: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) wishes to ask whether it is the intention of the government to deal with the second-class clerks of the outside service as a class, I would say that it is not in contemplation at the present time, to pass legislation altering their status. As to promotions or increases, these are matters relating to individuals. It is our effort to promote deserving men, and we are constantly ascertaining those deserving of such recognition, for nothing gives me greater pleasure, in connection with my work, than to recognize the merit of those who are deserving. It may be possible- but I doubt it very much-that there are one or more persons in the Halifax post office who are not being properly remunerated for their services. Length of service, in a sense, is a reason for promotion, but it is only one ground for such recognition. It is a consideration, and an important one; nevertheless the requirements of the service, the duties performed and the remuneration actually received, are all elements to be considered in each individual case. Mr. Ross makes it his business to consult with the city postmasters from time to time to see whether merit is being duly rewarded and whether there are any deserving men being underpaid. If, by any chance, there is an oversight, it is purely accidental, because, as I stated before it is a source of special pleasure to me, at all times, to recognize merit.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that what I am referring to relates both to a class and to individuals as well. I understand that the second-class clerks in the Halifax post office represent that the cost of living is greatly increased, that their opportunities of promotion to first-class rank are very small, and they are desirous, as I understand it that they be permitted to obtain a maximum salary of $1,500. I also alluded to others who might be entitled, without change in the law, to higher salaries than those which they enjoy at present and who consider themselves as much entitled to certain increases of salary as men of more recent appointment who have been accorded that increase. It is on behalf of the class, and on behalf of the individuals to whom I refer that I am making this representation. I hope the Postmaster General will not regard the matter as finally closed but will take the case of these men into consideration. It is possible, as he says, that some of these men may have been accidently overlooked. Of course, it is not the slightest consolation to them that they have been overlooked by accident


William Mulock: I did not refer to the matter in that sense.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that. But, if these gentlemen had been overlooked by accident, it is just as unfortunate for them as if they had been overlooked by design. Therefore, there may be some reason for further consideration of the matter, and I hope that consideration will be given.


William Mulock: I suppose the hon. gentleman is aware that the salary of a second-class clerk in the city post office of Halifax goes to $1,200, the minimum being $900. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) will know better than I what is the average salary paid to persons in Halifax performing services not calling for greater ability or more arduous labour than is required of a second-class clerk. Some little proportion must be maintained between the two things. At the same time, my view is that, in this age, the government should be, more or less, a model employer, and, where there is any doubt should lean in the direction of higher salaries. I endeavour to carry out that policy and to see to it that the staff are paid not less, but at least a shade more than is paid for similar services in private walks of life. I may say that it is the practice of the department now to overhaul the whole staff of the outside service yearly with a view to considering cases of promotion. The case of each individual is investigated. That examination has been going on throughout the whole of Canada for some little time.


Robert Laird Borden: Of one thing you may be pretty sure and that is that within the last eight or ten years the cost of liv-i ing has increased very considerably, as, also

has the general scale of salaries paid in the city of Halifax, I think that corporations and other employers of labour have been obliged to put their scale of salaries considerably higher than that which prevailed eight or ten years ago ; and it is largely on. this ground that these men make their application. Further, I think, the applicants represent that the clerks of the second class of the inside service have a maximum salary of $1,500. I do not know whether that is correct or not.


William Mulock: That is correct.


Robert Laird Borden: They represent that those in the outside service should be placed on the same basis, because their expenses are equally great, and they suffer from the increased cost of living and they see no reason why, with the long service they have rendered, they should not he entitled to a maximum salary equal to that enjoyed by those in the inside service.


Mr. WM. ROCHE (Halifax).: I wish to remind the Postmaster General that some time ago I made a recommendation to the effect that there are several officers in Halifax post office, who through their length of service and efficiency might well be advanced from junior clerkships to a higher grade. I would beg to again call his attention to that. There has been no surplus of clerks there and recently the work of the Post Office Department has been increased by the very large amount of literature which has been sent there for distribution to the various portions of the county of Halifax.


William Mulock: Some few
weeks ago when my hon. friend (Mr. Wm. Roche) brought this matter to my notice it was referred to Mr. Ross, the inspector, for investigation, and there are now in the department reports from Mr. Ross upon the subject which my deputy is now going through.


Mr. CLARE.: I wish to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the necessity of repairs in the Galt post office. There is but one entrance to the building and when the mails are being distributed there is great crowding and in cold weather the doors are kept open by the crowd, so that it is very uncomfortable. If there was another door people could pass out that way, and avoid crushing. There should also be a private office for the postmaster himself and there is an insufficient number of post office boxes. These matters should be attended to at once, and improvements similar to those in the Berlin post office should be made there.


William Mulock: Communications were received some time ago upon this subject, the Galt post office was visited by the inspector and he made a recommendation which has been approved of by the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
Post Office Department and has been forwarded to the Public Works Department, so that I have very good reason to believe that the improvements suggested will be carried out.


George Adam Clare: Then I suppose there will be in the supplementary estimates an amount for the necessary changes, so that the work will be done before the cold weather comes on.


William Mulock: I wish the Minister of Public Works was here so that he would feel the benefit of my hon. friend's appeal, but I shall call his attention to it again although as I say the Post Office Department has already communicated to the Public Works Department the necessity for the alterations referred to.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to again mention to the Postmaster General what I mentioned to him last year, that is that very serious complaints come to me every now and again with regard to the mail service at Vankleek Hill. I suppose that these complaints also come to the Postmaster General and that he has taken them into consideration. Is there to be any amelioration of the situation described in very glowing terms in some of these communications which I have received ?


William Mulock: I do not like to speak from memory lest my memory be incorrect, but if my hon. friend will let me have the memorandum I shall inquire into this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I would also like to call attention to the raising of the rates of book postage from 4 to 8 cents per pound. Would the Postmaster General be good enough to inform me as to whether that is a recent change or not ?


William Mulock: The rates of book postage in Canada have been brought into harmony with those in the United States and other countries within the postage union, that is, one cent for two ounces.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the rate before ?


William Mulock: One cent for four ounces.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The rate has been doubled by the hon. gentleman ?


William Mulock: The present rate is one cent for two ounces, which is the postal union rate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the rate before was one cent for four ounces ?


William Mulock: That is what it was.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much additional revenue does my hon. friend hope to get by that increase ?


William Mulock: Practically nothing, very little I presume.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Can the minister not inform me within 85,000 or $10,000 what increase he expects in the revenue of the department ?


William Pate Mulock: I have no way of forming an accurate estimate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the idea in increasing the rate if the hon. gentleman has no idea of an increased revenue ?


William Mulock: We were the only country which had the low rate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much additional revenue does the minister hope to get ?


William Mulock: While it is quite impossible to give figures it is quite possible to show that the experience of other countries is of some assistance to us. We were the only country in the wide world carrying books at such a rate as one cent' for four ounces and we have only fallen into line with the rest of the world by making the rate one cent for two ounces.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has been claiming that we were leading the way in other respects but we are not leading the way in this very important respect. Why is it that we are receding ? Why is it that we are retrograding in this regard by adopting a system which must result in discouraging the circulation of good literature. Good books ought to be distributed amongst the people of the country, and why should you tax the people double the amount which they were formerly taxed for the transmission of books ? Is not that a somewhat serious consideration ? We have a very large country and a sparse population and it is desirable that the people should receive books as cheaply as possible. As we have been leading the way for so many years in the matter of book postage, why is it that we are retrograding, going back, and keeping the rate simply as the hon. Postmaster General says at what has prevailed in other countries ? I hardly regard the action of the Post Office* Department in this respect as being up to the high standard which the Postmaster General lias claimed for it in other regards.


William Mulock: The fact is that we have had to carry so much Tory dead-head literature through the mails that we must compensate ourselves in some way.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman admitted that he sent out a great deal more from his side of the House than from the opposition side and so he had better give himself credit for that.


William Mulock: I did not admit it.


Hon. WM. ROSS.: I do not think we should follow the example of the United States in this regard or in a great many
other ways. I think that we should progress rather than go back. I had interviews with a number of gentlemen of different professions in Halifax before I left and they informed me that when they got books that were expensive and which belonged to the different professions with which they are connected they consider the postage a great burden. I think the Postmaster General has taken a step in this respect in the wrong direction.
At six o'clock, committee took recess. After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Frederick Clarke: At six o'clock the hon. member for Victoria, Nova Scotia (Mr. Ross) was expressing his regret that the hon. gentleman the Postmaster General had seen fit to double the postage rate on books sent through the mails, and we were trying to ascertain from the hon. gentleman what it was that prompted him to make the change. The only explanation was that he wanted to make the rate uniform with that which obtained in other countries in the Postal Union. We endeavoured to ascertain from the hon. gentleman how much lie hoped to increase the revenue of the Post Office Department h/ that change but we have not yet been able to get that information. I have heard of no general demand for an increased rate on books on the part of the public. There was no petition sent in asking that the rate be increased. It must have been increased for the purpose of implementing the revenue of the department. I would ask the hon. minister how much he hopes to increase the revenue b.\ doubling the rate.


William Mulock: I understand that the revenue from the book rate is comparatively trifling and t lie re fore no very serious addition to the revenue would be made. Something would be made but I understand that the old rate did not anything like pay the cost of the service.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there no estimate of the revenue from newspapers, letters, parcels and books ? There must be some estimate in the department of the probable revenue from these sources. Surely we might expect the hon. Postmaster General to be able to give us some information as to how much he hopes to increase the revenue by the increased rate on books which he has imposed.


William Mulock: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman stated that there was no estimate of the increased revenue derived from these various classes of mail matter, but if he did so he was in error. There are estimates as to the revenue from newspaper postage, but there are no data

5720 '

as to the revenue derived from other branches of the service. On reflection the hon. gentleman will see that it would be impossible to have definite data upon that subject. Take a post office like that of Toronto for instance", all classes of mail matter, letters, circulars, parcels and newspapers are rushed in at the last moment probably for the outgoing mail. The work of stamping sorting and despatching occupies the time until the close of the out-going mail and it would not be possible to keep tab on all the different classes of mail matter going through the office. I can conceive of no possibility of doing that.


Mr. CLANCY.: There might be a large revenue for all the hon. gentleman knows by reason of the increased rate.


William Mulock: Any person who goes into a post office will see that the volume of books as compared with other classes of mail matter is comparatively trifling.
Mi*. CLANCY. But, including parcels with books on which the hon. gentleman has increased the postage it would have been a matter of very great interest to the country if the hon. Postmaster General could have come down and stated the increase that the revenue had by reason of increasing the postage on that class of mail matter such as books, pamphlets and parcels, the transmission of which, the hon. gentleman knows, has immensly increased throughout the country.


William Mulock: WThat has immensely increased ?


James Clancy: The business of the Post Office in handling that class of matter as the hon. Postmaster General's deputy will tell him has immensely increased. Having doubled the postage on that class of mail matter, he must expect to receive an immense addition to the revenue.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) speaks without information. The volume of parcel postal matter has not materially increased.


James Clancy: I want to say to the hon. the Postmaster General that if he is deriving his information from his deputy who is sitting beside him, it is at variance with such statements as one can put his hand upon and compile in one of the departments of the government. And I may tell the hon. gentleman that I will point that out later on to him.


William Mulock: Proceed.


Mr. SPROULE.: I do not know whether you mean by book-post simply books, but the volume of business in matter that is partly printed and can be filled up in writing, such as deeds and agreements and docu-Slr WILLIAM MULOCK.
ments of that kind, has increased very much. I know from having to do with some work of that kind, that our postage has increased one-half or one-third since the change was made. The increased rate means quite an increased cost to loan companies, and insurance companies and institutions of that kind.


William Mulock: The law fixes the rate of postage on letters, and surely a person cannot take a blank form partly printed and fill up his ideas on that in writing, and have it regarded as a letter. 1 am not aware of any government that allows such an evasion of the law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question is not whether any one is trying to evade the law, but Whether the people pay more now than formerly.


William Mulock: Formerly it was impossible for postmasters to tell what was the proper rate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is so yet.


William Mulock: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So at least one postmaster has told me. V


William Mulock: My hon. friend has allowed himself to be deceived ; he is too readily loaded up against the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The friends of the government have told me so.


William Mulock: They do not tell us that. Postmasters complained formerly that the rates on different classes of mailable matter were intricate. If I had the statute here, I could show that it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to make out what was the proper rate to be charged on lithograph matter and printed matter, for example. Either the postmasters had to open the documents, or refer to the department at Ottawa, or take chances on collecting the proper postage, and often one person paid one rate- and another person paid a different rate on the same class of matter. It was most inconvenient, and therefore we put many of these things into one class, so that all persons would be treated equally. It was not done so much for the sake of revenue as to put the business on a proper basis.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may be better now than it was before, but it is ambiguous yet. I have been called on to discuss the matter with more than one postmaster.


William Mulock: On what item ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Markdale postmaster, for instance.
iSir WILLIAM MULOCK. I asked, on what item ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Take blank certificates done up in the ordinary tube, which are all

printed matter except the signature. What class would they be in ? I cannot tell the exact percentage of increase in the rates, hut nay experience is that the increase is at least one-third more than before.


Sir WILLIAM MU  LOCK@: It is merely a simplification.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Friendly benevolent organizations, in sending out their reports, have to pay just double the postage they did previously. Surely the minister cannot assert that he has no knowledge as to how much the revenue has been increased as a result of this change, which must have been made for the purpose of getting more revenue. "Would it be $150,000 or $200,000 ? Occasionally I see a statement issued as to the number of letters, postal cards and newspapers passing through the mails. Are these actually counted, or is there an estimate made ? If this can be done, I should think that the minister ought to be able to give us an idea as to how much he has increased the revenue by this additional tax. It is not a popular tax, and in view of the financial statement the minister has made. I rather astonished he did not take it off. The hon. gentleman says that those who complain are not friends of the government, hut I would point out that in this evening's Montreal ' Star ' there is a letter from a prominent Liberal, well known in the community, Mr. Norman Murray, a bookseller in Montreal, who draws attention to this very matter. Mr. Murray writes :
At the close of the last financial year the Post Office Department had a surplus of nearly $300,000, yet they raised the book postage from 4 cents to 8 cents a pound. Now I call myself a real Liberal, but I fail to see what the Liberalism of the party in power consists of.
I am sure the Postmaster General must know Mr. Murray as a political friend'. At all events, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would probably know him very well.
Mr. PREtFONTAINE. I know him.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If there were a surplus to the credit of the Post Office Department, why should the postal rate on books be doubled ? It must have been done for the purpose of increasing the revenue, and the Postmaster General must have some idea as to the extent of the increase of revenue by this additional taxation. Are we to have no answer ?


William Mulock: I have explained to the hon. gentleman twice, and I am quite willing to repeat, if that be deemed necessary. The hon. gentleman asks whether there are statistics upon which to base an estimate


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not that ; I assumed, and I think fairly, that the object of doubling the rate on books was to increase the revenue.
and I asked the Postmaster General if he could not give some approximate idea at least as to how much he hoped to increase the revenue by the imposition of this additional tax. I do not ask the hon. gentleman to give me the exact amount, but approximately. Would it be $50,000 or $100,000 ?


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman is talking wildly. All governments have some regard to rates. The late government fixed one cent an ounce as the cost of carrying merchandise, regarding that rate as appropriate. That is still the rate. In fixing that rate, I suppose the government had some reference to the cost of transportation. Therefore half that rate does not seem unreasonable as the book rate. When the hon. gentleman asks for information as to the revenue derivable from book postage, I ask him to imagine himself in a post office when mail matter is coming in or going out, and see if he can form au intelligent idea of the amount of books compared with other mailable matter passing through the office. There are books, parcels, circulars, newspapers, letters and whatever else is mailable, all bundled oil perhaps at the last moment. All the staff can do is to sort the matter and put the various parcels in the respective bags to which they belong, and out goes the whole volume of mail matter. How would it be possible under these circumstances to have statistics, or to form any intelligent idea of the volume of the different classes of mail matter posted at a particular post office ? It is a practical impossibility. It is not done anywhere, and it could not be done unless we chose to suspend the proper despatching of the mails in order to keep account.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand from the minister that he does not know anything as to the probable increase of revenue from this form of taxation ?


William Mulock: It must be a comparative trifle.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose it would not be more than $100,000 at any rate ?


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman knows full well that in suggesting $100,000 he is talking wildly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do not the country postmasters keep an account of the sale of postage stamps, postcards and money orders?


William Mulock: A postmaster in the country, who is paid by commission, is paid upon the revenue of his office and tlie number of special services he performs. He is paid a commission upon the postage stamps and postcards sold, the volume of the money order business, the postal note business, and the savings bank business if it is a savings bank branch. He is also

sometimes allowed something for night work, an allowance called a forwarding allowance, and an allowance for rent, fuel and light. These allowances are based upon the business done in the office. That is a very different thing from keeping the record of the different classes of mailable matter that go out.


Mr. BENNETT.: Is there not a system in force of instructing the postmaster, say in a town office, for two weeks or a month to keep a strict account of all letters, postcards and other matter which pass out of the office, so that his salary may to a certain extent be based on the result ? [DOT]


William Mulock: About twice each year an enumeration, as it is called, is made in the different post offices, of the different classes of mail matter and the revenue derived therefrom. That system prevails only where the postmasters are paid by percentages. But even in those cases, there is nothing in the enumeration list to distinguish books from any other class of mail matter in which they are included. The enumeration divides the mailable matter into four classes-letters and post cards, newspapers, merchandise, and miscellaneous, which is a very large class, and which includes books.


William Humphrey Bennett: As the bulk of the offices are not paid by salaries, but by fees, the amount of mail matter that comes in and goes out of each post office could easily be arrived at ; and it seems to me that books might be made a distinct class, like postcards and letters.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman is in error in saying that nearly all the officers are on the percentage basis. Numerically he is right, but not so far as volume of business is concerned. I would say off-hand that quite one-third of the revenue is derived from offices where the staff is not paid by way of commissions.


Richard Blain: The minister has stated that he could give the committee the amount of revenue derived from newspapers. Would he be good enough to give that ?


William Mulock: I gave that two days ago, in answer to a question. It is in ' Hansard.'


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman reduced the rate, I think, from one-half to one-quarter cent per pound. Could he state how this change affected the revenue ? Another change which the hon. gentleman made was to permit a person wishing to mail say one hundred printed pamphlets, to send them by making a cash payment instead of using postage stamps. How much revenue has he derived from that change? It is important to have ail this information Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
in order that we may judge whether the changes made are in the interest of the country.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman has asked what has been the effect of the revenue of the department of the reduction in the rate of postage on newspapers. I cannot give the figures, but the immediate effect was a very substantial loss of revenue. The newspapers however soon increased the volume of their output so as to bring the revenue up to almost where it was, and we are carrying a very much larger quantity of papers for the same money.


William Findlay Maclean: When was the rate of 1 cent a pound put on ?


William Mulock: I think about. 1898. One-quarter of a cent per pound was imposed on the 1st of July, 1898, and one-half a cent on the 1st of January, 1899. I understood my hon. friend to ask how much was paid by the publishers on mail matter in cash instead of in postage stamps. There is no account kept of that, but the reason of the change was this. The publishers found it inconvenient to affix a stamp, to each separate piece of mail matter ; and in order to save them trouble, the department provided for payment in bulk whenever the quantity of mail matter involved the payment of 825 or upwards. Instead of affixing a stamp to each separate piece, the publishers paid cash, and then the goods are marked ' Paid for in bulk.'


Richard Blain: The hon. minister has said that the decrease in the rate of postage on newspapers has resulted iu an increase in circulation.


William Mulock: No, but I said there has been an increase in the quantity of newspapers sent through the mails.


Richard Blain: I understood him to say that when his governpient made the postage one-half cent per pound on newspapers and afterwards reduced that to one-quarter of a cent, the immediate effect was a decrease in the revenue but shortly afterwards the revenue came up to its original amount. Therefore the effect of the increase in postage was an increase in the quantity of newspapers sent through the mails.


William Findlay Maclean: A larger weight, not a larger number.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend says that the number of newspapers was not larger, but that the public got larger newspapers for the same money and therefore got the benefit. Would not the same effect follow a reduction in the postage on books ? My hon. friend has doubled the cost of sending books through the mails, and it is fair to assume that caused a decrease in the number of books going through and therefore caused great disadvantage to the public. He

claims a great deal of credit for his management of the department, and I suppose that some considerable portion of the credit he claims is Jue him, but it would be only fair to say that the change in book postage was not in the interests of the public but was rather for the purpose of increasing the revenue.


William Mulock: Whatever may be said about the effect of the postage on newspapers, I think there is one thing on which we can all agree, and that is that this country is not suffering from a dearth of newspapers. As to the rate of postage on books, when the hon. gentleman tries to draw a comparison between books and newspapers, I would say that the postal service is as full of anomalies in the matter of rates as is the railway service. The rates charged on one class of matter are not any guide to what might be the rates proper to charge on another class.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why does not the hon. gentleman straighten out the anomalies ?


William Mulock: I must leave something for successors. Some day the hon. gentleman expects to be in my place, and I want to leave him something to do.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The tax upon the public in the matter of postage on newspapers amounted last year to $129,417 and for the ten months to the 30th of April this year to $100,071. That is the result of the decrease in the postal rate. If there is no perceptible increase as the result of doubling the postage on books, why not do away with the increased postage ?


William Mulock: Wrould it not be better to begin by making letters free and let everybody have the benefit ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: If you would reduce the tax on drop letters in cities from two to one cent, you would be conferring a great benefit on the public.


William Mulock: My hon. friend's colleague wants it reduced to one-half a cent.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You are doubling the rate on books and thus making it more difficult to disseminate information through the country. If you would reduce the drop letter rate from two cents to one cent, that reduction would be very much appreciated. There are, as the hon. gentleman admits, anomalies in the postal rates. The hon. gentleman will send out a circular, which weighs as much as four letters, and that *will be distributed by the same letter-carrier for a cent whereas a thin letter is charged two cents. At the same time a postal card is delivered at one cent. It is hardly worth while to continue the government tax on books.


William Mulock: Before taking off the postage on books, if we are going to
have free mail matter, why not begin with having free letters. If my hon. friend is in favour of free letters, let him say so. His colleague from Halton last night argued in favour of a reduction of the letter rate in cities from two cents per drop letter to one-' half cent.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I argued no such thing. I will explain later on what I did mean.


William Mulock: My hon. friend explained that the rate on drop letters in cities was excessive. Instead of two cents it should be one-half cent.


David Henderson: I beg the hon. minister's pardon. He was boasting about the large amount in postage he had saved to the people, and I simply remarked that in the cities he had saved nothing because the postage was two cents to-day as before.
I made no complaint and did not ask him either to increase or decrease the rate. All I did was simply state the fact that the hon. gentleman had neither increased nor decreased the postage rate in cities.


William Mulock: My hon. friend has quite forgotten what he told us. He used the term half-cent rate, and I took exception then, as I do now, to any such reduction. I took exception to his demand that the drop-letter rate in the cities should be reduced below two cents either to J cent or anything else and I took issue with the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) on the same proposition. If the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) will refer to ' Hansard ' he will see what he said. The hon. gentleman asks that we reduce the drop-letter rate from 2 cents to 1 cent. I said then as I say now that, inasmuch as the inhabitants of cities have their mail matter brought to them in their houses or offices, it is reasonable that they should pay more on some classes of mail matter than is paid by persons living at points not served by free carrier delivery. People in towns where there is no free delivery must go to the post office for their mail matter. And the government of hon. gentlemen opposite -not this government-decided that, in order to equalize matters, a higher rate should be paid on drop-letters in localities enjoying the letter carrier system than in others. I think that has been the policy of this country even since the free letter carrier system was established, 1 adhere to that policy. It is one of the few legacies of the late administration which commend themselves to the fair-mindedness of the people. I object to giving to the city advantages not enjoyed by the rural population, and at the same time giving them equally low rates. If cities are to have free delivery they ought to contribute something for the extra advantage they enjoy over their less fortunate fellow citizens in outlying points. And so I say the country will

not support the demand of the hon. member for Halton and the hon. member for West Toronto in this regard. Let the hon. gentleman go to his own constituency and tell the people of Oakville or Bronte that he suggested that the drop-letter rate in Toronto should be cut down from 2 cents to $ cent while the drop-letter rate in Oakville, Bronte and Milton should remain at 1 cent. I would like to know whether he will have the endorsement of the electors of the county of Halton in that ? I cannot believe that, on mature consideration, he will adhere to that view. I can understand the hon. member for West Toronto advocating it. It is quite in harmony with the interests of his own people, Probably it is his duty to present all phases of the question, that it may be argued and debated and reasons given for making the change or withholding it. I can understand that hon. gentleman advocating this change, as it is his duty to do in the interest of his constituents. But I cannot understand a gentleman representing a rural constituency advocating it. However, my view is that the cities which get the advantage of free delivery should pay something for the privileges they enjoy over less favoured parts of the country.


David Henderson: I am afraid the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) has wasted a good deal of wind on the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and has worried himself unnecessarily as to the views his constituents in Oakville, Milton or Bronte may have as to what he said with reference to drop-letters in the city of Toronto or elsewhere. To be brief, I will read from ' Hansard ' what I did say. It fully corroborates the statement I made a moment ago-that I made no complaints about the Postmaster General not having reduced postage in the city of Toronto where there was free delivery. I did not ask him to do that ; I did not suggest that he should do it ; in fact I would not say that I would approve of his doing it. I was discussing the question of the redaction of postage. The hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) had boasted that he had done so much for the people and had reduced the postage by one-third. I simply pointed out that he had only reduced the postage in certain instances, not in all, and consequently the reduction did not amount to one-third. The statement I made with reference to the two-cent rate was as follows, as the hon. gentleman will And by referring to page 5822 of ' Hansard
What about the people In the cities who are paying a two cent rate on drop letters just the same as they have been paying previously ? How can the hon. gentleman come here and say that he has reduced the postage by one third ?


William Mulock: That is not all the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) said.


David Henderson: That is all I said with reference to the postage in cities. Now sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
I will tell the hon. gentleman that I did suggest, and I will suggest again-and I think it is a very proper thing-that, in rural sections where there is no postal delivery it would be a very proper thing to reduce the postage on drop letters to i cent. I think that would be a very fair proposition. The government would not lose very much by it and it would be of material advantage to a great many people in the country. The hon. gentleman may know-because he is a business man-that merchants in the country towns and villages are taking advantage of the post office a great deal more than in former years for the purpose of advertising their wares. Instead of advertising so much in the newspapers, they draft a circular and send it to their customers or to the constituencies among which they do business. Possibly they do this three or four times a year. These letters are mostly drop-letters-letters addressed to persons at the post office at which the letters are posted. That is the kind of letter I referred to when I suggested that the postage might be reduced to i cent. I think that would only be in keeping with the privileges granted elsewhere. Why should I or any business man in my town put a one-cent stamp on a letter and drop it in the Acton post office to be delivered in that same post office without any expense to the government of carrying it through the mail ; when, for two cents, I can send a letter from Acton to Hong Kong? I do not think that that is reasonable, and1 I believe that the suggestion I make is only a fair one and one that is quite in harmony with the hon. gentleman's postal tariff. I trust the hon. gentleman now understands me fully, and that the severe strictures he made upon the argument he attributed to me that the rate on drop-letters where there is free delivery should be reduced to one-half cent will be withdrawn as being based upon a misapprehension. I am quite sure that it was a mere slip of the memory and that it was not done with the intention of arousing unnecessarily the indignation of my constituents in Oakville, Bronte and Milton. I remember that he was out there on one or two occasions and talked very largely about the deficit the Conservative party had-according to his statement-of $750,000 in the last year they were in power. The hon. gentleman paraded that deficit with all the volume of voice he was capable of spreading over the riding. But it all had no effect. The friend whom he took out from Toronto to supplant me returned shorn of his laurels. I fancy that the attack which he is going to make upon me in Oakville and Bronte and Milton on the matter of the unfairness that I suggest with reference to the postal rates as between these towns and Toronto will have just about the same effect and I hope the hon. gentleman when the time comes will pay us another visit .and give us another opportunity of seeing how effectual his arguments are

with the intelligent people of the county- X am speaking of the reasonable people of the county.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sorry that I riled the kon. gentleman in suggesting very respectfully-as I always address the hon. gentleman-that as he had doubled the tax on the people by the increase in the rate on books, he might take into consideration the advisability of giving them some relief in the matter of drop-letter rates. It is a fact that large firms in the city of Toronto, and X presume in Montreal, Ottawa and other large centres, deliver their letters themselves by messenger at a less cost than by the post and probably more speedily. For that reason I think the matter is one which should have the attention of the hon. gentleman, especially when he distributes circulars inclosed in envelopes weighing more thain ordinary letters and postal cards for a cent. If my memory serves me, he did not always speak out as vigorously against the proposition to reduce the drop-letter rate as he has done to-night. When a deputation waited on him in Toronto I think he held out the hope that something might be done, and I am sure they will be grieved and pained to hear his vigorous denial tonight at the mere suggestion to reduce the drop-letter rate. Might I ask if lie has any idea of the revenue derived in Toronto from drop-letters ?


William Mulock: It is very un fortunate that it is impossible to address a remark to the hon. member for West Toronto {Mr. Clarke) without his at once assuming that some terrible attack has been made upon him. It is all right for the hon. gentleman to present an argument, or what is advanced as an argument, but when a reply is made to it, then the hon. gentleman is personally attacked. I was commending the hon. gentleman for the attention he was giving to the interests of his constituents, and was in fact pointing out to him that in his absence he had found an advocate in the person of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), but my hon. friend is ungrateful to him. He says I did not always speak the same voice as to-night. I have never otherwise expressed myself than as I have done to-night It is true that a deputation from Toronto waited upon me two or three years ago and pressed this subject upon me. I held out no inducement to them at the time that I had any policy on the subject different from what I have laid down to-night. I pointed out to them on that occasion the advantages that the cities were enjoying over their country fellow-citizens outside the cities, and I gave them this hint : I said it had occurred to me that if the cities desired to have the rate on drop-letters reduced to one cent, the same as it is in places outside the cities, it would perhaps be reasonable that the cities
X
should pay for the advantage, and I think so to-day.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the hon. gentleman worked that idea out, or has it lain dormant since 7


William Mulock: I have not worked it out, but I dare say it would be possible to formulate a system by which we could keep track of the revenue collected in that way. It might be possible, but I fear it would be a very difficult task to keep an account of the volume of drop-letters posted in a city and to commute that in a certain sum payable by the city as a whole. That was the idea I suggested on that occasion, but as to saying -that I had at any time; favoured the reduction of the rate on drop-letters to that prevailing outside the cities, where the people do not enjoy the same advantages as in the cities, is an error ; I .never so expressed myself, I never had such an idea.


Edward Frederick Clarke: At any rate, you have no idea of that kind now.


William Mulock: I have not any idea of the kind now ; I do not think it is just; I do not think the great cities would press for such an unjust measure. They enjoy great advantages.


Mr. LA YELL.: I do not want to enter into a discussion as to which of these rates should be lowered, but the minister a short time ago referred to the increased postage on books, and said that the revenue derived from that source would be trifling. I am aware that it is difficult for the minister or the officers of his department to find out just what that revenue is, but I cannot help thinking that if he had looked into the matter he would have found that the increase is so large as to amount to a very heavy tax.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Enormous.


Mr. LAVELL.: It is not a matter in regard to which I have made inquiries outside my own business, but even in the business with which I am connected it makes a difference of several hundred dollars a year, and I would like to mention that. I am not complaining, as we are getting it out of our customers, but it amounts to several hundred dollars a year, and I know it has increased our postal rate by between 30 and 35 per cent.


William Mulock: What class of books 7


John Reeve Lavell: Catalogues and books or that kind. I presume every manufacturing house in the country will have a somewhat similar experience, and I mention it now to call the attention of the minister to it, because I cannot help thinking he is in error in believing that the amount is trivial. If it amounts to several hundred dollars in a comparatively small business, I think that

in the larger businesses it must amount to a very large sum indeed. As I said, I do not know that it is a cause of complaint. I have never felt inclined to complain myself, as we charge it up to expense and add it to the price of the goods, but if there is a revenue sufficient to justify a reduction in the postal rates, it seems to me it would be relieving a large number of people of rather a heavy tax if he could see his way clear to reduce the book rate to the old rate. The minister has said that the change was undoubtedly made because of the desire to bring the rate for the carriage of hooks and similar matter into fair proportion of the cost to the department of that carriage. That is what I understood the minister to say. I may say then that our experience has been that the book rate now is so high on catalogues and such matter that wherever we can send by the express company to within a good many hundreds of miles, it pays us to send by express. It is materially cheaper to send by express than by post, simply because the express companies have a special rate of 15 cents on such classes of goods, and 15 cents will carry a greater weight of catalogues by express than by postage. I mention that as a matter of information ; it is not a matter that I feel inclined to criticise one way or another. It is an open question as to whether the lates should be reduced, but I think that the amount of revenue is not trifling.


William Findlay Maclean: If the Postmaster Gen eral has any excess of revenue to expend on improving the service, my idea is to expend it in improving the parcel post system. We in Canada have a parcel post system somewhat better than that in the United States, but not to be compared with the parcel post systems in Europe, especially in Germany, Hungary and Great Britain. They have a much improved parcel ^post system there ; their rates are simply' fractional as compared with ours.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have our parcel post rates been increased ?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know that they have been increased. *The size of parcels has not been increased and the facilities offered to the public have not been increased, for the reason, I believe, that prevents these benefits from being conferred upon the people in the United States, and that is that the express companies in the United States are so powerful that they have prevented the extension of the parcel postal system in that country as I believe they have prevented it in this country. The business men of Canada would like us to use the parcel post system and they want the rates reduced and the size of the parcels increased. This has taken place in Europe. It has stimulated trade in every branch there and certainly we could bring about the same results here. Another way in which the post office could facilitate trade would Mr. LAVELL.
be to still further simplify the transmission of small amounts of money whether by postal notes or otherwise. We are making progress in that direction but in no way is our system for the carriage of small sums of money and parcels to be compared with the facilities in those directions afforded in Europe. The facilities afforded in Europe in that regard have stimulated trade in every direction and have enabled small tradesmen and people who wish to market their own products to get the best price possible for them. If the hon. the Postmaster General has any sui'plus and if he wishes to serve the Canadian people I would recommend to him that he study particularly the system of these European countries and use the money at his disposal in carrying it out as far as possible.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the difference in the price of postal orders here and in the old country ?


William Findlay Maclean: The price in the old country is only a fraction of what we pay here.


William Mulock: For what ?


William Findlay Maclean: Postal notes, and parcel post rates.


William Mulock: No.


William Findlay Maclean: I can give the hon. gentleman some instances of it. I would also suggest to the hon. gentleman that he might greatly simplify the law. The law might be greatly simplified if we improved. the parcel post system in this country. It is well worthy of consideration and that is in line with a matter that I have brought up before in this House in regard to express companies. They are too powerful. They have too much influence. They fight against any extension of the parcel post system and they are trying to keep up the rates. Let the Post Office Department in this country have the courage of the Post Office Department of Great Britain, Germany and Austria and greatly improve the parcel postal system. In that way the hon. Postmaster General can do a great deal for the people and greatly simplify the present system.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General if he has looked into the question of the rural delivery system which has been quite a success on the other side.


William Mulock: Perhaps the committee will allow my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to intervene with a matter that he desires to bring to the attention of the House and then we can resume.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. Postmaster General can answer the question of my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) later.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCIC Yes, in a few minutes.


William Stevens Fielding: I would be obliged if the committee would agree to suspend proceedings in supply for a few minutes in order that I may be permitted, with the Speaker in the chair, to place some papers on the table of the House with the understanding that we may return to the committee immediately after the explanation which I may be able to give to the House. I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Some resolutions reported.


MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
The Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) delivered a Message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the Message as follows :
MINTO :
The Governor in Council transmits to the House of Commons further supplementary estimates of sums required for the 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, 28th June, 1904.
Mr. FIELDING moved that the Message of His Excellency and the estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['']
William Stevens Fielding: If the House will permit me without a formal motion I would avail myself of the opportunity of placing on the table of the House some changes which we desire to make in the tariff resolutions as follows :
1.	Resolved, That it is expedient to amend ' The Customs Tariff, 1897,' to the following
effect
That the following provision be substituted for subsection (f) of section 1 of the said Act : (f) The expression ' gauge,' when applied to metal sheets or plates or to wire, means the thickness as determined by the ' Imperial Standard gauge.'
2.	Resolved, that whenever it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Minister of Customs or of any officer of customs authorized to collect customs duties, that the export price or the aotual selling price to the importer in Canada of any imported dutiable article, of a class or kind made or produced in Canada, is less than the fair market value thereof (as determined according to the basis of value for duty provided in the Customs Act in respect of imported goods subject to an ad valorem duty), such article shal^ in addition to the duty otherwise established, be subject to a special duty of customs equal to the difference between such
fair market value and said selling price ; provided, however, that the special customs duty on any article shall not exceed one-half of the customs duty otherwise established in respect of the article, except in regard to the articles mentioned in items 224, 226, 228 and 231 of schedule A. the speoial duty of customs on which shall not exceed fifteen per cent ad valorem, nor more than the difference between the selling price and the fair market value of the article as aforesaid.
The expression ' export price or ' selling price ' herein shall be held to mean and include the exporter's price for the goods, exclusive of all charges thereon after their shipment from the place whence exported directly to Canada.
The foregoing provisions respecting a special duty of customs shall apply to imported round rolled wire rods not over three-eighths of an inch in diameter, notwithstanding that such rods are on the customs free list; provided, however, that the special duty of customs on such wire rods	shall not exceed fifteen	per cent
ad valorem.
If at any time it shall appear to the satisfaction of	the Governor in	Council,	on a	report from	the Minister of	Customs,	that	thepayment of the special duty herein provided for is being evaded by the shipment of goods on consignment without sale prior to such shipment, or otherwise, the Governor in Council may in any case or class of cases authorize such action as is deemed necessary to collect on	such goods or	any of them	the
same special duty as if the goods had been sold to an importer In Canada prior to their shipment to Canada.
If the full amount of any special duty of customs be not paid on goods imported, the customs entry thereof shall be amended and the deficiency paid upon the demand of the collector of customs.
The Minister of Customs may make such regulations as arc deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of the foregoing sections and for the enforcement thereof.
Such regulations may also provide for the temporary exemption from special duty of any article or class of articles, when it is established to the satisfaction of the Minister of Customs that such articles are not made in Canada in substantial quantities and offered for sale to all purchasers on equal terms.
The special duty aforementioned shall not apply to goods of a class subject to excise duty in Canada.
3.	Resolved that in schedule A the words ' common and colourless window glass,' and in item 201, and the words 'pails and'tubs of wood ' in item 330, shall be omitted and that items 22, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 178 and 20 of schedule A shall be repealed, and the following provisions added to schedule A, viz.
After item 7 (a) :	Provided that ' bottles,
flasks and packages of gin, rum, whisky and brandy of all kinds, and imitations thereof shall be held to contain the following quantities (subject to the provisions for addition or deduction in respect to the degree of strength), viz. ;-
Bottles, flasks and packages containing not more than three-fourths of a gallon, per dozen, as three-fourths of a gallon per dozen;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than three-fourths of a gallon, but not more



than one gallon per dozen, as one gallon per dozen
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than one gallon, but not more, than one and one-halt gallons, per dozen, as one and one-halt gallons per dozen ;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than one and one-halt gallons, but not more than two gallons per dozen, as two gallons per dozen ;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than two gallons, but not more than two and tour-fifths gallons per dozen, as two and lour-fifths gallons per dozen ;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than two and four-fifths gallons, but not more * than three gallons per dozen, as three gallons per dozen ;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than three gallons, but not more than three and one-fifth gallons per dozen, as three and one-fifth gallons per dozen.
22. Paraffine wax candles, 25 per cent ad valorem.
151. Paraffine wax, 25 per cent ad valorem.
170.	Illuminating oils, composed wholly or in part of the products of petroleum, coal, shale or lignite, costing more than thirty cents per gallon, 20 per cent ad valorem. .
171.	Lubricating oils, composed wholly or in part of petroleum, costing less than 25 cents per gallon, 2i cents per gallon.
172.	Crude petroleum, gas oils (other than naphtha, benzine and gasoline), lighter than :8235 hut not less than '775 specific gravity, at 60 degrees temperature, 1| cents per gallon.
173.	Oils, coal and kerosene distilled, purified or refined, naphtha and petroleum, and products of petroleum, n.e.s., 2J cents per gallon.
175. Lubricating oils, n.e.s., and axle grease 20 per cent ad valorem.
178. Vaseline and all similar preparations of petroleum for toilet, medicinal or other purposes, 25 per cent ad valorem.
201 (a). Common and colourless window glass, 15 per cent ad valorem.
203. Plate glass not bevelled, in sheets or panes not exceeding seven square feet each, n.o.p., 10 per cent ad valorem.
203 (a). Plate glass not bevelled, in sheets or panes exceeding seven square feet each and not exceeding twenty-five square feet each, n.o.p., 25 per cent ad valorem.
After item 323 : provided that for duty purposes the minimum value of an open buggy shall be forty dollars, and the minimum value of a covered buggy shall be fifty dollars.
368 (a). Silk fabrics when imported by manufacturers of neckties for use exclusively in the manufacture of neckties in their own factories, under regulations to he made by the Minister of Customs, 10 per cent ad valorem.
447 (a). Artificial teeth, until April 1, 1905, 10 per cent ad valorem.
Notwithstanding anything contained in schedule D, the maximum duty on the undermentioned articles when imported under the British Preferential Tariff shall be as follows :
185 (a). Tableware of china, porcelain or other white clay, 15 per cent ad Valorem.
201 (b). Common and colourless window glass, 7i per cent ad valorem.	.
Notwithstanding anything contained in schedule D, the minimum duty en the undermentioned articles when imported under the British Preferential Tariff shall be as follows ;


William Stevens Fielding: We have an item respecting the duty on artificial teeth which was the cause of some humorous observations. Perhaps hon. gentlemen will be surprised to know that it is an item which created a great deal of interest, and much importance is attached to it. We have reached the conclusion that the placing of artificial teeth on the free list should be deferred to a date to be mentioned, and the date we fix is the 1st day of April next. In the interim we propose to reduce the duty from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. It is represented to us that there are very large stocks of artificial teeth held in Canada, and indeed it is somewhat surprising to know the extent to which this is-the case. We knew it was a considerable item, but it is even larger than we anticipated and it is represented that the sudden placing of artificial teeth on the free list would have a very disturbing and unfair influence on merchants who hold large stocks. We therefore propose to bring about the change gradually, while adhering to the essence of the policy. There is another item which reads :
Table ware of porcelain, china, or other clay.
For the purpose of more clearly defining it, we insert the word ' white ' so that it will read :
Table ware of china, porcelain or other white clay.
This will prevent confusing the item with some others which were not intended.
There is a provision in the tariff of a year ago for the admission free of duty of machinery for the manufacture of sugar from beet root. That provision has expired, and we propose to renew it for the term of another year up to April next.
In the item of ' molasses,' which is placed on the free list when imported from countries entitled to the British preference, we wish to insert words which will stipulate that it must be a direct importation. The object of the government is to guard against molasses being landed abroad and mixed with other ingredients which people in the trade assure us is a practice which we ought very carefully to guard against.
We have placed on the free list the item of printing presses, and it has been deemed desirable that that should be more clearly defined. We propose that the item shall read :
Printing presses, rotary.
This will make it clear that other classes of printing presses which we did not contemplate, shall not be included in the item, and are not transferred to the free list.
There is one other matter which is of importance, and that is the date on which these various changes in the way of increased duties shall take effect. As a rule, under the practice in Canada, whenever the budget speech is delivered such changes of tariff as may be made take effect at once ; and as the resolution now stands without any qualification, that would be the result.. However, there are precedents for taking a different course. Some years ago. for good reasons no doubt, the operation of the new resolutions was delayed for a period, and in the case of the German surtax we adopted the same policy. Following these precedents, we now propose to provide : that in the case of all goods actually ordered before the date of the budget-and confining it entirely to goods so actually ordered-if they be entered in Canada on or before the last day of August next, they shall be admitted under the old rate of duty, and the new rate of duty shall only apply to cases in which the goods have not been ordered as provided. The reason for this is, that it has been represented that in some lines, notably woollen goods, large quantities were sold in advance at fixed prices on the basis of the existing duties. The goods in some cases were on their way and the orders could not be cancelled. After very careful consideration, we have come to the conclusion that no injury will be done the woollen industry, for which the benefit was intended, because the goods are ordered and have to come in any how. The only question is whether we should exact the higher duty. After full consideration we believe that in the case of all duties which have been increased by these resolutions- this will apply to the special duty as well as to the various items which are set forth- where the goods have been actually ordered on or before the 7th day of June, they shall come in at the old rate, provided they are entered in Canada on or before the last day of August. These. Mr. Speaker, are all the changes. The Votes and Proceedings will contain all the resolutions in their amended form, but, gentlemen who have read the resolutions as previously submitted, if they read them now In conjunction with this explanation, will be able to determine exactly the nature and purpose of the changes. In most cases the changes are very trivial, but as regards the date on which the increased duties take effect, that, is an important change, and I desired this opportunity to make it known amongst the trade all over the country which has been so anxious for a definite announcement upon the subject. I am obliged to the House for having kindly consented to allow me to put the matter in this form. There will be in connection with this, some necessary amendments to the Customs Act. The tariff is dealt with by an Act called the Customs Tariff. 1897 : apart from that there is the Customs Act which deals with the general management of the Customs Department. The Minister of Customs will have to make some amendments to that Act. My hon. friend will give notice of these amendments, but they are not of
Mr. FIELDING

sufficient importance to justify me in detaining tlie House at this moment.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I say a few words with reference to the industry in which I am particularly interested. I am sure it is not the intention of the Minister of Finance to do any particular damage to the oil industry. Though I do not believe in the bounty system, yet as that has been decided upon I would like to call the attention of the minister to a few remarks I have to make with reference to the necessity of putting on a greater bounty than the minister proposes. As I said on a former occasion, the crude oil which comes from the Ohio fields is of a superior quality to ours. I have worked out 100 gallons of the imported crude oil through a refinery, and the result is that I got $1.03 in value more from Ohio oil than from 100 gallons of our own oil, showing it to be worth about one cent a gallon more than our oil. or say 35 cents per barrel. The oil is sold in Ohio at $1.08 per barrel, to which if you add the transportation charges for delivery at Sarnia of 23 cents it will make $1.31. If you add the 52 cents bounty as suggested, that comes to $1.83. At the time this change was made the difference between $1.83 and $2.09, left the balance in favour of the Ohio oil as compared with our own oil of 26 cents per barrel. Add to that 26 cents per barrel the 35 cents I referred to a moment ago being the extra value of the Ohio crude, and that makes a total preference for the Ohio oil of 61 cents per barrel. I beg to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact, that not only is that giving an advantage of 61 cents to the Ohio oil, but it must be remembered that in Essex. Kent, Lambton and Elgin counties, the oil is gathered at a considerable distance from the Standard refinery, and that it costs a good deal to deliver it in the Standard tanks. Previous to this I have computed the values as if our oil were delivered in the Standard tanks at Sarnia. I have made a calculation with reference to the cost of gathering the oil in the Pretolea field and delivering it to the Standard refinery seventeen miles distant, and I have come to the conclusion that this costs ten cents per barrel. Therefore, as between the Ohio oil and our own oil it makes a difference against us of 71 cents per barrel. To the people in the outside districts, such as Bothwell, Dutton and the other oil fields from which the oil has to be sent to Sarnia by train it is a more serious matter, and I feel like drawing the attention of the Finance Minister to the importance of giving the producers of Canada sufficient protection against Ohio crude.


Mr. BIRKETT.: I desire to ask the Minister of Finance if there will be a rebate of duty allowed on goods which have been
passed through the customs since the 7th of June, and on which the higher duty has been paid ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, if there be evidence that the goods were ordered prior to that date, as of course they would have been, or I presume they would not be delivered. The goods actually ordered before the date of the 8th of June and entered before the end of August will not be subject to the higher duties, and if the duties in the meantime have been paid, they will be entitled to a rebate.


Thomas Birkett: Then, I would like to point, out how difficult it is going to be to carry out the anti-dumping clause. I have received four circulars from manufacturers in the United States intimating that they would invoice goods into Canada at American prices, and would pay to Canadian dealers the same salary for handling their goods that they pay to American dealers. That will defeat the anti dumping clause altogether.


William Stevens Fielding: This is not the time for debating that question. All I can say is that I have no doubt the Minister of Customs will find the means of meeting a case of that kind. We shall be only too glad to have such cases brought to our notice in order that we may look into them.


Thomas Birkett: As an importer, I would like to know what would be the effecj, provided we Import goods at United States prices. Can they be passed through our customs at those prices when the manufacturer pays the importer a salary for disposing of the goods ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. In the administration of the customs laws a great many questions of that kind are brought up, and have to be dealt with as they arise from time to time.


Mr. HAGGART.: Another question I would like to ask the Finance Minister. In the case of articles which formerly paid a duty, but are now imported free, on what date will they be entitled to come in free ? In other words, when does the law take effect-on the 7th or the 8th of June ?
Mr. IflELDING. I am afraid I had better not answer my hon. friend lest I get into trouble. We shall have all these questions discussed in due course.


David Henderson: I beg to ask an easy question. Perhaps the hon. minister can tell us on what day he will take up these resolutions. Will he take them up this week or next week ?


William Stevens Fielding: I can give my hon. friend the assurance that they will not be taken up this week. They will come into

effect at once, and therefore I desire to make the announcement now ; but the discussion will take place later.


David Henderson: It makes no difference to me when they take effect. I want simply to know when we shall have an opportunity of discussing them, so that I may be present.


Mr. GOURLEY.: All this quibbling about the tariff shows the bad policy Canada is pursuing. I have no doubt those people in the United States will find the most ample opportunity of defeating the clause in the tariff that is proposed. My hon. friend the Finance Minister says the Minister of Customs will look after that. I have not the same faith in the Minister of Customs ; I think we shall have to have a new Minister of Customs if he is to possess ingenuity enough to prevent those people cheating the revenue of Canada. What we want in Canada is a tariff of the same height as the American tariff. Then there will be no question of quibbling with the tariff such as we have had to-night. For my part, I stand here as a maritime province man. Formerly the people of the maritime provinces were supposed to be in favour of free commercial relations with the United States. I stand here to say that the maritime provinces do not want any relations whatever with the United States. What*we want is a high tariff to exclude the manufacturers of the United States from this country. In the county of Colchester we have a great iron industry and the great complaint of the people connected with that industry is that $30,000,000 of manufactured iron comes into this country. We are prevented from building up our own industries because hon. gentlemen opposite, while professing to protect them, are allowing $30,000,000 of iron goods to come into this country and are offering these people a bonus. The bonus is only applicable to one or two lines of manufactured materials. Unfortunately they went to those parties in Cape Breton who are now face to face with financial embarrassment. The hon. gentlemen are killing their friends as well as their enemies-thank God.



John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I wish to give notice that to-morrow, on the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply, I will move this resolution :
This House regrets that the government has seen fit to withhold from parliament documents of a public character to which parliament was entitled for the proper consideration of matters to which such documents relate.


William Stevens Fielding: 



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Post Office-Outside service-Mail service, $2,561,700.
["I beg to lay cu the table of the House certain papers Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.\nthat were asked for by the hon. member '01' Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), also my letter to Colonel Whitley, which was asked for by the leader of the opposition. It is a private letter, but I have obtained the consent of Colonel Whitley to lav it on the table."]
William Pate Mulock: Before the committee rose an hon. member referred to the transmission of money by post in Great Britain. He mentioned that the parcel rate in Canada was greater than the parcel rate in European countries. That may be the ease, but the distances in Canada are very much greater. It would be impossible, with any regard to business, to carry parcels throughout Canada at the same rate that is charged in Great Britain. I suppose they are carried in Canada ten times the distance that they are in Great Britain. With reference to the rates on postal notes and the development of the postal note system, I have made a little comparison and I think it will be found that we are quite as reasonable in Canada as they are 1n England. The rate charged in England on a postal note up to Is. 6d., is a half-penny. In Canada the charge is one-half penny or a cent up to forty cents. In England the rate charged on a postal note from one shilling and six pence up to ten and six pence is a penny or two cents. In Canada the rate is two cents from fifty cents to two dollars and a half. In England the rate on postal notes exceeding ten and six and going up to twenty shillings is one and a half penny or three cents. In Canadla it is three cents' on a sum from three to five dollars. In England the postal note system stops at one pound, but in Canada we have got beyond that limit and our postal notes are issued for amounts as high as ten dollars, on which the rate is five cents. I do not think that the comparison of rates is to our disadvantage.


William Findlay Maclean: What I pointed out was that especially in Germany and Austria, *they have even a cheaper rate for postal notes than we have. As regards the postal parcel post system, the hon. gentleman might divide the country into zones, or if he cannot do that, some other means might be provided. But as a matter of fact, he is carrying parcels from the English parcel post system to any place in Canada for the rate that obtains in England, and he does this because of the postal convention. So that while he may object to doing that in connection with parcels originating in Canada, he must do it for parcels originating in Great Britain. In that way the English parcel post system applies in Canada to packages coming from England, and it is much cheaper than what we charge here and the parcels are much larger.


Sir WILLIAM MU  LOCK@: No.


William Findlay Maclean: I think they give you larger weight in England than here. I am
5T45

not complaining of the present system and willingly give the hon. gentleman credit for the improvement in the postal note service; but if there is a department in connection with the Post Office service which is subject to improvement, it Is, as far as I can gather from business men, the parcel post and postal note system.


Richard Blain: I would like the hon. minister to answer this question. In 1890 the number of post offices in Canada was 7,930 and in 1896 that number had increased to 9,103, being an increase of 1,190 in the six years. From 1S96 to 1902 the increase was 855 or 335 less than in the previous six years. Would the hon. gentleman explain how that comes about ?


William Mulock: I do not wish to make any reflection, but post offices were opened with very great liberality in days gone by, and a considerable number of them became closed through lack of business. But the post offices in existence to-day are all live, working offices, and there is far more business being done in those in existence to-day than there was in the greater comparative number in existence when we took office. The country is not being starved, for lack of post offices. My daily task is to open up new post offices, and the case has to be a pretty bad one which does not appeal to me favourably. I think there will be found in the records very few applications for a post office, recommended by the inspector, which have not been granted. Ifa the year now closing, we have opened 310 new post offices throughout the Dominion and there are 83 now authorized, hut nob yet opened.


Richard Blain: In what part of Canada ?


William Mulock: My hon. friend is probably aware that every application for a post office is referred to the inspector of the district, who makes a report describing the neighbourhood, the number of people to be served, the distance from another post office, the estimated cost, &c-In most cases the inspector gives his views and recommends whether or not the post office should be opened. I doubt whether during the current year five applications have been refused, which have been recommended by the inspectors. These new offices have been opened1 chiefly in the Territories, particularly in Saskatchewan. I recognize the importance of giving postal facilities to the settlers. When a man comes out to settle in this country and finds himself distant from railway communication, it is very important that he should be provided with postal facilities, and we have been very liberal, hut not too much so, in providing such facilities.


William Findlay Maclean: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to tell us whether he 'has made
any progress in nationalizing the telegraph and telephone system in connection with his department ?


William Mulock: That is a large question and I would like my hon. friend to ask me an easier one. I cannot say that I have made any great progress in the way of having anything to offer to parliament, but I hope that the educational movement is going on. I would hail with great pleasure the time when the telephone system would be taken under the wing of the government. My own opinion is in favour of some such course. I stated a year ago that I had been studying the subject, and so I have been.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are you still studying it?


William Mulock: I cannot say that I am at this moment. I have formed, some views and have some figures, but I am not in a position now to give them to the House. I trust however the time will come when I shall be free to do so.


Mr. BELL.: I would ask for information from the Postmaster General with reference to mail contracts, and I will introduce the subject now so that he may make the necessary inquiries. I refer to the mail between River John and the post office, and between River John and Hodson. I would liae to know who the mail carrier is, what he is receiving, and whether the contract was let after tenders called for or by private arrangement. For the item respecting the River John and the railway station I would refer him to page B-78 of his report, and for the other to B-71.


William Mulock: As to the former, the name given here is W. Gammon.


Adam Carr Bell: I think he has been replaced.


William Mulock: I will ascertain that point and also the others the hon. gentleman wished information about. The , remuneration in the case I have just referred to appears to be $58 a year. The Act allows the Postmaster General, where the remuneration for carrying the mail is less than $200, to make a contract without calling for tenders. Probably in so small a matter tenders would not be called for. But I will get the information for my hon. friend.


Adam Carr Bell: When ?


William Mulock: To-morrow, if he will remind me.


Mr. INGRAM.: I desire to ask a question with regard to the St. Thomas post office. The deputy postmaster there died some two weeks ago. What progress is the hon. minister making with respect to filling that position ?


William Mulock: I am sorry to say that the assistant postmaster of St.

Thomas died a few days ago. I hope to be able to fill the place by promotion from that office.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to say also that iu my opinion the staff is not adequate for the business of the office. It should be increased.
'Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. That may fol-.ldw. But I thought the bon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) was particularly concerned to know who was to be given this particular position. As to that, I will look into the staff and if there is one among them whom it would be proper to promote to the assistant postmastership, I would rather fill the pffice in that way. It may be necessary also to add to the staff.


Andrew B. Ingram: During the summer months the clerks in the office take their holidays, and the effect of that is to leave them one clerk short for some months. I think the Postmaster General should give this matter his serious attention, and provide an ample staff for the requirements of the office.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I had occasion last year to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the unfair treatment meted out to Charlottetown in the matter of free mail delivery. While smaller towns throughout Ontario were having the benefit of delivery by letter-carriers, Charlottetown was denied that advantage. I think that when this matter was before the committee last year the Postmaster General gave us the assurance that he would take the matter up and favourably consider it. I would like to know if he has made any progress in that matter.


William Mulock: I do not know to what towns in Ontario the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lefurgey) refers.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We had them up last year. I cannot call them off now, but no question was raised about it then.


William Mulock: I am afraid that our friends from Ontario would rather take issue with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lefurgey) on that point. There is no town in Ontario as small as that of Charlottetown that enjoys free delivery. The towns that have the benefit of that system now are Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, Hamilton, Brantford and London. I think that, on reference to the postal returns, the hon. gentleman will find that every one of these places has a revenue larger than that of Charlottetown. Speaking from memory, the revenue from Charlottetown does not exceed $19,000, while I think that the revenue from Brantford is nearly $35,000. Probably the next revenue is that of Kingston, but it is some thousands in excess of Charlottetown. However, Charlottetown is growing and the place is improving, and I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) in the hope that it Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
will continue to make rapid progress until its claims for free delivery will be unanswerable.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That is very plausible talk, but not just what we want. We want free delivery. When I brought this matter up last year the hon. Postmaster General seemed to be favourably impressed with the claims of Charlottetown for free delivery. I cannot recall the names of places brought to his attention that had a smaller population than Charlottetown and yet enjoyed this free delivery system. .This system should not be given on the basis of revenue only ; population should be considered. Where you have the people you are bound to give the service. And, as the coffers of the hon. minister are, apparently overflowing, I think he could fairly do justice to places of the population of Charlottetown.


William Mulock: What is its population ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Upwa'rds of from 12,000 to 15,000 people, and growing, growing all the time.


William Mulock: That is always a good sign.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Joking aside, the people down there I think deserve a free delivery by letter-carriers, and a great deal better treatment than they are getting at the present time. I would like to know from the minister if the post office inspector for the island has been appointed and if so, what salary he is getting. Is the arrangement the same as with the old inspector ?


William Mulock: Yes. Mr. Weir was appointed in the place of the late postmaster and inspector, Mr. Breeken, at I think the same salary.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: No changes were made in the office ?


William Mulock: No change in the duties or salary.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like to know from the Postmaster General if he had any petitions in regard to a daily service at lot 14 post office, and whether anything has been done for the people in that locality ?


William Mulock: I will make a note of my hon. friend's inquiry and give him the information to-morrow.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like also to inquire about a post office for North Enmore. This is a small village three or four miles from any post offiee, and have on two occasions made applications for a post office and promises have been made, possibly by the inspector of post offices, in Prince Edward Island but nothing has been done. There is quite a large settlement that should be served by a post office. I would like

also to know wliat arrangements were made for the carriage of mails from Cape Tormen-tine to Sackville, and if the contract has been carried out and payment made to the persons who had that contract. I asked a question some time ago about this, and the reply then was that no arrangement had been made with the people who were carrying the mails from Oape Tormentine to Sackville. I thought it was a very strange proceeding that a contract should have been entered into by the government whereby these people were to go ahead and carry the mails without any agreement at all. I would like to know what the arrangement was.
iSir WILLIAM MTILOCK. Was that arrangement made during the winter season last year ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Yes.


William Pate Mulock: There was I think some special difficulty in the service on account of ice.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I believe there was a block on the railway system.


William Pate Mulock: It is a special service growing out of the storm, is it not ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I presume so, there is always some difficulty there about getting the mails across the strait.


William Mulock: It has puzzled more than one person. I shall have all this information gathered up and shall give it to my hon. friend to-morrow.


Mr. MORIN.: The Postmaster General said a while ago that post offices were granted on the recommendation of the inspector of post offices. Will the hon gentleman be kind enough to tell the committee what recommendation the Quebec inspector made with regard to the proposed post office at Detroit, in the county of Dorchester ? Has he recommended it or condemned it ?


William Mulock: I think the hon. gentleman saw the report, he will remember, I do not know from memory.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I did not see it.


William Mulock: I shall examine the report and let the hon. gentleman know to-morrow.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Thank you.


John William Bell: Some time ago I inquired about the post office at Wolford centre. I believe that the difficulty in connection with the office there is practically causing the post office to be closed. That would be a tremendous inconvenience to a body of farmers not now served by any other convenient office. I would ask the minister to look into that with the idea of restoring the service as it was. I think since 1896 there
has been a better service, but on account of some change in mail carriage a proposal was made to change it to a twice-a-week service, which would produce an annual saving of $20.


William Mulock: I think I remember having seen a report of the inspector on that matter. I think it is rather a tangled affair and that there are some differences of opinion on the subject among the people. I shall be glad to discuss the subject with my hon. friend to see whether it is possible to meet all interests.


John Reeve Lavell: There was some difficulty about a year or two ago, but I think they all recognize now what an inconvenience the closing of the office will mean, and they are absolutely united now in regard to seeing the post office kept open as it was.


William Mulock: I shall go through the papers with my hon. friend and get the benefit of his advice.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Might I_ ask the minister what has been done with" reference to rural free delivery in our country. I am satisfied that the hon. gentleman is aware that rural free delivery in the United States is wonderfully successful. It has become so through continued efforts and I should like to know what has been done in this country.


William Mulock: I do not know what my hon. friend means when he says that rural delivery in the United States has been successful. It may be that there is no difficulty in delivering the mail matter but there are more things than the mere delivery of mail matter required in order to make a system a success. The United States people were rather dragooned into the establishment of rural mail delivery and it has rafted very serious problems in the United States. 1 venture to say that in the very .near future there will be a feeling in the United States that they were rather rash in rushing into that system. In fact that feeling has already arisen. My own opinion is that Canada is not ripe for the establishment of rural mail delivery at the present time. It is only a few years since the United States entered that scheme.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How were the United States dragooned into this system ?


William Mulock: It is only a few years since the United States started that system and now the expenditure has risen to about $12,000,000 and is going in the near future to be many times that amount. For some time the officers throughout the country engaged in working the system represented it as a huge success, and succeeded in having those views certified to in the official reports of the Postmaster Gen: eral of the United States. I think that more

recent information has shown that there were many inaccuracies in the returns made to the Postmaster General of the United States and that the system has not been that success which those who were engaged in developing it and who profited by its development represented.
Nevertheless, it has acquired a footing today throughout the United States. Practically every candidate for congress pledges himself to get rural delivery in his constituency, and when the successful ones meet at Washington they are all engaged in demanding rural delivery. The unfortunate administration is evidently at its wits end to know what to do with this monster that has been raised up, and has apparently no way of controlling the thing. I believe that those who are concerned with the affairs of the government at Washington find a serious condition of affairs growing up in the United States in reference to rural delivery. Moreover, there is evidence that in many parts of the country it is not now as popular as it was originally. It sounds very taking to say that a man is going to have his mail brought to his farm gate, but when you come to work it out there is another side to the picture. For example, supposing a mail route commences half a mile from the village or town, goes ten miles into the country in one direction, crosses a concession, goes down in another direction and covers a distance of twenty-five miles. The courier commences at one end and terminates his journey at the other. He starts off at a reasonable hour, about the time that those who are nearest to the town could have gone to the post office and got their mail. Those at the commencement of the route are all right, but those situated farther along the route do not get their mail until perhaps late in the night. Many who go to the post office once or twice in the day or in the week, as the mails come in, find themselves inconvenienced when their letters are taken off by the courier, thus showing that the inconvenience to one man off-sets the advantage to another. The question of rural delivery in a country of the vast size of the United States is giving serious concern to the public men of that enormously wealthy country. Imagine the Post Office Department undertaking to serve the people of this young country, with an area equal to that of the United States, in the same way as is done in smaller countries, such as England and in Europe. Fancy the establishment of a rural delivery system within an area the size of all Europe. That is what is involved in proposing to adopt rural delivery in Canada, and the first step of the Postmaster General would be to ask the House to vote $5,000,000 or $10,000,000, perhaps not the first year, but in a very short time. The first year perhaps $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 would be sufficient, bat it would go on so that in five years the Postmaster General would have to ask the House Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
to give $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 to establish rural delivery. Parliament would not be in favour of voting that sum of money. I doubt if the country could afford that amount of money. It might be that in a few years we would be called upon to vote an item of probably not less than $25,000,-
000.	The figures are alarming and disturbing, and therefore I do not think the country is prepared to adopt this system at the present moment.


Adam Carr Bell: How much did the hon. gentleman say ?


William Mulock: In a few years the cost might be $25,000,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the total vote now ?


William Mulock: $4,500,000. I think the amount the United States congress voted last year was $12,000,000 and odd. To show you how they have miscalculated, their figures were based on the theory that a courier could be found to carry these mails on a route from 20 to 25 miles in length, supply his own horse and vehicle, and do it for $500 a year. Their figures are based on $500 to each man. The couriers said, after they got the system started, that they could not afford to carry on the system at that rate, and they wanted an increase. But they had to deal with a man who is even more hard-hearted than the Postmaster General of Canada, and they were denied the increase. Thereupon they undertook to supplement their salaries by .carrying merchandise and doing an express and passenger traffic. Then persons engaged in the express and pa'ssenger traffic protested against this, and the authorities, in the endeavour to prevent the carriage of passengers and express parcels, granted the request of the couriers and raised their fees from $500 to $750 a year. Immediately a dislocation of their calculations by 50 per cent took place. Now, the couriers are not satisfied and they are agitating to have their salary increased to $1,000 a year. If this demand is granted, the calculations upon which they based the whole proposal originally given to congress will be upset to the extent of 100 per cent. They have taken hold of a problem which is alarming, and one which no prudent government would think of adopting in Canada at the present time. My deputy Informs me that the vote they are asking this year from congress is $17,000,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They started with a vote of how much ?


William Mulock: Less than


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. Postmaster General, in reply to a statement made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) this afternoon, said that in the Montreal post office letter-carriers are not required

to work more than eight hours a day, and that if they do work more than eight hours the extra time is allowed on the following day or on some succeeding day. Is that correct 1


William Mulock: That is correct.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the same rule apply in Toronto ?


William Pate Mulock: The letter-carriers in Toronto, I am told, do not do any extra work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many hours do they work ?


William Pate Mulock: Eight hours.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If they work more than eight hours, what then ?


William Pate Mulock: My deputy informs me that the question has never arisen. Eight hours is the time. Until a recent date there was no limit to the hours of their service ; they were required to work as long as there was work to do, whether it was nine or ten hours a day. I thought it was only right to fix a limit to a day's work, and I have fixed eight hours as the extent of a day's work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What does a day's work include ?


William Mulock: A day's work means the eight hours that they are on duty.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Sorting letters and all that ?


William Mulock: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand they work eight hours a day, and if they are obliged to work a longer period they will be allowed that time or get paid for it ?


William Mulock: Yes. The question has not arisen in Toronto, because they are not required to work over eight hours. They are paid by the day and if the men were called upon to do any extra work exceeding eight hours, that time would be credited to them in the near future.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am glad to hear that.


William Mulock: The aim is to have eight hour service.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is no doubt about it that if they work more than eight hours they will be allowed the time, or get extra pay for it ?


William Mulock: That is the spirit in which we are dealing with it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And that rule will be carried out in the spirit in which the minister has presented it to us ?


William Mulock: Yes. In a service like the post office it is of course impossible to adhere to fixed hours at all times.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The working time of these men is limited to eight hours per day ?


William Mulock: These are my instructions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is the rule now ?


William Mulock: That is the rule.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And if there is any violation of that rule the minister will see that the men are compensated, or allowed time ?


William Mulock: It will be compensation if they are allowed time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many letter-carriers have accepted the new scheme which the minister has evolved, and abandoned the old plan under which they entered the service ?


William Mulock: Under the extension of time granted by parliament last year, sixty-eight letter-carriers throughout the Dominion came in.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many declined to come in ?


William Mulock: It is not a matter of declining ; it is an option. I will bring down the information to the hon. gentleman with reference to the city of Toronto, and if he wishes in regard to the rest of Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It would be interesting to know that.
-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to state the precise information he needs, and I will have it furnished ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am much obliged to the Postmaster General. There were some superior officers of the department going around amongst these men and pointing out that they should come in


William Mulock: That is a mistake.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister may not be personally aware of it, but it is a fact all the same. If these men prefer to remain under the old system they should be allowed to do so. Might I ask the minister if any petitions have been received by him from the men who are in this new scheme, as well as from the old men, for an increased wage, and what was done with the request ?


William Mulock: My hon friend is entirely in error in supposing that there is the slightest pressure on the part of the government, the Postmaster General or any officer, to induce any letter-carriers to avail themselves of this privilege. I told the hon. gentleman so last-session ; I tell him so again and he ought be assured. This is a

measure that some people would think for the advantage of the letter-carriers, and it is entirely in their discretion to avail of it or not. It is no great advantage to the government to have to pay a letter-carrier $125 more than he is now drawing. I am not gaining anything by his coming under the system ; it was designed for their benefit and while some have stood out others have come to the conclusion that it is to their benefit to come in.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Quite a number do not see it in that light.


William Mulock: They may not, and it is not necessary that they should see it in that light, so far as we are concerned. Some of them are now asking to avail of the privilege. My bon. friend does an injustice to some of the officers in the Toronto post office, when he suggests that any of them are busying themselves to advise the letter-carriers. I am aware, that there are some people engaged in always trying to make mischief amongst the letter-carriers in the city of Toronto, and misleading them and making them feel they are down-trodden and abused. I heard this story that someone was endeavouring to coerce them, and I made it my business to make inquiries myself, and I went to the city post office. I called upon the chief superintendent, Mr. Lemon-I do not know that I need mention names. I asked him if he were aware of any person trying to induce the letter-carriers to come in under the new system, and he said : no ; that many of them had come in under it and that others were considering it, and that some who did not come in Were seeking advice as to what was in their interests and they had asked some other officials to give them advice. I asked him the name of any persons who had been giving him opinions, and he gave me the name of a very worthy officer in the post office who had. been consulted by some of the letter-carriers and to whom he gave his opinion. I sent for that gentleman and asked him to explain to me what occurred and he said that some of the letter-carriers asked him his opinion and he felt it his duty to tell them frankly that if he were in their position he would consider the Act an advantage to him and he would avail himself of its privilege. That is the extent to which he gave them advice, and he gave it to them at their request. It was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether they acted upon it or not. Some of them have asked to have an Act now passed extending the time so that they may come in under it. They are intelligent men, but it is just a question to my mind whether or not we should again open the Act and let them in. Some of them have been wanting me to do it, and I am inclined to do it, but I have not reached a conclusion. I am informed that there are requests from eighteen letter-carriers in Toronto arid from twenty-two in Montreal asking that the Act be amended Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
so as to enable them to avail themselves of the privilege.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the document containing these requests a confidential one ?


William Mulock: I should not think so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the minister bring it down when he is bringing the balance of the correspondence ?


William Mulock: Yes. I shall do so on my supplementaries.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understood the minister to say that he would bring it down tomorrow ?


William Mulock: I expect to get through these estimates to-night.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of course, I do not know about that.


William Mulock: Well, I think it is only reasonable, and there will be sup-plementataries.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister will bear testimony to the fact that I have been assisting him all evening to get his estimates through.


William Mulock: I would like v to be saved from such assistance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the minister received any memorials for increased remuneration from those letter-carriers who are in this new scheme ?


William Mulock: I really do not know ; certainly I would not grant it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman bring down that correspondence along with the other communications he received, and the replies he sent to these communications ?


William Mulock: I do not remember whether there is any correspondence on that point or not. If there are any applications I will bring them down ; I will bring the whole Post Office Department down.


Adam Carr Bell: There is a large item, amounting to about $30,000, for the supply and repair of mail bags. Is that work done by contract ?
Sir WILLIAM MUiLOCK. The mail bags are manufactured under contract. The contractor is a man named Carson, on Rideau street. The contract is for four years.
Mr. BEiLL. How are the repairs effected ?


William Mulock: An allowance per bag is made. Some bags are damaged more than others, and the allowance has to be averaged.


Mr. BOYD.: Has the Postmaster General received a petition from the railway mail clerks of Manitoba and the Territories, ask-

ing for an increase in their allowances ?
I have a copy of a petition which I understand was presented to him. These men claim that increases have been made to postmasters and others, and they think they are entitled to some consideration in that respect. They are a body of men scattered all over Manitoba and the Territories, and possibly they have not the influence that others may have; but they are a most important body, and take the greatest risks in regard to their lives. Their petition, I think, should receive the earnest consideration of the minister. I would like to ask him what he has to say in regard to it ?


William Mulock: My deputy informs me that no such petition has been deceived.


Nathaniel Boyd: I have received a letter, dated Winnipeg, January 15, 1904, which says that at a largely attended meeting of the railway mall clerks it was unanimously decided to petition the Postmaster General for an increase. It is not very likely that such a letter would be sent to me if the petition had not been forwarded. I think the memory of the deputy minister is at fault.


William Mulock: I have not only the evidence of the deputy, but that of the controller also. If such a petition had been received by the department, the secretary would have at once transmitted it to the controller. I certainly am not prepared to increase the allowances to the railway mail clerks at the present time. They are liberally treated, and they fully appreciate it. Some busybody amongst them may have agitated for something more, but I am not prepared to yield to demands of that kind at the present time.


Nathaniel Boyd: I do not know who these people may be, but here is the letter.' I have not busied myself about the matter at all.


William Mulock: I do not allude to the hon. gentleman.


Nathaniel Boyd: The railway mail clerks will know now what the answer of the minister . is if they have not received it before. It is strange that this should be sent to me and no petition forwarded to the minister. I had probably better read the letter, so that it will go on ' Hansard ' :
Winnipeg, Man., Jan. 15, 1904.
Sir,-At a largely attended meeting of the Railway Mail Clerks Association of the Manitoba and Northwest Territories district, it was unanimously decided to petition the honourable the Postmaster General asking that he be pleased to increase the provisional allowance of the railway mail clerks of this district from 510 or 10 per cent as now given, to $15' per month.
As you are well aware, no doubt, the increase in the cost of living in this country has been very marked in the last year or two,
so much so, that the clerks feel justified in asking for this increase.
The honourable the Postmaster General has been pleased to grant a like increase to the clerks in city post offices in Manitoba and British Columbia, and the railway mail clerks consider that if the post office clerks are entitled to an increased allowance, they are equally, if not more so, to the same increase owing to the greater cost of living on account of being absent from their homes so much.
We are taking the liberty of asking all the members of parliament in our district to give us their aid and support in this matter and trust that you may be pleased to use your influence with the Postmaster General in our behalf.
We are, sir,
Your humble servants,
The Railway Mail Clerks Association,
Manitoba and N.W.T. district.
J. G. NORRIS,	CHAS. A. HISLOP,
President.	Secretary.


William Mulock: The reason I am not prepared to accede to any demands of the railway mail clerks at the present time is this. Last year parliament passed an Act very greatly benefiting the state of the railway mail clerks, and they fully understand and appreciate it. At the present time a railway mail clerk in Manitoba or the Northwest can go up to $1,200 a year, his mileage averages $500 a year, and he gets, in addition, an extra allowance of $120 a year, so that when he reaches the maximum he receives about $1,800 a year. The taxpayers have something to say on these questions, and I am not prepared to encourage every unreasonable demand for an increase. If it were shown that the men were not fairly remunerated, that would be another matter. The railway mail clerks are well remunerated, and they are I trust satisfied. There was one man who was a busybody, and made himself officious in trying to induce them to make further demands ; but he was repudiated by the well-thinking men some of whom published in the press their repudiation of his agitation. He came down here and called on me, and I pointed but to him what I thought was the unwise part he was playing. There was no desire on the part of the great body of the mail clerks for what he was trying to force upon them, and, in view of what had been done for them, his agitation for a further increase was very unseemly. I dare say he may have met some of these people and tried to organize them to pass some such resolution, and that letter was sent to my hon. friend ; but, on reflection, they may have thought better of it. At any rate, their views on that occasion were never communicated to the department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the minister not called in the services of the fair-wage offi-j cer to settle disputes of this kind ?


William Mulock: I have the parliament of Canada to aid me in that matter,.

and X think we may depend on parliament being as wise as the fair-wage officer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then the services of that officer have not been called in ?
Sir t\ 1LLIAM MULOCK. I do not think parliament appointed him the adviser of this House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I thought he might advise the hon. gentleman as to the rate of wages. Might I ask the Postmaster General what became of those automobiles which we used to see touring the streets of Toronto some years ago V


William Mulock: Some are worn out and some are still in use.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are they abandoned altogether ?


William Mulock: We are going to abandon the system of automobiles when those in use become unfit for service.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: Supplementary estimates of this year for the Post Office Department and then the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood last week from the Prime Minister that the papers in connection with the Alaskan boundary would be brought down or possibly he may have said they were in the hands of the printer.


William Stevens Fielding: That is my recollection.


Robert Laird Borden: Several weeks ago I inquired if there would be any objection to bringing down the instructions which were given the Joint High Commissioners as to their power to negotiate, and I understood from the First Minister that there would be no objection. Would my hon. friend remind the right hon. gentleman of his promise to bring these down ?


William Stevens Fielding: I shall remind the First Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 29, 1904. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I beg to lay cu the table of the House certain papers Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
that were asked for by the hon. member '01' Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), also my letter to Colonel Whitley, which was asked for by the leader of the opposition. It is a private letter, but I have obtained the consent of Colonel Whitley to lav it on the table.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. POPE-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	What were the receipts on the government system of railways for the current year up to the 31st of May last ?
2.	What were the expenses of operation of the government system of railways for thfe current year up to the 31st of May last ?
Hon.  H. R.@: EiMMERSON ((Minister of Railways and Canals) :
1.	The receipts on the government system of railways for the current year up to the 31st of May, 1904, were $6,009,766.15.
2.	The expenses of operation on the government system of railways for the current year up to the 31st of May, 1904, were $6,665,071.26.


STANDARD PASSENGER TARIFFS.
[Stage Direction]
Mi-. MACLEAN-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	What railway companies have filed standard passenger tariffs, as required by section 264 of the Railway Act ?
2.	Is any railway charging over three cents a mile passenger rate in Ontario, Quebec, or the maritime provinces ?
3.	If so, what are these companies ?
Hon.  H. R.@: EiMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :
1.	I am informed by the Board of Railway Commissioners that the Dominion Atlantic Railway, the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon Railway, the British Yukon Railway, the Ivlondyke Mines Railway, and the Til-sonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway have filed standard passenger tariffs, as required by section 264 of the Railway Act. The board made an order, under section 311 of the Railway Act, extending the time for the filing of these tariffs until the 1st of November next.
2.	There is no record or data In the possession of, or available to, the board or the Department of Railways and Canals which will enable the department to furnish the desired information.
3.	No. 2 answers No. 3.


RATES OF PAY ON THE INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
Mr. BRUNEAU asked :: 1.	What salary Is paid per day to the day labourers who work on the Intercolonial Railway, between Metapedia and Montreal ?
2.	Has their salary been increased ?
3.	If so, when, and to what amount ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Day labourers in the mechanical department of the Intercolonial Railway between Metapedia and Montreal are paid 13 cents an hour. Day labourers in the stores' department at Drummondville, Hadlow, Levis, St. Charles and Riviere du Loup are paid $1.20 per day. Freight porters at Lgvis, Riviere du Loup and Chaudiere Junction are paid $1.40 per day. Porters at other stations are paid $1.30 per day and $1.35 per day. Regular line sectionmen are paid $1.40 a day. Yard sectionmen at Ste. Flavie, RiviCre du Loup and iChaudi&re Junction are paid $1.50 per day. Extra trackmen and labourers in the track department are paid $1.20 per day and $1.30 per day. Extra labourers at LSvis, Hadlow, Chaudi&re Junction and on the Drummond line are paid from $1.30 to $1.40 and $1.50 per day.
2.	Yes.
3.	The wages of day labourers in the mechanical department were 12 and 13 cents an hour ; but since January last all have been paid 13 cents an hour. Previous to October, 1900, day labourers in the stores' department at Drummondville, Hadlow, Levis and St. Charles were paid $1 per day, and at Riviere du Loup $1.05 a day. These have been increased to $1.20 per day. In May last the wages of freight porters at L&vis, Riviere du Loup and Chaudi&re Junction were increased from $1.20, $1.25 and $1.30 to $1.40 per day. The wages of porters at other stations were increased in May, 1903, from $1.20 and $1.25 to $1.30 and $1.35. The wages of regular line sectionmen were increased in November, 1903, from $1.30 to $1.40 per day. In the same month the wages of yard sectionmen were increased from $1.30 to $1.50 per day. The wages of extra trackmen and labourers in the track department were increased in October, 1900, from $1, $1.10 and $1.15 to $1.20 and some to $1.30 (since July, 1902). During February and March last the wages of the extra labourers at L&vis, Hadlow, Chaudiere Junction and on the Drummond line were increased from $1.20 and $1.30 to $1.40 and $1.50.


THE JOINT HIGH COMMISSION- PAPERS.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition some time ago asked for the instructions to the Joint High Commission. I am sorry to say that the matter escaped my attention until it was brought to my attention this morning by the Minister of Finance. I beg to lay on the table now, protocol of the conferences at Washington in May, 1898, preliminary to the appointment of a joint commission for the adjustment of questions at issue between the United States and Great Britain in respect to the relations of the former with the Dominion of Canada.


DOMINION DAY ADJOURNMENT.
Adam Carr Bell: Is it the intention to adjourn to-morrow at six or sit up to later ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: That is a question as to which the government is in the hands of the House. If we could make reasonable progress, we might be induced to adjourn at six.


Adam Carr Bell: We made very good progress last night.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: Yes, aud if my hon. friends are in the same frame of mind, I do not know but that we might adjourn to-morrow at six.


INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
James Clancy: Would the Prime Minister be able to say now when the correspondence in relation to the seizure of binder twine will be brought down ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and after my hon. friend put the question on a previous occasion, I wrote the department, and I understood that the papers were being prepared and would be brought down at an early day. I shall mention the matter again to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


TREADGOLD CONCESSION.
Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN.: Is the rumour circulated iu the press as to the cancellation of the Treadgold Concesion well founded ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: It is.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That is one result of our efforts last session.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, If it pleases my hon. friend, he may think so.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the right hon. gentleman have a copy of the Order iu Council put on the table ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I cannot see any objection and will state the request to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior.



SUPPLY-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS WITHHELD FROM PARLIAMENT.

[Stage Direction]
f
['I think that is the way the matter will eventuate, but I would prefer the Prime Minister to make the statement when the House opens.']
Hon.   AY@: 8. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go iuto Committee of Supply.


John Graham Haggart: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the following resolution :-
That this House regrets that the government has seem tit to withhold from parliament documents of a public character to which parliament was entitled for the proper consideration of -the matters to which such documents relate.

In support of this resolution, it may be necessary for me to deal with several questions which have come before this House within the last couple of years. The first matter with which I shall deal, is a certain memorandum prepared last session by a gentleman who was then a member of the cabinet, but which was not given to parliament on the plea that it was a confidential document intended for the sole information Of the government. A question then had come up, perhaps the most important this country has had to deal with for many years, the question of building a railway from the Pacific to the Atlantic. One of the members of the cabinet at the time differed from his colleagues with regard to the policy which ought to be adopted on that question. He prepared a document in which he set forth his views and gave that document to his colleagues. That document his colleagues treated as confidential, solely intended for themselves. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when a minister of the Crown designs office because he cannot agree with his colleagues, on a question of policy this House is entitled to everything of a documentary character relating to that resignation. But my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, speaking on behalf of the government, took an entirely different view. He said that the document, in which his former colleague had stated his reasons for resigning, was confidential, intended only for the members of the government, and that any one who would make use of it so long as the seal of confidence was not removed, was just as guilty as the receiver of stolen goods. You all know the reference which the hon. gentleman then made to my . hon. friend the leader of the opposition. 1 hope that the Finance Minister has learned better since then. I hope he has learned that a document of that kind-no matter what term you may apply to it, private or secret or anything else-is one which the people are entitled to have and which the government were bound to disclose to the people, irrespective of the consent of the sender. In a matter of that kind, the resignation of a minister of the Crown, the people have the right to be put in possession of all the reasons which led him to leave the cabinet. To speak of such a document as confidential is an abuse of the term. Why, Mr. Speaker, take any document which goes to the Privy Council and is printed solely for the members of that council, no matter whether the word * confidential ' be written on it or not, the secretary of the Privy Council marks it ' confidential ' before sending it down to the printer, and that is done simply because there is a staff in that office, one of whose duties is to see that nothing leaks out of a confidential nature, and this precaution is simply taken in order to make sure that nothing will get to the public which ought not to be disclosed. The document in question, which was sent to Mr. HAGGART.
tlie council by the minister who had resigned, and which contained his reasons for resigning, we are told forsooth had to be treated as confidential. Sir, it never was so treated. The evidence produced by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, when he discussed the matter before the House, proved conclusively that other parties had seen that document besides the members of the Privy Council-other parties who are supporters of the right hon. gentleman and his government. We had in the argument of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) the ipsissima verba of the communication which was treated by the government as confidential. However, I shall deal again with that matter in my summing up.
The next document of any importance which was kept back front the House was the most peculiar one I have read for a long time, and I may be pardoned if I dwell a little upon it. This is the document. The letter is headed ' confidential, ' and begins as follows
Montreal, Que., Nov. 3rd, 1902. To the Right Honourable
Sir Wilfrid Daurier, G.C.M.G., P.C.,
Premier of the Dominion of Canada, Ottawa, Onr.
Sir,-Yiour petitioners desire to memorialize your government

Hon. gentlemen will notice the peculiarity of this beginning. These gentlemen who are administering the affairs of the government assume powers belonging to the Governor General, Every petition relating to the government should be addressed', to the Governor General ; and this petition shows that it is intended to he a petition to His Excellency and is sent for the consideration of his government.
-memorialize your government in regard to the construction of a first-class line of railway

And so on. And it urges the desirability of this construction. And it proceeds :
2nd. That your petitioners propose, as soon as authorized by your government

	[DOT]
Fancy a petition addressed to the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier in which the petitioners say that they propose to do certain things as soon as authorized by ' your ' government.
-'bo undertake the construction of a line from North Bay, Ontario for some other point north thereof, to be defined)

And so on.
3rd. That your petitioners, therefore, ask that their application for authority to construct such a line of railway, to be called the ' Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ' shall be granted.
4th. That your petitioners will be prepared immediately an agreement, is entered into by the government

*5767

tieman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the same distinction as that which exists between the Commander in Chief in England and the Secretary of State for War. Every one who has studied constitutional history krnrws that before 1800 all power was vested in the King, as Commander in Chief, of distributing the militia, of seeing to its efficiency, of its control and equipment, of its sanitary arrangements, of providing barracks, providing ammunition, and everything pertaining to the militia force. All of that was in the hands of the King. Shortly before 1800, I believe, in 1799, the King divested himself of those powers and gave them to the Commander in Chief. From then up to 3870 there was a dual power in England. The civil portion of the military administration was managed by the Secretary of State for War, and the military department, including the equipment, discipline, and distribution of the forces, was left in the hands of the Commander in Chief.. The Commander in Chief of the army in Canada has the same power as was possessed by the Commander in Chief in England at that date. The right hon. gentleman quotes Todd ill support of his contention. He is perfectly right, but the error into which the Minister of Militia-I shall not say that the right hon. gentleman fell into it-is this [DOT] he quoted some remarks of Loid Cardwell and some others as to the power above the military authorities. He forgot to say that by the Act of 1870 in England, the powers of the military were circumscribed and fixed at what they are at present, while there has been no alteration in our statute circumscribing the powers of the Commander in Chief. The Commander in Chief then had a right to report, and had a right to have a policy. No question of supremacy between the civil and military power is involved. Why should such a question arise ? The people of this country have all the power they like , they can abolish the military altogether, and have no colonels, generals or anything else, but they chose to pass an Act of parliament which gives to the Commander in Chief certain powers and assigns certain powers to the Minister of Militia. The Commander m Chief was well within his powers when he made a report to his minister and when he assumed the sole direction and control of the appointment of officers to the militia, its discipline and everything pertaining to it. The Minister of Militia says that the powers of the Commander in Chief are subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council. His powers are not subject to the approval of the minister at all. The minister has no powers given him under the constitution or statute to interfere in any manner. When a General Officer Commanding makes a report to a Minister of the Crown, the General Officer of all men being in a position to judge whether the publication of that report would be injurious to the


John Graham Haggart: defence of the country and believing in fact that it would be to the benefit of the country's defence, he may justly complain at having his report suppressed by the minister. The minister refused to bring that report down to this House, to allow the House to judge between him and. the Commander in Chief as to which of them is right. What has this House descended to ? It is worse than the description given by the right hon. leader of the government, of the downward trend of the Conservative party ; it has gone down, down, down. There is no longer a consultative body. It is no use submitting anything to parliament with such a government as we now have. If a petition is addressed to parliament for the purpose of righting a wrong, for the purpose of getting anv benefit such for instance, as the building of a railway or a wharf, it is not neces-sarv now to go to the fountain head for the initiation of the distribution of favours. The whole power is vested m the right hon. gen tieman who leads the government We have had an example of this in the petition of the
Grand Trunk Railway.
However, in reference to the powers of the Commander in Chief let me read the authorities upon the subject. This is from the ' Law and Custom of the Constitution by Anson.
In 1854


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: These are the whole duties of the minister.


Frederick William Borden: Hear. hear.


John Graham Haggart: The whole of the power of the Minister of Militia, because our Act was passed and as Todd says, although there is no such limitation as Is here stated, the King is made Commander in Chief of the army under the statute, the Governor General is made Commander in Chief under him, the duties of the Commander in Chief are assigned to him and the duties of the Minister of Militia are also enumerated. Upon that point let me tell the Minister of Militia to what the statute limits his duties.

There shall be a Minister of Militia and Defence who shall be charged with and be responsible for the administration of militia affairs, including all matters involving expenditure, and of the fortifications, gunboats, ordnance, ammunition, arms, armouries, stores, munitions and habilliments of war belonging to Canada.
The Minister of Militia and Defence shall have the initiative in all militia affairs involving the expenditure of money.


Frederick William Borden: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the last few words ' involving the expenditure of money ' limits the powers of the Minister of Militia to the control of matters involving the expenditure of money or with regard to the expenditure of money ?


John Graham Haggart: It is as plain as the English language can make it that you have no power except the initiative in all military affairs, involving the expenditure of money. It cannot be made plainer ; the words of the statute are as plain as it is possible to make them.
The Governor in Council shall, from time to time, make such orders as are necessary respecting the duties to be performed by the Minister of Militia and Defence.
Here is another clause :
The Minister of Militia and Defence shall have the control and management and shall be charged with the maintenance and repair of military buildings, forts and fortifications.
Now I will read the powers of the Commander in Chief.
There shall be appointed an ofiicer who holds the rank of colonel or a rank superior thereto in Her Maiesty's regular army, who shall be charged, under the orders of Her Majesty, with the military command and discipline of the militia, and who, while he holds such appointment, shall have the rank of major general in the militia.
His other powers are defined by the regulations which were passed on the 29th October, 1903, and which are as follows :
1. The General Ofiicer Commanding shall be charged with the military command and discipline of the militia, shall issue general orders and hold periodical inspection of the militia
He shall be the principal adviser of the Minister of Militia and Defence on all military questions and shall be charged with the control of the branches of the adjutant general, the director general of military intelligence and military secretary, and the general supervision of the other military branches.
He shall be charged with the general distribution and localization of the militia, and with the selection and proposal to the Minister of Militia and Defence of fit and proper persons to be recommended for commissions in the militia, of fit and proper officers for promotion, for staff and other military appointments, and for military honours and rewards.
He shall be charged with the preparation and maintenance of plans for defence and for the organization and mobilization of the militia.
183 j
These are his powers as defined under the heading of ' Distribution of Duties.' I doubt very much if any regulation can limit the powers given under the statute. His powers are defined by the statute, and any regulations passed must be in line with the statute and simply for the purpose of elucidating his powers. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence and the right hon. Prime Minister fell into an error in regard to the position of the Commander in Chief. The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence read some remarks of the right hon. Lord Cardwell in reference to the powers of the Secretary of State for War in relation to the Commander in Chief of the forces, and who was quoted as stating that the powers of the Commander in Chief and of all officers holding commissions in the army were subservient to the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary of State who was at the time in control of the army.
That is perfectly true in regard to the army in England at the present day, but the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence and the right hon. Prime Minister were in error in assertion that that is the law in this country ai the present time. We have passed no such Act in this country as that which the British parliament passed in 1870. We have passed no Act limiting the powers of the Crown as to the command of the forces, or the powers of the Commander in Chief or altering the powers of the Minister of Militia and Defence. In England the civil power took control of the military power. We have not conceded anything in that direction in this country. The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence also quoted some observations by the right hon. IL. C. Childers who in 1870 was speaking in reference to an Act which had been passed some years before but whose remarks had no bearing on the situation in this country because we had not altered or amended our Act in this regard in Canada. We are in a position to alter or amend the Militia Act at any time. The people of Canada have all the necessary powers to do away with the militia altogether and discharge all the officers. The governing powers in this country are limited by the statute which we have passed. The Minister of Militia has his duties, the Commander in Chief has his duties and the Commander in Chief has the right to have a policy, has the right to make a report to the Minister of Militia and to this House and when he states that that report is intended for publication and invites honest criticism of it by the electors of the country its publication will surely tend more to the accomplishment of the object in view, the improvement of the defences of the country, than the suppression of the report which the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence says contemplates a scheme of defence which ought to be kept secret. Who is to judge of that ? The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence who has only a know-

ledge of civil affairs and who is the civil head of the department. Is the soldier who has passed all his life in learning what is necessary for the defence of the country not to he allowed to judge as to whether it should be published or not, or as to whether it should be secret or not ? The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence as the civil head of the department, refuses to let the people of this country judge as to who is right or who is wrong or as to what are the best means to adopt to improve the defences of the country. Has the parliament of Canada sunk to such a position that we are to be governed by the Governor in Council with secret and confidential communications ? Are we not to have these documents ? The principle is laid down as clearly as possible as to what is a private and confidential paper and I intend to deal with that question in a short time. Is it a private and confidential document that the Commander in Chief sends to his minister with the request to publish it .' Is the minister to be the sole judge of that ? Is the minister to be superior to the military authority in reference to that particular part of it ? Unfortunately the statute does not make the minister superior. The Governor General is superior, the Governor General may refuse to publish it but the minister has no power to suppress a report of that kind. Even upon consulting council the Governor General may refuse to carry out the wishes of the minister. The question arose the other day as to what authority is necessary to bring the subject for discussion before the Privy Council, as to whether it is necessary at all or not to have the signature of the minister. If the minister is absent from the town I do not think it is necessary that another minister shall act for him because I believe the deputy head may do it. Authority is very seldom given by Order in Council to a minister to act for another minister. I never knew of it. It may be done,but I doubt very much if it is ever done. I think under the powers of appointing a deputy head, and the Commander in Chief may come within that category, he is given the power, in the absence of his minister to communicate directly with council in reference to any matter. The question I am coming to is this : The Commander in Chief makes a report. The minister states, for reasons which he thinks are best in the interest of the country, that the report should be suppressed. There is never a reason assigned except that a portion of the scheme of defence proposed by the Commander in Chief differed from the scheme of defence proposed by a commission of defence which was appointed some time ago.
If I understood the minister right, there was another proposition for defence submitted to him by a former General Officer Commanding, so that virtually he had three such plans before him. I can understand


John Graham Haggart: that the Defence Commission suggested the building of fortifications in certain portions of the country, and that they drew the attention of the government to the fact that certain parts of Canada were vulnerable ; that it would require so many men for defence and so on. Such information as that is of a secret and confidential character which should not be published, and whenever it is in the interests of the country that communications of that kind should be kept secret, the parliament of Canada never insists upon their publication. But, Sir, is the communication by Mr. Blair to his colleagues ' confidential ' ? is the petition of the Grand Trunk Railway Company for a subsidy to build a railroad a confidential document ? is the report of Lord Dundonald which he asks his minister to make public, a secret or confidential document ? No, Sir, these documents belong to the tax-payers of Canada. The principle that underlies secret and confidential documents is : no document from a public official to another public official shall be considered private and confidential, except under certain circumstances. The British ambassador representing the Court of St. James at St. Petersburg, or at any other foreign court communicates to his minister in the ordinary way an official report which is made public ; but these ambassadors also send secret and confidential reports which are not divulged. The reason is that if these latter were made public the representatives of Great Britain could not get the information which they contain. Time is often an essence in the quality of secretness ; a document which may be secret to-day may to-morrow be published without any breach of etiquette or confidence. The Governor General here communicates to the home authorities, and he no doubt also sends communications to the Secretary of the Colonies in which he writes private and confidential memoranda ; perhaps a description of the right hon. gentleman and his ability to govern this country, or a reference to the Minister of Finance, or to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sure he gives for the information of the home authorities his opinion upon all those gentlemen. To say the least, it would be inconvenient to publish in this connection what are rightfully and properly secret and confidential documents. When motions have been made in the parliament of Great Britain to produce confidential documents there never has been a denial that such papers existed ; it is admitted that such documents are in the possession of the government, but it is stated that they are private and confidential and cannot be brought down. And, Sir, if the motion were for papers, or extracts from papers, which could be brought down without doing injury to private individuals who furnished the information, or without affording com-

fort to the enemies of the nation, such a motion is always complied with. But in Canada all you have to do is to mark ' private ' and ' confidential ' upon a piece of paper, and then it suits the government to say it is secret. The document itself is an evidence as to whether it is private or confidential. In England, documents which have been marked ' secret,' * private ' or ' confidential ' in reference to certain transactions, have been put upon the table of the Imperial House of Commons without the consent of the sender. No man has a right to send a document referring to the public business of the country to any minister, or to any public official and mark it ' private and confidential ' expecting that it shall be treated as such if the minister and the government think differently. The receiver of such a document	has the right	todecide whether in	the	interests	of	thecountry it should	or	should	not	begiven to the public. In the Post Office Department	for	instance,	an	inspector is sent around to report upon the qualifications, the honesty and the integrity of other officials, and his report to the head of the department should not be communicated to the public, because otherwise it would interfere with the proper discharge of the inspectors duty. But when a document marked ' confidential or private, bears upon its face the evidence that the public should know its contents, then the government should at once lay such a document before parliament. Again, where a letter marked ' private ' or ' confidential ' is published or made use of by a minister; and it refers to other letters also marked ' private ' or ' confidential ' the rule in Great Britain is, and it is the rule that should prevail here, that parliament is entitled to have all these letters produced. Let me quote from this published corespondence with reference to the dismissal of Lord Dundonald. Under date of May 19th, I find the following report to His Excellency the Governor In Council:
The undersigned has the honour to recommend for your Excellency's approval the attached draft of a general order containing appointments and promotions, 13th Scotch Light Dragoons, the same having been recommended by the General Officer Commanding.
Mark you ; that is dated May 19th. We have the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that that letter was put upon his desk upo-n the 20th and that he did not receive it until then. Here is the letter :
Ottawa, 1 p.m., May 19, 1904.
Dear Mr. Fisher,-As arranged with you this morning, a new list of recommendations has been made out and is now in the hands of the Deputy Minister of Militia, and I trust you will see it goes through Council to-day.
The recommendation re Dr. Pickel is in-eluded, to be dealt with by you.
The papers re quartermaster, paymaster and Mr. C. Mlltimore will go to Council later, the recommendations being in the hands of District Officer Commanding No. 6, in the case of the two former, and the latter I handed personally to the adjutant-general.
I return herein, memo, you gave me this a.m,, as you may require it.
*Will meet you at 3 p.m., at the House, as agreed.
You will notice that this letter is dated on May 19, and that on May 19 at 3 o'clock he is to meet his minister at the House of Commons. The afternoon train for Montreal starts, I suppose, at 4.10. Colonel Smart goes to Montreal that afternoon, ar-. riving there, I suppose, at 7 o'clock. Fortunately he is able to meet Colonel Whitley there. They telephone to Dr. Pickel the same evening and get his consent to withdraw from this regiment. The consent is sent In a letter, which reaches Mr. Fisher before the document was placed on his desk which he says was sent to him on the 19th and did not reach him until the 20th. He is enabled then to go to Council with the consent of Dr. Pickel to have his name removed. What are the facts ? The Minister of Agriculture admits that on the 19th he met Colonel Smart and that Colonel Smart consented to the withdrawal of Dr. Pickel. He started that evening by train for Montreal, and by a lot of fortuitous circumstances he met Colonel Whitley. The presumption is that he telegraphed to Colonel Whitley to meet him on his arrival. They telephoned to Dr. Pickel to get his consent, they wrote a letter that night and it reached the minister the next morning, to assist the minister in passing the Order in Council. To say the least of it, the agility displayed by the Minister of Agriculture, and the smartness, quickness and celerity ot h'is motions, fully fit him for an office in the light cavalry of the 13th Dragoons.


Frederick William Borden: Clolonel Smart was helping him, so that there was a good deal of smartness about it.


John Graham Haggart: Look at the gravity of the whole affair. The Commander in Chief signed an order on the 18th. The minister sends it back to him and says the whole list is passed except that part of it which refers to the 13th Dragoons. He is asked to make out another. He signs another on the 19th. Poor, innocent Commander in Chief-he thought he had the authority of the minister behind him ; at least he says so. He thought his minister was a consenting party to it. In the meantime Colonel Smart is up here on a visit to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he conspiring with the Commander in Chief for the purpose of getting a change in the officers of the 13thj Light Dragoons .7 No, he conspires with the Minister of Agriculture. He promises to

get authority from Dr. Pickel to remove 'his name ; he goes down to Montreal and gets Dr. Pickel's consent. Consider the whole matter. The Minister of Militia found fault with Colonel Waugh, the commander of the district. He is the only officer besides the Commander 'in Chief who comes respectably out of this affair. Fancy an officer under the Commander in Chief sending a recommendation to him and then coming up to the Minister of Agriculture for the purpose of arranging a different set of officers. Where is there an officer or a gentleman worthy of the name who would consent to any such actions as that-two of his inferior officers conspiring with a man who had no business at all to take any part in the matter, but who was the actual power in tjiie country, for the purpose of changing his recommendations without his knowledge. A more disgraceful affair never occurred in military matters, except the one we mentioned.here the other day with reference to Colonel Gregory. Colonel Gregory an officer of the force, comes down and! sees the Commander in Chief and gets his consent to the extension of his term for a couple of years. He speaks to him with regard to the appointment of Major Glasgow. The Commander in Chief agrees with him in reference to Major Glasgow not having the qualifications at the time, but that he may get the qualifications and get tthe appointment-an officer sent from where ? Colonel Otter, the officer commanding the district, is sent to Colonel Gregory and tells him : For your own peace and in the interest of the regiment you ought to appoint Major Glasgow to the position. Colonel Gregory alleges that he had Colonel Otter's statement that Major Glasgow was not qualified and that he ought not to appoint him. Colonel Gregory could not understand it. He said:	Why, I have been talking to the
Commander in Chief, and he says my time shall be extended for two years ; and he approves of my conduct with reference to the appointment of the major. But I have been, says Colonel Otter, in communication with a party who has more power than the Commander in Chief. Fancy an officer commanding a district doing that.


Frederick William Borden: Will my hon. friend give the evidence of that ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes. I saw the published statement of Colonel Gregory.


Frederick William Borden: Oh.


John Graham Haggart: Do you deny it ?


Frederick William Borden: The published statement that Colonel Otter made use of in the remarks you say ?


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: You are both talking at once. We cannot hear you,


John Graham Haggart: 


Frederick William Borden: I was not talking to the hon. gentleman. I was talking to his superior.


Samuel Hughes: I want to tell the minister that he is talking to the House of Commons, not to any individual. I do not want any of his impudence.


Frederick William Borden: I know that my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) does not wish to misrepresent. I do not believe that Colonel Otter could have made any such statement. I would like to see the evidence of it.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the government a question ? As Colonel Gregory's case will undoubtedly be discussed in the House of Commons before the end of this session, and as the government has the power to put on the table of this House all the correspondence between Colonel Otter and Colonel Gregory as well as between the department and those officers, will the government at the earliest possible moment see that that correspondence is placed on the table of the House ?


Frederick William Borden: There is no objection to that whatever.


Samuel Hughes: And might I ask further that all verbal or oral directions given to Colonel Otter by the Minister of Militia be placed on the table ?


Frederick William Borden: They were not taken down by phonograph, so far as I know.


John Graham Haggart: All I can say is that these are the statements in the letter purported to have been written by Colonel Gregory. I hope they are not true. I hope, for the honour of the militia officers of this country, that no militia officer would ever be found to have done what is alleged to have been done by these gentlemen with reference to their Commander in Chief. Sir, there is no superior military officer in this country to the Commander in Chief. Those regulations regarding public letters and public criticisms of superior officers, which were read in the House the other day, are regulations of military discipline which apply to the relations of military men among themselves, and have nothing to do with the civil service of the country. There is no civil servant in this country who outranks any military officer, because each branch is separate and distinct from the other, and there is no military officer who is bound by the regulations of the civil service. But just fancy two officers wearing His Majesty's uniform-one commanding a district, Colonel Whitley, and the other expecting to command a cavalry corps-coming to the Minister of Agriculture and making arrangements with him-without the knowledge and behind the back of the Com-

577S
mander in Chief-for the appointing of officers to the force. No gentleman occupying the position of Commander in Chief would submit to any such slight. He would not be fit for the position if he did not take the first opportunity to resent it. And what .are we to think of the conduct Of the Minister of Agriculture ? I am not denying him the right to advise his colleague the Minister of Militia regarding the appointments in any manner he likes. I am not denying his right to discuss these appointments in Council in any way he likes. But I am discussing the position of the Commander in Chief, who saw an important order-an order tor the formation of a cavalry corps-held up for two or three months by the Minister of Agriculture in order that he might have opportunity to use his political influence and have some two or three appointments made in that corps to suit himself. Such' a thing never occurred in this country before, and I hope never will again. 1 say let that officer be dismissed who would go to the Minister of Militia, or any other member of the government, without the knowledge of his Commander in Chief, and for the purpose of setting at naught the instructions or orders which the commander deemed necessary for the discipline and good government of this country's militia. What justification was there for the interference of the Minister of Agriculture ? The First Minister pleads that he was acquainted with that section of the country and that the Commander in Chief cught to have been glad to get his assistance. But. Sir. he never spoke to the Commander 'in Chief. He went instead to his subordinates. He hung up the ' Gazette,' and kept it hung up a couple of months, in order that he might cabal with Colonels Smart and Whitley for the purpose of having his own nominees appointed.
We have a new doctrine expounded in the Order in Council dismissing Lord Dun-donald. We have the doctrine laid down that each district in the country should be under the direction of the particular minister who hails from it. I am not denying that the minister of any department has the right to consult any one of his colleagues from any particular section of the country, which may be affected by any particular measure. But that is quite another thing from laying down the principle in an Order in Council that the minister who represents any particular district should have the control of everything affecting that district, no matter whether it has to do with his own department or not. Just see the absurdity cf the thing. Here we have the Minister of Agriculture acting likewise as Minister of Militia for the district from which he comes. He is also, no doubt, to be Minister of Public Works, and Minister of Railways, and Minister of Justice for that section of country. And in like manner every other minister in the cabinet is to be Minister of Agriculture for the particular section to which he belongs. What an anomaly ! Here is a new definition of the rights and powers of the ministers laid down in this famous Order in Council. Let us push this doctrine to its logical conclusion. A portion of Nova Scotia is represented by the Minister of Militia and another portion by the Minister of Finance. Then the Minister of Militia can only have control of his department in that particular part of Nova Scotia which he represents. In the other portion, represented by the Minister of Finance, all militia matters must come under the jurisdiction of that hon. gentleman. And so on, with every other province and district in the country. It mav be all very well for hon. gentlemen to make an argument of that kind in the House when they find themselves in a desperate strait and do not know how to escape, but to lay it down in an Order in Council is something I cannot understand.
However, let us come- down to particular facts. Here is a letter which I shall read r
Dear Colonel Whitley,-I have not had an opportunity to reply to your letters of the 14th and 15th May earlier, but yesterday I had an interview with Colonel Smart, at which I think all arrangements were satisfactorily made to push along the establishment of the 13th Hussars.
But where are the two letters of the 14th and 15th May, to which this purports to be a reply ? These the minister deliberately refused to bring down. He says that they were marked ' private ' and ' confidential," and that he sent them hack to Colonel Whitley to do with them what he pleased. We have the reply, but the hon. minister refuses to give to the House the letters which brought forth that reply. I submit that these .letters, which were written by a colonel commanding a district to a member of the government, are essentially public documents. I suppose the Commander in Chief never saw them. But, from whatever point of view they are considered, these letters must be regarded as official letters, and, that being so, the House is entitled to them. If we are refused them, the government must hear the responsibility of that refusal. On that subject let me read a remark of Mr. Disraeli, as reported at page I1S2 of the Parliamentary Debates of 1860 :
What I said was this, that no minister should lay papers on the table of the House referring to private letters without producing them, if they relate, of course, to public affairs.
This is the limitation. Here are two letters that, from the tone of the reply evidently relate to the appointment of some officers of the 13th Light Dragoons. And the government refuses to lay them on the table of the House. The rule is laid down clearly in Todd :
The rule which forbids any encroachment by parliament upon the executive authority of the Crown has a further application, to

which our attention must now be directed. It is imperative that parliament shall be duly-informed of everything that may be necessary to explairf the policy and proceedings of the government in any part of the empire ; and the fullest information is communicated by government to both Houses, from time to time, upon all matters of public concern. For it is in parliament that authoritative statements are made, or information given by ministers, upon public questions ; and no action in parliament should be based upon declarations of policy made el&ewihere. Sometimes a statement, by the minister who is specially responsible, is made in one House and not repeated in the other.
Cans ide rations of public policy and a due regard to the interests of the state, occasionally demand, however, that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of ministers. This principle is systematically recognized in all parliamentary transactions :	were it otherwise, it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour. Whenever it is declared by the responsible servants of the Crown, that any information sought for in parliament could not be supplied without inconvenience to the public service, or for other sufficient reasons, the House refrains from insisting upon its production.
And if the government object to produce any documents, on the ground that they are of a private and confidential description, it is not usual to insist upon their being furnished, except under peculiar and imperative circumstances.
But it must always be remembered that all public transactions of state are necessarily official ; and that no public officer would be justified in withholding from official record and access, any document, emanating from himself in his official capacity, in relation to public affairs.	[DOT]
So, it is as clear as possible what should be considered as a private, confidential and secret document. No document printed by a minister of the Crown who parts from his colleagues explaining why he differed from them on so 'important a question as the construction of a main line of transportation across the country can be considered a secret document. Nor can there be any justification for refusing to put the House in possession of a petition wbicb is .evidently intended for the Governor General, and which proposes a method of building a railway concerning which the people are exercised to a greater extent than they ever were before by the proposed construction of a public work. Yet these lion, gentlemen opposite concealed from the House for eighteen months the fact that this document was in existence, a document in the form of a petition, and formally praying in two or three places, and especially in the concluding part of it, that the government will take their petition into serious and favourable consideration. This, we are told, is to be treated as a confidential document, as one concerning which the people Mr. HAGGART.
must not be informed, when they are considering the most important question that has been before then for years. According to any reasonable theory of responsible government, the government is a committee of parliament, with parliament as a consultative body. And, on every, occasion parliament should be given the fullest information on everything that they are called upon to decide. But now, we, who at one time were ' democrats to the hilt ' have adopted what was alleged to be the oldi Tory practice of government by council, and keeping from the people information which they are entitled to-everything to be done under the cloak of ' private ' and ' confidential,' and parliament to be given, for assistance of its deliberations, not such information as is necessary to the interest of the country hut such as is deemed advisable in the interest of the government. We are told that the Conservative party, the great party of the past, is on the downward grade at the present day. How do you dare to accuse the Conservative party of taking a downward course ? And does not such an accusation come well from the party that never yet in power kept a pledge that it had made in opposition ? What charge of that kind can be made against the Conservative party ? None ; they have at least retained their honour. And better it would be to remain in opposition for centuries than to obtain power by false promises and' retain it without carrying out a single promise made in opposition. These gentlemen accuse us of being on the downward course. It reminds me of the famous answer of Cicero :	Clodius me aecusat. This
accusation that the Conservative party is moving downward comes from a party steeped in degradation-for there is no greater degradation than that of the man who says one thing and does another, who promises one thing and performs another, charging us with going downwards ! You may strain the English language, you may get the hon. member for Hants to give a meaning to a word which it does not bear and immediately after listening to it state that you did not intend to do it, that you intended to use another word. The hon. gentleman may refer to authority after authority in support of it but bis argument reached its sublimity when he told us of the Englishman going up to Scotland and being called a stranger on his arrival. The right hon. gentleman quoted Sir Walter Scott in support of his version of the meaning of ' stranger.' He little understands Sir Walter Scott, he little understood what Sir Walter Scott was writing about in reference to the Highlands of Scotland. Sir Walter Scott knew the Highland character well. An Englishman although newly arrived there, (Was an Englishman, a foreigner, an enemy, a Sassenach. The most contemptuous manner in which he could speak

of an Englishman on his arrival there was to call him a stranger. I thought when the right lion, gentleman quoted Sir Walter Scott that he was going to cite to us the lines which we all remember learning when we were boys, the description of tfie battle <>f the Saxon and the Gael where the High-landman concludes by presenting his sword to Fitz James, clasping it to his breast and saying :
Stranger, I am Roderick Dhu.
The right hon. gentleman may be right in ^ the meaning he attaches to the word, and' in quoting Sir Walter Scott. We do not win1 elections by matters of that kind, hut the right hon. gentleman must remember that on a celebrated occasion when Sir Charles Tupper ma.de a slip in reference to the right hon. gentleman in a speech delivered, I think in Winnipeg, and which he afterwards tried to explain, the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) held him firmly to the words which he uttered at that time. If the right "noil, gentleman holds others to their words


Mr. McOOLL.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. Is he not mistaken in his reference to Fitz James and Roderick Dhu. Are not the closing words :
These are Clan Alpine's warriors true ;
And,-Saxon,-I am Roderick Dhu.
Not ' stranger.'


Mr. FOWLER.: It is all the same..


John Graham Haggart: It is all the same. It is ' stranger ' in my edition. I was dealing with the question with which the hon. gentleman was dealing the other evening. We will give him all the hope he wants in reference to that expression. I suppose we must take it for granted that the right hon. gentleman was thinking in one language and speaking in another and that he had difficulty in expressing his thoughts, and we are willing to accept his explanation that he did not mean the word he used. Both of them were offensive enough, goodness knows. As I said he must expect very little quarter ; we are at war with the right hon. gentleman and it is not war to let him out of his difficulties as easily as he expects to be let out. He did not let us out when-i ever an opportunity presented itself, and when Sir Charles Tupper made a slip yon heard of it from Quebec to the Pacific ocean. Sir Charles Tupper on one occasion called the right Cron, gentleman, a Frenchman and a Roman Catholic and said ' can you not expect more from me, a Protestant, in dealing with separate schools, than from a gentleman who is French and a Roman Catholic.' We caught it for that, from one end of the country to the other. The right hon. gentleman made the best use of it he could and he must expect in the war which we
are carrying on with him that we will take every means to remove him from power. Instead of the Conservative party going down, down, down, the right hon. gentleman and his party are going down, down, downwards. A few weeks from now there Will not he the cheering that we heard from the seats behind the hon. gentleman ; there will be a different tone. I much mistake the sentiment of this country at the present moment, or the time has come when these gentlemen who have been false and recreant to every promise they made to the people of this country when they had an opportunity of carrying out these promises will be repudiated by the people of the country who will become sick and tired of theiri extravagance, the false promises and the neglect to avail themselves of opportunities which presented themselves. When the opportunity arrives for an expression of public opinion I much mistake the sentiment of the country, I much mistake the sentiment of my- countrymen who are the backbone of the country which party the hon. gentleman leads. I mean the Scotchmen of the country if they do not repudiate the hon. gentleman. Above all tilings the Scotchmen are true to the empire, above all things they are true to a man of honour ; they are true to the man who they think has stood-, up for their rights and who has been unjustly deprived of a position from no neglect or indifference on his part but simply on a question -of etiquette between himself and the Minister of Agriculture.
I have been a member of this House for a number of years and I have never seem such treatment given to the House by the government in reference to the production of papers as we have had for the last two or three years. I regret the tone of this debate, I regret it because the ministers who manage the affairs of the country are responsible for it. I regret the tone of the debates in this House and I should like to! see a higher standard. The ministry should, keep the debates strictly within reasonable bounds ; they are responsible for the good conduct and honour of the House. I regret the cheapening effects which have ensued since these hon. gentlemen came into power and I hope for a better state of affairs.
I shall conclude my remarks by saying that I think I have proved up to the hilt that this House has been denied papers to which it has been entitled and which were necessary for the proper consideration of the subjects under discussion, and which do not come under the category of private, secret and confidential. These were papers to which the House is entitled, and it is our duty-because the privileges _ and rights of this House are the foundations of the liberties of the people of this country, to speak up and insist on every right which they possess. Where the publication of a

document does no injury to the individual privately, where it exposes no one to contumely, does no injury to the country by exposing some of its weakness In defence, but on the contrary would furnish information which might be to the benefit of the country, it then is the duty of the government to ask a grand inquest of the people, to trust in them, to consult with them and to give them all the information which is necessary for the proper consideration of the subject in hand.


The Hon.  W. S.@: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) upon many o'f the questions which he has brought to the attention of-not to the attention of-but before the House, which have little if any relevancy to his motion. The subject might be a tempting one, but on the whole, I think it better, in view of the hope that he has expressed that the tone of this debate shall be higher than it has been in some debates of the past, that I should not attempt to follow everything that he has said. I will confine myself strictly to the object of this motion. Let me make one remark now to my hon. friend. He says that I cannot expect any quarter from his side of the House. Let me tell him that I never asked for any quarter, nor do I ask for any now. Provided the war is carried on, as it must be carried on, in the political sense, I mean, by honourable methods, I have nothing to complain of.
I will come at once to what is the object of the motion of my hon. friend. It is that the House shall censure the government for not having communicated to it certain information which was in its archives. My hon. friend confined his ground of attack to three different documents, that is to say, to the memorandum which Mr. Blair prepared upon the transportation question when he was a member of the government, to a certain letter addressed by Mr. Hays to the government upon the subject of the building of a transcontinental railway, and to the report of Lord Dundonald addressed by him to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden). In regard to the first one of these documents the memo, prepared by Mr. Blair some two years ago, while he was a member of the government, upon the question of transportation generally, if I understood my hon. friend aright, he stated that this document should have been placed in the hands of the House. First of all since my hon. friend has referred to the fact that the tone of the debate is not as high as it was at one time, let me ask him :	How does he know that Mr. Blair
ever prepared any such document as that ? If he knows of it, it is not because he has had any information from us.


John Graham Haggart: Because the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and other Mr. HAGGART.
members of your own government have admitted it.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) is wrong. The Minister of Finance made no such admission.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: As far as my memory serves me, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance never alluded to that document at all, but that document found its way into this House in a manner which still remains unexplained ; at all events* it did not come to the knowledge of the House in a manner that is consistent with the honour or forms of parliamentary debate, if we are able to keep up the dignity of debate which my hon. friend appears so anxious to do. The fact has gone abroad, it is a matter of public knowledge that Mr. Blair, when a member of this government offered to his colleagues a memo, on the subject of transportation. My hon. friend is an old parliamentarian, he has been many years in this House, he has been for several years a member of the government, and adviser of the Crown, and he knows that all communications of that character are strictly secret and confidential and that it is not in the power of any member of the administration to give out or discuss the contents of that document outside of the cabinet itself. It is true that Mr. Blair differed from his colleagues on the question of transportation. As a result of the dissent of Mr. Blair upon that question, he thought it advisable to withdraw from the government, and to place his resignation in the hands of His Excellency the Governor General. When he had placed his resignation in the hands of the Governor General, it was not only his duty, but it was his right and his privilege to give to the House all the information which he thought himself entitled to give in regard to the disagreement that had taken place between himself and his colleagues. He could not do so until he had obtained the permission and leave of the Governor General, leave which, under such circumstances is always given as a matter of course. When Mr. Blair took the view which he finally carried out of withdrawing from the government, he obtained from the Governor/ General permission to state to the House the causes of his disagreement which had led to the severing of his connection with his colleagues. He obtained upon that occasion leave to communicate to the House all the information which in his judgment was necessary and advisable to place the House in possession of the points of difference between him and his colleagues. Mr. Blair made his statement before the House, but Mr. Blair did not think it advisable to ask the Governor General for permission to lay that document before the House. If Mr. Blair had thought it advisable for his own protection and for the proper understanding of his position before

the country to ask His Excellency the Governor General for permission to place that document before the House, there is no doubt whatever that His Excellency would have given that permission, since, in justification to Mr. Blair himself who was the best judge of that matter, he thought the production of such a document to be essential to his defence. But Mr. Blair did not think it advisable ; he thought this communication which he had laid before his colleagues should remain what it was then and what it has been since-purely confidential, and under such circumstances, I say that I am still at a loss to understand upon what ground the House can ask for the production of that document as a public one. There can be no possible doubt as to that and upon this point, I think it is sufficient to make these observations to satisfy the House that the position of my hon. friend is absolutely untenable.
My hon. friend has mentioned another document-the letter of Mr. Hays, addressed to me personally as the head of the government, upon the question of building another transcontinental railway. We had a discussion upon this subject some time ago, and if my hon. friend will permit me to say so without offence, I think lie will agree with me that he has not added anything to the light which was thrown upon the subject by the observations he has made to-day.
Therefore, as my hon. friend has adduced no new argument upon this point, I will pass away from it without any further comment.
Then, 'my hon. friend came to the report of Lord Dundonald. I followed my hon. friend very closely upon that, especially when he made the statement in the early part of his remarks that he would give chapter and book which would conclusively show that a document of that character was in its nature a document which should have been made public immediately it had been placed in the hands of the Minister of Militia. My hon. friend spoke with greater emphasis as to the knowledge which he had upon this point, than the speech which he delivered warranted. X followed him very closely. I claim to have some little familiarity with the subject. I thought I had read all the books that it was possible to read upon it. I thought perhaps something had escaped my attention, and I was anxious to know what new authority my hon. friend could give to the House. But the only quotation which the hon. gentleman made was from Todd, a quotation with which we have been made familiar during the present session. If my hon. friend however will study Todd a little further, he will find that he has omitted from his speech the reference in which Todd applies directly to the case in hand. The question is, whether reports of this character are confidential or not. I have looked into the statutes to find what ought be the character of the reports which the heads of
departments should present to parliament. The language of the statute with regard to the Minister of Militia is the least satisfactory of all, because it simply says in section 126 of the Militia Act.
All regulations made under this Act, and an annual report of the state of the militia, shall be laid before parliament by the Minister of Militia and Defence within the first thirty days of the then next session thereof.


John Graham Haggart: I intended to quote that : t forgot it.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I am very glad to be able to complete the speech of my hon. friend, but if he had quoted it, I suppose he would have sat down immediately, because there would he no further reason to go on with his speech. Since we agree on this point, let me read it again for the information of my hon. friend, and in order to refresh my own memory.
All regulations made under this Act and an annual report of the state of the militia shall be laid before parliament by the Minister of Militia and Defence.
The minister is hound to make a report upon the actual state of the militia, and nothing else. If he receives a plan from the Commander in Chief, or if he receives any proposed or suggested policy, there is no injunction on him to bring such before the House. The law says that his report must be confined strictly to what is the actual state of the militia. Let us see what information the other ministers are obliged to impart to the House. Section 6 of the Act with regard to the Department of the Interior says :
The Minister of the Interior shall annually lay before parliament within fifteen days after the meeting thereof, a report of the pro-cedings, transactions and affairs of the department, during the year then next preceding.
There also, the Minister of the Interior is enjoined ;-not to place before parliament what he contemplates ; not to place before parliament a statement as to what he may have in view for the future, but simply a statement of the transactions which have taken place during the year. Section i or the Act dealing with the Department ot Marine and Fisheries says :
The minister shall make and submit to the Governor General an annual report on all the works under his control, to be laid before both Houses of parliament within fifteen days from the commencement of each session, showing the state of each work, and the amount received and expended in respect thereof, with such further information as is requisite.
Here again the minister is enjoined only to acquaint parliament as to what he has done during the year. Section 6 of the Act dealing with the Secretary of State's De-. partment says :

The Secretarjr of State shall annually lay before parliament within ten days of the meeting thereof a report of the proceedings, transactions and affairs of the department during the year then next preceding.
Dealing with the Department of Inland Revenue, the Act says :
The Minister of Inland Revenue shall annually make to the Governor General, to be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the meeting thereof, a report and statement of the transactions and the affairs of the department during the year then next preceding.
Probably the most minute of all the departmental reports is that of the Post Office Department, and under the Act the Postmaster General is directed that he :
Shall annually make to the Governor General so that they may be laid before parliament within ten days after the meeting thereof, in each section the following reports which shall be made up to the 30th day of June then next preceding ; that is to say : general accounts current, what to contain and show :	payments for mail transport in detail ; salaries, &c., in detail ; incidental expenditure 'in detail ; cases of loss or abstraction of money leitters ; mioney order offices ; cost of money order system ; losses under money order system ; (lead letters ; posit office savings bank transactions, &c.
I have merely read the summarized side lines as to what is to be done by the Postmaster General under these different headings.
It will therefore be seen that the only injunction laid upon the heads of the different departments, is that they are directed to make a report for the information of parliament as to what has been the transactions of their departments for the past year. But, my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) goes further and he says, that we should not only have information on what has been done, but that even the intentions ot the ministers, the policy which they contemplate, the views they may entertain, and the views and the policy as to which they may have been advised, should all be laid before parliament. Well, if the suggestion of my bon. friend were followed, it would be a great calamity in the management of the public affairs of this country. For instance, it would not be conducive to the best interest of the country to have the plans submitted to the Minister of Militia for the defence of the country, laid before parliament. I saw it stated somewhere recently, that parliament should be placed in possession of even the report prepared some years ago with regard to the defences of Canada. Of course, no one would pretend seriously that a secret report as to what ought be done for the defence of Canada should be made public. If that were done we might just as well give away the whole of our preparations in that direction. There Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
is no more reason why we should make public any plan suggested by the General Officer Commanding even if we did not approve of it. If such documents were made public, they would become the subject of wrangle between party and party-wrangle is not the proper word to use-hut they would become a matter of dispute and contention between parties bolding views on one side and the other. That would not be conducive to the best interests of Canada. It is far better that such a matter should be left between the minister and bis military
officer,	and that when a policy has been agreed upon then it should be discussed by parliament. If the policy suggested to the minister by his adviser should be made public so that it might become the bone of contention between contending parties, then in my opinion the value of our militia force would be greatly impaired. My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) was good enough to state, that such documents as the reports of ambassadors from foreign courts should not be presented to parliament. I agree with him that the diplomatic reports from ambassadors at Paris, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Washington, or other foreign court, should be kept secret. The reason for that is obvious ? All the authorities agree that such reports should be kept secret, until such time has elapsed that they have no value except as a matter of history ; but so long as the question to which they relate are live issues, they must be kept sacredly guarded in the archives of the government to which they are addressed. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) admits that diplomatic correspondence should be. kept secret, is not the reason at least just as strong, why military correspondence should be kept secret and sacred in the archives of the department to which it is addressed ?
My hon. friend stated otherwise, however. As to that, it is a matter of opinion which I have only to leave to the appreciation of the House. All the authorities-I need not repeat those which I gave to the House* the other day-are exactly contrary to the views entertained by my1 hon. friend. But my hon. friend went further to-day. He said that private letters should be laid on the table of the House and given to the public. Well, Sir, upon this point, let me for the information of my hon. friend, quote the standard book on this subject-' May on Parliamentary Practice.'
Returns may be moved for, either by order or address, relating to any public matters, in which the House or the Crown has jurisdiction. They may be obtained from all public
offices,	and from corporations, bodies, or officers constituted for public purposes, by Acts of parliament or otherwise ; but not from private associations, such as Lloyd's, for example, nor from individuals not exercising public functions. The papers and correspondence sought from government departments should be of a public and official. character,

and noit private or confidential. The opinions of the law officers of the Crown, given for the guidance of ministers, in any question of diplomacy or state policy, being included in the latter class, have generally been withheld from parliament.
If the opinions given by the law officers of the Crown for the guidance of the government have generally been withheld from parliament, and regarded as privileged and confidential, with What greater reason should not this same rule apply to the opinions of the military experts and advisers of the Crown ? May goes on to say :
In 1858, however, this rule was, under peculiar and exceptional circumstances, departed from, and the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, in regard to the case of the Cagliari, were laid before parliament. In 1871, in the select committee on the Thames Embank-dneut, a case submitted to the law officers being required, it was objected that the production of such a document was unusual ; but as it appeared that their opinion upon the case had already been laid before the House, the objection was withdrawn, and the case was produced before the committee.
But however ample the power of each House to enforce the production of papers, a sufficient cause must be shown for the exercise of that power ; and if considerations of public policy can be urged against a motion for papers, it is either withdrawn, or otherwise dealt with according to the judgment of the House.
That is to say, it should not be simply an arbitrary request for the gratification of an 'idle curiosity, or a curiosity of any kind; but a sufficient reason must be given to the House why the papers in the archives of the government should be given to the public, and the public interest must be shown.1 'My hon. friend has brought to the attention of the House such extraordinary theories to-day that I am not surprised that on minor points he should have erred as he has. If I understood the speech of my hon. friend aright, he has laid down the doctrine that under the law as it is to-day there are in the Militia Department two authorities, the civil authority and the military authority ; that the civil authority has certain functions to perform, and the military authority certain functions ; that the military authority is quite independent of the civil authority-that it is not dependent upon it. Well, I take the most complete issue with my hon. friend on this point. I say that the law of Canada to-day is the same as the law of England on this subject, that is, that the military authority is subject to tbe civil authority. The point is no longer debatable ; I will not for my part debate it, but will leave it to the judgment of the House. But I understand from the assent which was given to the words I used a moment ago that I have stated correctly the views of my hon. friend. I say I will not discuss that question. We are not
called on to-day, in the year 1904, to discuss a question like that before the Canadian people. The position of this government on that point was laid down more than three years ago-because this is not the first time we have had a disagreement with our military expert. In 1900, Colonel Prior, then a member of tbis House, put the following question in this House with regard to' the utterances of the gentleman who was then commander of the forces :
Has the attention of the government been called to the following words made use of by Major-General Hutton in a speech delivered by him at a farewell dinner tendered to him on the 14th Inst., by the officers of the Ottawa brigade :-
* I have used my utmost endeavour to create a national militia army worthy of the responsibilities which are peculiarly Its own, and which, to ensure success, must be placed upon a plane above all possibility of party political interference as regards its discipline, its personnel and its military machinery.
X should, however, feel more hopeful of the future of Canada if the government had even shown active interest in our recent efforts, for a higher efficiency, or indicated their approval of the principles upon which our efforts are based. I would ask you, however, in all due seriousness not to suppose that the severance of my ties with you is due to petty misunderstandings with the Minister of Militia upon minor issues of appointments or disciplinary matters, hut that it is due to broader, wider and vastly more important issues.'
Is it true that the government have not approved of the policy of the Major General Commanding, as set forth above ? Can the government inform this House what was the cause of the disagreement between them and the Major General ?
The answer I gave, speaking for the gov-' ernment, was as follows :
Ye,s, the attention of the government has been drawn to that portion of Major General Hutton's speech mentioned in the question, and to other portions also, equally reprehensible. There have been differences of opinion between the government and General Hutton. The government were disposed, now that he has been recalled for service in Africa, to let these differences pass without any comment. The government had reason to believe that this was in accordance with General Hutton's views, and therefore when the subject was brought up in the House a few days ago, the government refrained from making any statement on the subject. There is now no reason to follow that course any further. General Hutton in his speech has insinuated that his -differences with the government are due to a desire on the part of the latter to exercise improper political influence on the militia organization of the country. I desire, on the part of .the government, to say that there is absolutely no foundation for such a statement. The causes of difference between the government and General Hutton were not over any broad questions of general policy ; the causes of difference were that General Hutton was insubordinate and indiscreet, and deliberately ignored the authority of the minister

in the administration of the department. The government desire to state that while they will, at all times, be prepared to give the most careful consideration to any representations which may be unlade by the officer commanding the militia, it must be distinctly understood that any such officer, on accepting the position in question becomes from that time, an officer in the employment of and subject in all respects to the govenn'ment of Canada, and that he is to be regarded as the adviser, but not as entitled to control the Department of Militia. The government are responsible to the parliament and people of Canada for the due administration of each and every branch of the public service, and they would be derelict to their duty if they were to permit any subordinate official, under any circumstances, to take upon himself to disregard the instructions he may receive from the constitutional head of his department.
I have nothing- to add to what was stated on that occasion by me as the head of the government. This was the position we took, and this is the position by which we are to be judged by this House and this country.	.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has Introduced a subject which those supporting the government are very anxious to introduce on occasions of this kind. That is the question of the subordination of the military to the civil power in this country. That is not,' the question which is before the House, but as my right hon. friend has said a few words about it, I shall do likewise. There is no doubt under the statute as to who is responsible to parliament for the administration of the militia:
There shall be a Minister of Militia and Defence who shall he charged with and responsible for the administration of the militia force, including all matters involving expenditure and, of fortifications, gunboats, ordnance, arms, armouries, stores, munitions and habiliments of war belonging to Canada.
AVhen the Prime Minister undertakes to argue that that statute means what he says, he is simply setting up a man of straw which no one but (himself has any regard for. The argument of toy hon. friend~for I a nark (Mr. Haggart) was this. He argued mat in this country, owing to the difference in legislation, the Commander in Chief has certain larger powers than those he possesses in Great Britain at present, but he never argued that the Commander in Chief wu>
rot subordinate to the Minister oif Militia in this sense, that the Minister of Militia is ultimately responsible to parliament and the country. There is no use in arguing a matter which is not in controversy and which is simply introduced for the purpose of taking away the attention of the public from that which is really in question. But let us remember that although the Minister of Militia is ultimately responsible and that the Commander in | Sir WILFRID LAURIER
Chief holds his position under the government of this country, the latter officer has under the statute certain responsibilities as well. And they are these :
1.	The General Officer Commanding is charged by statute, under the orders of Her Majesty, with the military command and discipline of the militia.
2.	He is the principal adviser of the Minister of Militia and Defence on all military questions ; - Is charged with the general supervision of the military branch of the department ; issues general orders ; and holds periodical inspections of the militia.
3.	He is charged with the distribution, quartering, and localization of the militia ; with the preparation and maintenance of detailed plans for mobilization ; with .the preparation of schemes for offensive and defensive operations ; and with the collection and compilation of military information.
4.	He recommends- to the Minister of Militia and Defence fit and proper persons for appointment to commissions in the militia ; and proposes fit and proper officers for promotion, for staff and other military appointments, and for military honours and rewards.
5.	He is charged with the military education and training of the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the active militia, including the supervision of the Royal Military College of Canada, and the several Royal Schools of Military Instruction throughout the Dominion.
He Is charged witli these things because parliament has seen fit to entrust them to trim by that which is equivalent to an Act of parliament; and when the right hon. gentleman says that the General Officer Commanding is to be a mere automaton and' is not to have the power of thinking for himself or of having any policy with regard to military affairs, he takes a position which cannot be supported by any one who is capable of understanding the language I have just read and bestows upon it one moment's thought or reflection. Is it pretended for one moment that the Minister of Militia is an expert in military affairs ? Is it not often the case that the gentleman filling the political position of Minister of Militia is absolutely unacquainted with military affairs ? Is such a gentleman to judge of all tfiese things, and is the General Officer Commanding, invested with all these powers, responsible under the statute, to be a man without a policy, without the power to recommend ? And if he does have the temerity to recommend, is the political officer above him to be at liberty to use his own discretion in suppressing the report ? The Prime Minister takes the position that he is, and if I am doing him an injustice in that regard, will he be good enough to correct me 1
Let me now deal with the question of this report which has been furnished to the House. But before doing so let me remark On at certain newspapers in this country, which are supposed to be absolutely in the

confidence of the government, profess to have a remarkable acquaintance with the contents of that report. I do not know whether that has shocked my right hon. friend. He has been sometimes shocked at revelations of that kind in the House, but I have not observed him to manifest any indignation at the fact that a document of that kind, which is not proper to be submitted to parliament, is considered apparently proper to submit to his political friends outside the House. How is it that this was done ? Was it for the purpose of discrediting Lord Dundonald by conveying to the public what I venture to think will be found a misleading statement of his report, while at the same time denying to Lord Dundonald the right to put himself properly before the country by the production of that report, as he handed it in in the first instance ? I ask that question because it is a question that naturally occurs to one, under the very peculiar circumstances of the present time, when a ministry declines to place a document on the table of the House and allows their organs throughout the country to inform the people of its contents. This document, according to the Prime Minister, should be suppressed. It seems to me his argument went a little too far. Does my hon. friend take the position that every one of these reports to which he has referred to-day, including the report of the Department of Militia and Defence, could be suppressed by the minister in charge of the department, and that that minister would discharge his duty under the law to the House and the country by simply saying : I have had reports of the officers of my department, but in my discretion I did not see fit to publish them, and place them upon the table of the House as the report of his department ? My hon. friend says that the Minister of Militia was justified in withholding this report and for this reason. He referred to section 126 of the Militia Act, -which says :
All regulations made under this Act and the annual report of the state of the militia shall be laid before parliament by the Minister of Militia and Defence.
Who is to give the Minister of Militia that report upon the state of the militia? Who is his proper adviser under the statute ? I have read the statute which says that the General Officer Commanding is the proper adviser of the Minister of Militia and that he is charged wit!h the conduct and discipline of the militia._Then if the Minister of
Militia is to give a report to parliament upon the state of the militia, upon whose advice must he act, and whose report must he receive? He must receive and publish to parliament and the country the report of the General Officer Commanding. But my rigfit hon. friend ventures to say that this report of Lord Dundonald was not a
report on the state of the militia. Am I correct in that ?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I think the report of Lord Dundonald, so far as it went, as regards the state of the militia, was published. It was as regards his policy, that it was not published.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have something more than tthe thought of my right bon. friend. I would like to have an absolute statement. He has founded an argument upon it. He said that the Minister of Militia had a right to suppress this report because it did not come within the terms of this statute. That is what I understood him to say, if he said anything. Does he adhere to that?


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: If my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) cannot understand what I say, I am sorry for it. I stated that the Minister of Militia had put in his report that part of the document prepared by the General Officer Commanding which related to the state of the militia, but he refused to publish the part which suggested a policy.


Robert Laird Borden: I will try to understand my right hon. friend. That portion of the report which dealt with the state of the militia has been jjublished and that part which dealt with the policy and a scheme of the defence has not been published.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I understand so.


Robert Laird Borden: Lord Dundonald does not so understand it and there is a direct issue between him and the government ip that regard. I will read from Lord Dundonald's statement :
One extremely serious case of interference was the suppression of the important parts of my first annual report on the militia. After studying the situation with great care, I came to certain conclusions and thought out a certain plan. For convenience of reference I divided my report for the year 1902 into two halves. Part, I. was a simple diary of events. Part II. contained my description of the condition of the militia and an outline of a comprehensive scheme for reorganizing the force upon lines suitable to the country.
It contained, it will be observed, a comprehensive description of the condition of the militia. Now, the statute prescribes the minister to place before parliament annually a report of the state of the militia. And it appears from the statement of Lord Dundonald that that which the minister is required to place before parliament was placed in his hands by Lord Dundonald. Yet, the government, for some reason best known to themselves have seen fit to suppress it. There have been a great many reasons given for the suppression of this report. I have just dealt for a moment with one of them. And does not my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and do not hon. gentlemen in

this House think that there was some reason for receiving a report from the principal adviser of the government in that regard, when an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, an expert in military affairs, the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thomson) from his place in this House, last year described, in terms, I will venture to say, more scathing than any than Lord Dundonald had used, the condition of the militia in Canada. He said that the militia called out for annual training were intended to be a skeleton, but that from that they had diminished to a skeleton of a skeleton and now they had to come down to the condition where they could only be described as the shadow of a skeleton of a skeleton. When this is the condition, and when we have a report of the General Officer Commanding suppressed, and when we find that gentleman stating, as a man who has occupied high rank in the army and who has held a high position in Canada, that this report contained a .description of the militia in Canada, and when we find that that very report required by law to be published] is in fact suppressed, is there not some room, in the view of my right hon. friend for criticism in this House and in the country concerning the action of the government in that regard. Another reason advanced for the suppression of this document was that put forward by the Minister of Militia the other day-that the part- suppressed had been marked ' private.' He intended to state by that remark,-as he explained later on, that it was inclosed in a letter marked ' private.' And it eventually transpired that, so far from the report being marked ' private,' Lord Dundonald did not so mark it and expressly desired that it should be published. The Minister of Militia made the argument, as he is entitled to do, if it is worth anything, that because this part of the report was included in a letter marked ' private ' he was not at liberty to publish it. But, so far as that is concerned, he had Lord Dundonald's permission to publish it, even Lord Dundonald's request to publish it. And, further than that this very curious aspect of the matter is presented that the part of the report that was published was inclosed in the same letter as the other. So that if the reason given by the minister was a good one, then, according to his own argument he has committed a breach of confidence by publishing part I of that report. If this report described the condition of the militia as unsatisfactory in some respects, it might be inconvenient for the government to publish it. But is it not a proper thing that matters of this kind should be brought to the attention of parliament ? As I have already said, can every report put in by a deputy head of a department be suppressed or set aside by the government simply for the reason that it may happen to contain something that is regarded as not advantageous, politically, to the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
gentlemen who happen to sit on the treasury benches. Suppose the Auditor General's Report contained something not exactly gratifying to the administration, would it be a proper thing for the administration to say that the suppression of publication of that report was a matter absolutely within their discretion ? My right hon. friend referred to matters that are absolutely distinct, and yet, in his argument he has mixed those two things together. There is no doubt that there are documents which may properly be withheld from parliament. And with respect to these documents hon. gentlemen, whether on the government side or on the opposition side must always entrust a certain discretion to the government, must trust the good faith of the government in declaring to the House or parliament as a whole that reasons of public policy make it necesssary that information should be withheld for the present. That is the position that I am prepared to stand by as absolutely as my right hon. friend. But it is another thing for the government to arrogate to themselves the right, when they are not able to place before the House any reasons of public policy, to withhold from parliament documents such as those mentioned by my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) to-day-for instance, a report prescribed by statute and conveying certain information, or a petition addressed to the Prime Minister praying the government to grant aid for an enterprise to be undertaken by a private corporation. These are not to be withheld from parliament, because there is no consideration of public policy which demands that they should be so withheld. Therefore, I say that, so far as the argument is concerned, the right hon. gentleman has based his argument not upon the considerations which apply to that, but absolutely on other matters and on other considerations. Then, we have the statement of Lord Dundonald that a portion of another report was suppressed, that portions of it were eliminated. I would like to ask my right hon. friend whether he thinks that the report of another officer, or any other document should be laid before this House in a mutilated condition without making it known to the House that certain portions of it had been eliminated ? For example, is it the proper thing for the Minister of Inland Revenue to eliminate from the reports of his officers certain portions of those reports and then bring down these documents as if they were complete. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) took the ground-and it is one with which I would not coincide-in regard to a matter already debated in this House, that if documents of an official character were in possession of the government, the government were justified in denying that those documents existed. They are not justified in denying that they exist, but they are justified in stating that they exist

and also in stating their reasons of public policy why the documents are not brought down or brought down only in part. That is the course followed in the mother country. That is the course the government of this country followed in regard to the documents relating to the Alaska Boundary question. Because in that case we had it indicated py stars, in despatch after despatch, that certain portions were regarded as confidential and were therefore eliminated from the despatches as a whole.
That is the course which should have been pursued in regard to this report, if any portion of it was eliminated. Of course, if the General Officer Commanding took the report back and altered it himself that would not apply, but the General Officer Commanding states, whether rightly or wrongly I do not know, that not only did he do that, not only did he modify the report in accordance with the wishes of the Minister of Militia, but that after he had done that, whole paragraphs, and even whole pages, were withdrawn from the report without consultation with him, and the report, to the best of my knowledge, was brought down without stating those omissions.
My hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) dealt with some other documents, about one or two of which I desire to say a word. He referred to what is known as the Blair memorandum. When Mr. Blair placed his resignation in the hands of His Excellency, and when the Prime Minister and Mr. Blair came down to make their explanations in parliament, I think, not merely in courtesy to the House, but in fairness to the House, that the full reasons for Mr. Blair's lesignation should have been placed before the House. I took the opportunity of asking the Prime Minister several weeks ago whether or not there was any correspondence between this government and Mr. Blair other than that which was disclosed to this House at the time these explanations were given. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on that occasion said that he did not know of any other correspondence, but would make inquiries and would inform me, but from that time up to the present I have not had the pleasure of receiving any intimation from the right hon. gentleman on that point, and I am inclined to think the letters themselves which have been brought down contain certain intrinsic evidences that they are not the only correspondence which took place between Mr. Blair and the government on that occasion. Let me say that it would have been a proper thing on that occasion for the Prime Minister to have informed the House, even if Mr. Blair did not see fit to do so, that the difficulty between Mr. Blair and the government was not only with regard to Mr. 31air's opposition to the policy proposed by the government, but was also due to the fact that Mr. Blair himself thought it necessary that the proposed National Transcon 184
tinental Railway should be built as a government undertaking. The document, to which reference has been made, set out Mr. Blair's views on that most fully. I concede at once that while that matter was being debated in Council the government were perfectly justified in holding that document from the country. It is not for the government, when matters are being discussed in Council, to disclose differences in the cabinet, differences which must always arise in any government and which must be settled as best they may. But when these differences have culminated in the resignation of a minister, and when the government and the minister resigning purport to convey to the House and the country the reasons for his resignation, I submit to my right hon. friend in all fairness that they were not treating the House and the country properly or in a constitutional way in stating to the House and the country only a portion of the reasons for that resignation and in withholding one of the principal reasons on account of which that resignation has taken place. There was no difficulty about bringing down Mr. Blair's memorandum. The formality of asking the Governor General might have been necessary, but that formality was just as easy with regard to this so-called memorandum as with regard to the letters which were produced and the explanations which were made in this House, and I venture to say, in terms of as mild criticism as I can use, that the government seem to me to have acted in a disingenuous way in withholding that document at the time when these explanations were made.
I shall not take up much time in reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific petition, which, as my right hon. friend has said, has already been dealt with in a previous debate. Let me, however, make just four statements with regard to it First, it related to a public matter ; secondly, it petitioned for public aid; thirdly, it was acted on ; and fourthly, it was obviously disclosed to a gentleman who was put up to answer Mr. Blair in the debate on the Grand Trunk Pacific. There can be no doubt about that. My right hon. friend has stated in this House that he did not disclose that petition to the hon. member for North Norfolk. I stated then, and I state now, that I accept his assurance in that regard, but I tell him that if he wishes me to believe that some member of his cabinet did not disclose that document to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. -Charlton), if he wishes me to believe that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was not made acquainted with the terms of that petition, then he asks me to believe something which my understanding absolutely forbids me to believe, because it is impossible that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), speaking as he did on this subject, could have quoted elaborately and exactly



5S00
the very terms of that document, if he had not been made acquainted with them at the time. We must not forget that this was a gentleman put up to speak as the government expert, pronounced by the Prime Minister to be the greatest authority on transportation in this parliament, and let me say that if that document was submitted to the hon. member for North Norfolk, however confidential it might have been in the first instance, the government, so long as it proposed to follow ordinary constitutional usage, was absolutely bound to place in the possession of every member of this House just as much Information on that subject as was in the possession of the hon. member for North Norfolk. Otherwise, the government was treating this parliament with contempt, and did treat this parliament with contempt when it placed in the possession of that hon. gentleman, who was speaking for this government in that regard, information which they did not see fit to disclose to this House until at the end of a very long debate this year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) saw fit, for party purposes, and for party purposes alone, to read the whole document to this House. That is the constitutional usage with regard to it; and I am studiously avoiding any language that could possibly be regarded as too severe ; I want to speak moderately, and to deal with the matter in the light of what I regard as the proper constitutional usage.
Let me here advert to another matter. A practice which is becoming very common with this government, the practice, while parliament is In session, of communicating to the public press, days before communication is made to parliament, documents respecting matters that have been discussed in parliament and that are of the greatest possible public interest. I stand as strongly as any one in this House for giving to the press the earliest possible information with regard to public matters, but I say it is a contempt of parliament to do as this government has repeatedly done, to give information to the government organs of this country, and to allow day after day to pass withholding that information from parliament, although it ought to be of the greatest possible interest to those who sit in this House. I refer to the matter of the Tread-gold concession as an instance. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will remember that we spent one or two days last year discussing that matter. We on this side contended that that concession should have been repealed, that it was an improper concession. A commission was eventually appointed, although its scope was not as full as we thought it should have been, yet when the government, acting upon some intimation from the commission, upon some information at least, first communicated to the organs of the government the fact that they had taken action, and had not even the courtesy to lay upon the table of this Ml. R. L. BORDEN.
House a copy of the Order in Council cancelling this concession. The information that the government has so acted is communicated to the organs of the government, and the government has not even the courtesy to lay upon the table of this House a copy of the Order in Council. I do not think that is treating parliament with proper courtesy.


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: I must say to my hon. friend that in So_far as his criticism goes, if his statement were a fact, I would agree with him altogether. Very often, I am sorry to say, information goes to the press and it is impossible to say how it goes to the press. In reference to this matter I saw in the press that this Order in Council had been cancelled but I cannot trace it up to any source. I may say, however, that it does not come from any authorized source.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept the assurance of my right, hon. friend. I naturally supposed that as this had been published the intimation had been given to the press by the government. My remarks in so far as that is concerned have no application in view of the right hon. gentleman's statement. But I may say here that if I searched my memory carefully I could find other occasions when the fault to which I have just adverted has been committed, by the government. There is just one other matter to which I wish to refer in connection with public documents and that is to the letters of Colonel Whitley to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I suggested the other day that Colonel Whitley's request that these letters should be regarded as confidential might have been instigated by the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture has not contradicted that suggestion, I have every reason to believe that if Colonel Whitley did make that request to the hon. Minister of Agriculture there was the previous request of the hon. minister to Colonel Whit-' ley that such communications should be made to him. But what had Colonel Whitley to do with it after all ? Is not Colonel Whitley an officer of this government, paid by this country for the discharge of the duty which involved the writing of those letters and are those letters to be withheld from parliament simply because it suits the convenience of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and of Colonel Whitley to have them so withheld ? They are from a subordinate officer of the government to the Minister of Agriculture who claims the right to Act as a public man, as a minister of the Crown in reference to a public matter. In what respect can they be confidential ? They relate to the appointment of officers in the regiment referred to. Further than that my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) produces an argument which was made only the other day in the House by the

hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden). He states what is very true that these letters are referred to in the letter brought down. .One of the arguments of the hon. Minister of Militia the other day was that he had the right to ask Lord Dundonald to withdraw certain paragraphs from his report because those paragraphs related to documents not brought down, and he said to Lord Dundonald that if the report containing these allusions is placed before the House then the House will have absolute right to call for these documents. If that is a good argument in the mouth of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, is it not a good argument in the mouth of any other hon. gentleman in this House ? There are letters brought down containing an allusion to the letters from Colonel Whitley and if the argument of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, supported as it was to-day by the argument of my hon. friend from South Lanark, is correct then the production of these letters is in itself the best justification' why this House can call for the documents referred to in tihese letters. Yet they are withheld from this Houes upon the mere pretense that they can be confidential.
Mr. Speaker, some reference has been made to-day by those who have spoken to the subordination of the military power to the civil power in this country and in fact the line of argument which is taken in a certain portion of the press has been followed, namely, that there was some attempt on the part of Lord Dundonald to impose what is called militarism on this country. That is the red herring 'if X may term it so. Let me say that I have found no evidence in any document that has been published or in any communication that has been made that - shows Lord Dundonald in any such light. I am not dealing now with the question of his alleged insubordination at the banquet. If the argument which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister made a day or two ago were correct,-I do not think it is correct-every officer at the Dominion Rifle meeting this year for example who spoke in terms of commendation of the hon. Minister of Militia would be liable to immediate dismissal for so doing. That is what the argument of my hon. friend leads to. He quoted the regulation which only has reference to military discipline and to military officers and he applied that to the relations existing between the General Officer Commanding and the Minister of Militia and Defence. That regulation makes it just as much an offence for any officer to refer to his superior officer in terms of commendation as in terms of disapprobation ; therefore, hundreds of officers all over this country who have spoken flatteringly of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence will be subject to dismissal if my right hon. friend's argument be correct. But,
IS It
there is nothing in it. Those gentlemen were perfectly proper in uttering their commendations. They were not violating any military rule or regulation which had any application to the case. Indeed my right hon. friend has extended his argument a little farther than what I was suggesting, because his argument, if it means anything, means that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is the military superior officer of the General Officer Commanding and that the General Officer Commanding by reason of referring to the Minister of Agriculture is guilty of a breach of discipline toward his military superior officer and for that reason may be disciplined and dismissed. Well, 1 think that the argument need only be stated to refute itself and I will not deal further with it.
Lord Dundonald, as I understand it, has never sought to place the military power over the civil power. What he has sought to do is to prevent the interposition of the hon. Minister of Agriculture between himself and his subordinate officers and in doing that he is upholding the civil power itself, because it is the civil power of this country exercised through parliament which has declared that Lord Dundonald shall have certain duties and that his subordinate officers shall have certain duties. If the hon. Minister of Agriculture interferes with these subordinate officers in the performance of their duty it is he who is guilty of violating the constitutional rights of the people, and when Lord Dundonald protested against that interference of the hon. Minister of Agriculture it was Lord Dundonald who upheld the constitutional rights of the people of this country. My right hon. friend has been somewhat sensitive about the criticism made upon certain words which he used in this House in speaking them. I did not think them worth upon this subject. I have never alluded to alluding to and I was ready then as I am ready on all occasions to accept the right hon. gentleman's statement as to the word he intended to use and the manner in which he intended to use it. This is a courtesy which we owe to each other according to the rules of the House. But, my right hon. friend must not forget perhaps that he is not always so ready to extend a courtesy of that kind to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. When I stood up in my place during this session and stated that a certain word, reported by ' Hansard ' as having been used by me, had not been used by me and gave my word to the House as the fact, did I find my right hon. friend accepting that statement ?
No. I did not. I found my right hon. friend speaking in-well, in language that might be regarded as meaning that he was rather doubtful-in rather a discourteous way with regard to the incident ; so that I was compelled to write a letter to the chief of the

* Hansard ' staff, and to produce evidence from the original notes of the shorthand writer in support of that word of mine which I thought might be accepted by my right hon. friend. Let not my right hon. friend be too sensitive unless he is prepared to be uniformly courteous himself. I said not one word about the expression which he used the other day. I do not propose to say anything about it except to make the allusion which I am now making. The right hon. gentleman must remember that he told us that he is not at all sensitive to criticism, when I called him in question for some words which he had used with regard to the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier). He practically said then :	I will use any
language I see fit, and I will not shrink from criticism. But at the first breath of any strong criticism we find my right hon. friend a little excited, and we find him using very strong and very-well, very militant language towards those who may venture to criticise him. My right hon. friend has a perfect right to use any language he sees fit within the rules of this House, and others in the House and without the House have also the right to use such moderate criticism with regard to his language as they may deem proper. The right hon. gentleman referred only the other day to a great many illustrations of the use of the words ' stranger ' and ' foreigner, ' and indeed in speaking on the subject he said that he regarded Lord Dundonald as a stranger only to the eastern townships. It was only necessary to remind the House that Lord Dundonald was not himself doing this work in the eastern townships ; it was the officers under Lord Dundonald who were doing the wrork there and they should have been left uninterfered with by the Minister of Agriculture. Lord Dundonald himself was not going to the eastern townships to make a selection of officers ; he left that as the law directed to the officers whose duty it was to perform that service. I do not for one moment question my right hon. friend's assurance as to the sense in which he intended these words, and I for my part am always ready on this or any other occasion to accept his assurance on such a matter. Let me however quote to him, from that well of pure and undefilecf English, a few words which may be of service in interpreting what the ordinary sense of such words is : .
Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints. -'Ephesians II., 19.
That is perhaps a pretty good illustration in which the three expressions ' strangers, ' and * foreigners ' and * fellow citizens ' may be used. I am willing to accept the right hon. gentleman's assurance that he meant no suggestion to the contrary, but I do declare that notwithstanding any assurance to the contrary from any quarter, a man of the race and the birth of the Earl of Dun-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
donald will always be regarded in Canada, not as a foreigner or a stranger, but as a fellow-citizen.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Amendment (Mr. Haggart) negatived, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Lighthouse and coast service-agencies, rents and contingencies, $25,000.


Hon. RAYMOND PRBFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: This estimate includes the salaries, rent and expenses of the new agency recently established in Montreal. It is proposed to increase the salaries of the agents in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The salary of the British Columbia agent is to be increased from 81,600 to $1,800. The agent, in addition to his ordinary duties, performs the duties of inspector of lighthouses and examines masters and mates for certificates, for which he is allowed $200 a year. The St. John agent receives $1,600, while his predecessor received $2,000 ; and it is proposed to increase his salary to $1,800. In Nova Scotia the agent's salary is $1,600. He is provided with a staff of assistants, and it is not proposed to increase his salary. The agent in Prince Edward Island receives $1,400. Besides his duty as agent, he inspects all the lighthouses. In Quebec the agent's salary is $2,200 a year, and he has a competent and efficient staff to assit him.


Richard Blain: How many agencies are there altogether ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: One in Quebec, one in New Brunswick, one in Nova Scotia, one in Prince Edward Island, one in British Columbia, and a sub-marine agency at Montreal, established a year ago.


Richard Blain: What amounts are paid for rent ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that they are all government properties except the Montreal office, which is rented from a private estate and the rent is $2,000.


Richard Blain: Has the same rent been paid for some years ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In Montreal it is a new agency which was established a year ago, but wTe have aggregated into that office the pilots, the cabin space inspectors and the steamboat inspectors.
Maintenance and repairs to lighthouses, including the wages of the crews and maintenance of the Lurcher Shoal, and East Point, Anticosti lightships, $425,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: plants established at Quebec, Parry Sound and Halifax. There are 963 lighthouses, some of which require expensive repairs. Some are in such shape that practically new lighthouses have to be built. The average cost of the 963 lighthouses and fog alarms does not exceed $350 for maintenance and repairs. In British Columbia there has been a large addition to the number of aids to navigation. Provision is required for a number of new lights and fog alarms which are now under construction and aids to navigation recommended by the Ught-jhouse board. Irately several ' light stations were destroyed by fire and have been rebuilt ; and to prevent the possibility of destruction by fire, it is desirable that fire extinguishers of the latest pattern be placed in the different lighthouses and also that these houses be protected against lightning by the most improved lightening rods. This lighthouse service is increasing very fast. The shipping interests, since a number of years, have taken greater care to make tlie necessary presentation to the department and we have formed what is called a lighthouse board, which is composed of a certain number of officers of my department along with a couple of outsiders interested in shipping, who advise on the necessity of establishing certain lights and improved aids to navigation. The government thought that this was the best way of arriving at practical results and satisfying the public that our St. Lawrence route has become considerably improved. But all this costs a good deal of money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are the 963 lighthouses and fog alarms in the St. Lawrence or over the country as a whole ?


Mr PREFONTAINE.: From the Pacific to the Atlantic.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many new lights established last year ?
Mr. PREFONT1 2 3 AINE'. Above Montreal about half a dozen, below Montreal about ten, in the maritime provinces twenty-two, five in British Columbia and one in Prince Edward Island.


Mr. DANIEL.: Are many changes contemplated in the lighthouse service for the Bay of Fundy ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: I may as well give the complete list :



[Stage Direction]
1.	New machinery required for existing fog-alarms	$175 00
2.	Improvements in the powers and character of the lighthouses in the Dominion not specifically provided for
the head of coast lights	 100 00
3.	Dominion lighthouse depot, Prescott,
basin for government steamers, machine shop and tools	 60 00
4. New optical apparatus and lanterns
for coast lights	
150	005.	Gas pumping stations	
50	006.	Gas buoys, &c., St. Lawrence channel	156	667.	Submarine bell	signals	
250	00Total	$885	00
Mr. ALCORN.: May I ask whether, in the case of lighthouses put up or re-built, the work has been done by tender ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: By tender, except in certain cases where our officials did the work themselves.


George Oscar Alcorn: With regard to the work on the lights on False Ducks, Lake Ontario, was that done by tender ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


George Oscar Alcorn: Who were the tenderers, and for what sum ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not able to give the details at the moment, but I know that it was let by tender.


George Oscar Alcorn: Will the hon. gentleman get the information and let me have it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: With pleasure.


George Oscar Alcorn: And may I be permitted to refer to an item for a moment that has been passed-a portion of item 191, examination of masters and mates ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no objection.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: We surely cannot consider items that have been reported ; but the discussion can take place under item 192, with the consent of the committee.


George Oscar Alcorn: Can the minister state what fees examiners of masters and mates are allowed to charge candidates who appear before them for examination ? I ask this because these candidates are put to considerable expense in advance to attend these examinations, and I am aware that fees varying largely in amount have in several instances been demanded of these candidates.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The examination fee paid examiners by the department isi $4 for each candidate examined. Candidates pay a fee which goes into the government chest according to the character of the certificate they require. For - a certificate of competency as master $15 ; for a certificate of competency as mate of a sea going ship $8 ; for a certificate of competency as mate of a ship trading on inland or on minor waters, or on coasting vessels, $6. For a certificate of service as master, $8. For a certificate of service as mate of a sea-going! ship, $5. For a certificate of service as mate for a ship on inland waters or Great ' Lakes, $4.


George Oscar Alcorn: These candidates in many instances have to travel long distances to present themselves for examination, and they are also under expense through loss of time. Are there any instructions issued to examiners with respect to the conduct of examinations ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They get precise instructions as regards the examinations.


George Oscar Alcorn: Will the hon. minister state the nature of the instructions ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is the chairman of the board of examiners of masters and mates, Captain Salmon, who sends out the instructions or printed rules which are supplied to every examiner for circulation. Of course, I have not the instructions under my hand at the moment to lay before the House.


George William Fowler: I understood the hon. member for Prince Edward '(Mr. Alcorn) to say that these fees varied in amount. Is that the case ? Is there not a regular fee established by statute or by Order in Council V


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The fees vary in amount as already stated. They are fixed by statute.


George Oscar Alcorn: I am aware that fees of $12, $14 and $16 have been demanded and paid.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not aware of anything of that kind. If the matter is brought to my notice I will look into it, and if there is anything wrong I will see that it is put right. No other fees should be charged than those I have mentioned as being fixed by statute.


George William Fowler: How is this fee established, by Order in. Council or by statute ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: By statute.


George Oscar Alcorn: Is there any official source where one can find these fees laid down ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have not them here, but they can be produced, they are public. But speaking from memory I think they will be found in 57-58 Vic., Chap. 42.


George Oscar Alcorn: Are these examiners paid by salary in addition to the fees by the department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Some of them are paid by salary and others by fees, $4 for each candidate, but we are gradually coming to the rule of yearly salaries. Where an examiner is paid by salary he does not receive any fees.


George William Fowler: When the examiner is paid a salary, the fees which he receives from candidates, I presume, go entirely to the receiver general ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. '


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


George William Fowler: But when he is paid only by fees he puts in his own pocket the fee which he receives.


George Oscar Alcorn: Do the instructions require that any specific time and place shall be assigned for the examination ? I ask this because my information is that certain of these examinations have been conducted most irregularly, in fact have been conducted in the most singular manner. I have heard of some of them taking place in bar-rooms, and others by way of conversation between the examiner and the candidate, while walking up. and down between drinks. It is a most extraordinary state of affairs. I would suppose that there would be a certain time and place appointed that the candidates would be notified, and a formal examination of some kind held. My information is that in some places at all events, that is not done.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is the first intimation I have had of anything of this kind. I would be surprised if Capt. Salmon who is at the head of that department, should allow examinations to be held in that manner. If the hon. gentleman will make a specific charge or give me information that things of that kind have been done at a certain place, and date, I shall look into it. I have not been informed of anything of that kind having been done. I have never heard of any complaint of examinations being held in that manner.


George William Fowler: Are there written as well as oral examinations ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, both written and oral.


George William Fowler: By whom are these examination papers read ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They are ail read in the department.


George William Fowler: Are they passed upon by a board or simply by one examiner, that is the written examinations ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In ail cases first by one examiner, and then sent to the department and closely examined by the chairman of the board.
Mr. FOWLER, Where there is a board of examiners are these written answers to the questions passed upon by the whole board ? In the case of an examination for master especially, as it is important that these masters should be thoroughly conversant with their duties, it seems to me that it would be a safeguard if the papers were passed upon by more than one person.


George Oscar Alcorn: Will the minister let rue have a copy of the instructions issued to these examiners ?
Mi'. PREFONTAINE. Oh, yes, we have printed instructions.


George Oscar Alcorn: Do the examiners make any, and if so, what return to the depart-

ment of the result of the examiners and the fees which they receive ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The examinations are held by the examiners, and of course, are reported to the chairman, Captain Salmon. Captain Salmon examines the papers and no certificates are issued until he goes Over the papers and returns are sent in monthly by the examiners.


George Oscar Alcorn: In what form is the return to the department made ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: All the papers are sent to the chairman, who filfes them on record 1	/


George William Fowler: Does he make a return of the fees ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Of course at stated periods, say once every quarter the department sends to the Auditor General a statement in detail of certificates issued by the department since the last report sent him, and he is also referred to the deposit receipts sent him to cover the amount ot revenue derived from the certificates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I am correct in understanding that he makes a return of the fees, and the number examined, and if so, where can the information be seen ? If he makes a report of it the information must be somewhere in the department available for inspection.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Oh, yes, there is no difficulty about that ; every certificate is numbered consecutively and they are all examined by the Auditor General when the account is rendered of the amount of fees received.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not what I meant at all. Is there any report we can pick up and find how many were examined and the fees that were paid ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: In the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Marine volume, you will find at page 109, appendix No. 7 :
Report of the chairman of the Board of Examiners of masters and mates.
There you will find a complete report of what has taken place during the season. It is signed by the ehairman. At page 110 you will find a list of those who have been examined and the names of the different places at which they have been examined.


George Oscar Alcorn: Are the fees renutted in case the candidate fails to pass his examination ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The money is not refunded; it remains in the government chest.


George William Fowler: Is the fee of the examiner the same whether the candidate is a master or a mate-$4 in each case ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In this report I do not see anything about the fees paid.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman will look at page 109 he will see that! the following statement is given :
The total amount collected in fees from applicants for certificates, during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1903, was $5,790.50, and the amount expended on account of the service, as will be seen by Appendix No. 1 to this report, was $4,996.06, leaving a balance to this service of $794.44. The vote for this service was $5,000, and the sum expended to June 30, 1903, $4,996.06, leaving an unexpended balance of $3.94.
During the year, 468 certificates have been issued ; and 50 candidates have failed on examination to procure certificates.


George Oscar Alcorn: Is this sum of $7,000 paid to the examiners in addition to the aggregate given by the report to which the hon. minister has just referred ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are expenses connected with the examination of candidates. The examiners have to travel from one point to another. Besides the $4 which they get for the examination of each candidate they get their travelling expenses and the chairman's salary and travelling expenses are also included.


George Oscar Alcorn: How many examiners are there in Ontario ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: At Ottawa there is Captain R. C. W. MaoCuaig, Captain Mc-Elhinney and Captain Magee ; Kingston, Captain Thos. Donnelly ; St. Catharines, Captain William McIIwaine and Captain G. T. Phillips.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister give us an explanation as to the condition of the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and Quebec, and will he state whether he regards it as being well lighted now ? He made a general statement last year in connection with this subject saying that he hoped that by the 1st of November of last year to have the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec so well lighted that it would he as safe by night as by day.
Ml*. DEPUTY SPEAKER, If the hon. gentleman will wait until the next item is reached this question will be in order.
Mr. FOWLER, The item before the committee is ' maintenance and repairs to lighthouses.'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, we are at ' agencies, rent and contingencies."


Peter Macdonald: The item before the committee is :
Maintenance and repairs to lighthouses, Including the wages of crews, and maintenance of the Lurcher shoal, and East Point, Anticosti, lightships, $425,1)00.


George William Fowler: I would like an explanation as to these rents.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think I have given an explanation of that. There is only one rent that we pay in Montreal, and that is for the new agency which was established there a year ago. The other agencies ocj cupy government property.


George William Fowler: What is the rent at Montreal ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


George William Fowler: Is there no building in Montreal belonging to the government ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: None available.


George Taylor: I would like to inquire if the light at 'Lindoe Island on the St. Lawrence at Fiddler's Elbow has been changed from an oil light to acetylene and when the new system was put in operation ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that it has been changed from oil to acetylene gas.


George Taylor: Are you using acetylene gas there now ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am so informed.


George Taylor: I would like to read a letter to the hon. minister which I received to-day. It is addressed to Mr. John G. Wallace, lightkeeper at Lindoe Island and reads as follows :
Ottawa, 23rd June, 1904.
Sir,-I have to inform you that because of the light on Lindoe island, under your charge, being changed from a light burning oil to an automatic acetylene gas light, your services as lightkeeper are no longer required, and that owing to abolition of your office the Minister of Marine and Fisheries recommended to Council that you be placed on the retired list from the 1st July, 1904, with an annual allowance of $138, based on a service of twenty-three years and a salary of $300 per annum.
I have, therefore, to request you to so arrange matters as to be in a position to vacate the light station and give up possession thereof and of all government property under your charge to the department on the 1st proximo.
I am, sir.
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) F. GOURDEAU, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Mr. John G. Wallace,
Lightkeeper
Lindoe Island,


Ivy Lea P.O.: , Ont.
On the 23rd June a servant who has given twenty-three years service to the department gets eight days notice to get out and is superannuated at the rate of $138 a year. I turned up the Act in reference to super-' annuation to see what provision it makes in such a case as this. This man has been' paying into the superannuation fund for twenty-three years while he was in the ser-Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
vice and is entitled to superannuation if his services are dispensed with. This is what the Act says :	,
If any person to whom this Act applies is removed from office in consequence of the abolition of his office for the purpose of improving the organization of the department to which he belongs, or is removed, or retired from office to promote efficiency or economy in the civil service, the Governor in Council may grant him such gratuity or superannuation allowance as will fairly compensate him for his loss of office, not exceeding such as he would have been entitled to if he had retired in consequehee of permanent Infirmity of body or mind, after adding ten years to his actual term of service.
I want to inquire of the hon. minister if he has complied with the Act? This man has been in the service for twenty-three years and the hon. minister must have removed him for economy or efficiency, and if so has he recommended that ten years be added to his term of service for superannuation purposes as it was the intention of the Act when the government cruelly forced a man out as they have done in this case? I would like to appeal to the government on behalf of this man and to point out that he is entitled to the consideration which the Act intends he shall receive and that he should have ten years added to the service he has performed for superannuation purposes. I would ask if it is the intention ,Of the hon. minister to do this?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I did not look into that point yet, but I am willing to do so. I do not think there has been any cl'uelty about tbe matter. I am informed that the man is quite able to do any work he may be called upon to do. I have had no report against him, but of course when we changed the system of lighting his office was abolished. He gets his pension, and if he is entitled to ten years addition to the time he has served I will certainly be favourable to looking into the matter and see that justice will be done.


George Taylor: I certainly think he is entitled to it. It is true he is an able bodied man, but he should have more than eight days notice after being in the service of the government for so many years.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We are not pushing him at all. He occupies forty acres of land, and we have not informed him that he had to give up the occupation of it. He has made no complaint to us.


George Taylor: He got notice that his services are both dispensed with and that his salary would cease on the first of July. He was also told by letter to hand over the government property in his possession to Captain of the ' Scout.' I Think that is taking him by tbe 1 throat. I do not think that there is a man in this House or outside of it who if he had a >
faithful servant for 23 years
I

would discharge him on eight days notice.
I do not think it is the intention of that Act that such a thing should be done.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed by my officers that this gentleman got notice last summer, that a change was contemplated. and that he should be prepared for
it.	-


George Taylor: No.
Mr, PREFONTAINE. He has never complained, in any way until now.


George Taylor: He knew the change was coming, but seeing that he was on the superannuation list, and that he was able to perform his duties, he thought if any one were retained he would be. He never suspected that he would be dismissed and a man put in his place to look after half a dozen lights.
I can tell the minister now, that if he does not employ more than one man to look after these lights among The Thousand Islands, there will be a serious accident some day. In the fly season the flies are attracted by the lights, and formerly the lighthouse keeper would have to clear them off half a dozen times a night. With one man in charge of half a dozen lights, 15 miles apart, he cannot attend to each of them. In the morning when you go to these lights you will find dead flies an inch deep fastened to the glass and practically obscuring the iigfat. When I was in Prescott the other day the flies were as thick as a cloud. I can tell the minister that he will have to appoint another man to clear these lights as was done under the old system, and it would be much better in the public interest to retain the services of Mr. Wallace. I will accept the minister's statement in reference to Mr. Wallace. If any man ever was entitled to have ten years added to his superannuation Mr. Wallace is entitled to it. Then again, Mr. Acton was dismissed after fifteen years service : he is not on the superannuation list and he should be entitled to a better retiring allowance than he has received. It is the same with the other man who was there for three or four years.
Inspection of lighthouses and aids to navigation, $502,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The extensive improvements authorized in the lighting of the Upper St. Lawrence, comprises the introduction of compressed acetylene instead of oil in lighthouses, and the use of acetylene for the buoy service instead of oil or Pintsch gas, and also the use, as far as possible, of range lights instead of single lights and gas buoys. The rearrangement of the existing system of lights will be considered as soon as possible by the lighthouse board which has been established. Last session, an estimate was given of the cost of converting the lighting of the river, and the apparatus needed procured from the Safety
Car Heating and Lighting Company, of New York, as it was not made in Canada. Also provision was made for a suitable buoy depot at a central point on the river, between Dickinson's Landing and Prescott, where there should be ample store room space, dock room for steamers, and land for storage gas, can and spar buoys. The selection of a suitable depot was made at Prescott, and the department obtained an option on the property owned by John La-batt, of London, Ont. The price paid for the property including wharfs, buildings and land, $26,500. This location is an ideal place for a buoy depot, is centrally situated and will be the headquarters for assembling apparatus for the lighthouse service of the Dominion, and provision is being made for the manufacture of apparatus now purchased abroad. $35,000 was the sum estimated for the depot, but the department was able to make the purchase for $26,500. Last year $80,000 was placed in the estimates to provide for the construction of a lightship to be placed on Lurcher Shoal at the entrance of the Bay of Fundy. It was also found necessary in the interests of navigation that a lightship should be placed at the East Point of Anticosti. A contract was entered into with the Poison Iron Works of Toronto, to construct the two lightships for the sum of $179,500. I may say that- at the time this amount of $502,000 was placed in the estimates, being the same amount as voted last year, the department had not at that time completed its policy in respect to aids to navigation for the next fiscal year. The lighthouse board is now passing upon a number of applications before the department which have been held over awaiting the organization of the board. These will comprise new lighthouses, fog alarms and buoys, but until the board completes its labours, it will not be possible to give an estimate of the amount that will be required for these new aids. The amount required for these aids together with the balance mentioned above, will appear in the supplementary estimates. The fog alarms of the Dominion comprise a very important class of aids to navigation and those in the St. Lawrence are especially important in view of the increase in number and tonnage of the ships utilizing the route. Provision will be made for the installation of the best machinery obtaiuable which will make the system second to none. The cost is estimated at $175,000. Complaints .have been made in the past about the lighting of the St. Lawrence route, and the estimates provide for a sum of $50,000 which will be sufficient to install the most modern apparatus that can be obtained. When the improvements provided by this vote are carried out no further complaints should be made concerning the lighting of this important trade artery. As indicated above, the department had purchased a depot at Prescott, which will be utilized for the as-

sembly and manufacture of lighthouse apparatus for the Dominion. It is necessary that a basin should be provided for the government steamers, and that a machine shop should be erected for the manufacture of certain classes of apparatus not made in Canada. This will keep the larger proportion of the vote for this purpose within the country. The sum of $60,000 is required for this purpose, many of the lights in the lighthouses of the Dominion are neither powerful enough nor are their lights sufficiently charateristic, and it is necessary to take steps to remedy this state of affairs. This will be done by the substitution of gas for oil as the illuminant, thereby increasing the power of the lights and also permitting them to be made more characteristic. The sum of $100,000 is asked for this purpose, and it is estimated that it "'ill provide for the conversion of about 300 lighthouses. The apparatus will be designed by the engineers of the department. The extension of the gas buoy system in the Quebec, Nova Scotia and Georgian Bay districts calls for the erection of three gas pumping stations. These will be located at Quebec, Halifax and Parry Sound, respectively. $50,000 was asked for this purpose. It is desirable to continue the lighting of the channel from Quebec to Sore], which was commenced last year by the opening up of the Sorel-Montreal division, and which permitted night navigation between these two points. The arrangement has been of great benefit to the shipping interests, and has been appreciated by them. I may say, as regards the inauguration of the new lights between Montreal and Sore], that they have been so successful that steamers have been able to leave Montreal during the night and navigate the whole distance of forty-five miles with perfect safety.


George William Fowler: How much, in addition to this $502,000, does the hon. gentleman propose to ask for ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There will be a supplementary estimate of over $300,000 besides this.
Mr. FOWLER, Making nearly a million dollars. What portion of that is for the changing of the lights from oil to acetylene gas ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About $100,000 on the whole.


George William Fowler: Before the department decided to make the change from oil to gas, what examination was made as to the relative value of the two lights ? Was there a commission or a board of competent persons to take the matter into consideration and report ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As I stated before, the study of this question was begun before I was in the department. The question was studied for two years. The value of the Mr. PREFONTAINE.
light was public property. It was known that it would be better if we could find the apparatus to work it properly. It has been adopted in France and in England, so that as regards the light itself there was no question. But as regards the apparatus, owing to our climatic conditions, we had to study and experiment. That was done by the officers of the department, the chief engineer and his assistants, and the result has been found to be perfectly satisfactory.


George William Fowler: Has the report of these officers been presented to the department, so that it can be got at by any person who desires to see it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There was no need of a special written report. The facts were there. The lights were being worked day by day, week by week and month by month, and the improvements were being put in operation according as the experiments were satisfactory or not.


George William Fowler: It was only a question, then, of experimenting with the apparatus ? Where were these experiments conducted, and by whom, and was there any report in the department before the change was decided upon ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Some were conducted where the lights were placed and some in the stores at Ottawa.


George William Fowler: I cannot understand why there should be a different apparatus required in this country from what there would be in England, for instance.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman would come to the department and have a little conversation with some of tlia engineers he would be convinced very quickly why the experiment took such a long time. Some of these apparatus have to be tested at different temperatures. We were offered I do not know how many different patents and different sorts of machinery that would work satisfactorily at a certain temperature, but would not at another temperature. So we had to make a choice of the best equipment, and that is what the officers of the department did.


George William Fowler: But the temperature of this country varies in the different seasons of the year. Do you change the apparatus with the season, as we change our clothing ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Some of these apparatus would work at 10 degrees below zero and some would not work at 25 degrees above zero, so that we had to take Into consideration ' all these conditions and take the best apparatus. The generator which we are using works at 30 below zero. .


George William Fowler: Our temperature is sometimes lower than 30 below zero. Suppose it was 40 below, the apparatus would have

to go out of business. It seems to me that before so very large an expenditure is entered into as is necessitated by the change from oil to acetylene gas, there should be some authentic written report before the department and brought down by the minister to show the members of this committee what these experiments were and whether they cover the ground.
Mr. I? LAIX. It seems to me that the hon. minister should give us a statement of the condition of the lighting on the River St. Lawrence. His predecessors some three years ago declared that with the money which was then voted the lighting system would be perfect, particularly between Quebec and Montreal. My hon. friend last year said he proposed to put the lighting system in the hands of a commission to report upon it. He pointed out what changes he proposed and what advantage these would be to the public. He proposed to have forty-two store holders constructed at a cost of $35,000, and! forty gas automatic gas buoys at a cost of $12,000 and certain other improvements, making a total of $56,000. Has that work been gone on with, and was the estimate given last year sufficient to complete it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: These improvements have been made gradually. I have here a map showing which were made in 1903 and those proposed for 1904. The work completed in 1903 is in black, the work under construction is in green, and the work proposed is in red.


Richard Blain: When will this be through ? It is the same old statement. My hon. friend has repeated almost word for word this year what he said last year with respect to lighting the St. Lawrence river. We should have an estimate of the total cost of relighting the St. Lawrence, if it is to be relighted. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman is adopting a piecemeal system of lighting. It would be very much more in the interests of the country if he would prepare a statement of the whole system and submit that to the committee.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I said last year that we intended to perfect the aids to navigation as much as possible between Montreal and Sorel, some forty-five miles. The gas holders and gas buoys and the other improvements I mentioned have been done, and the shipping interests are perfectly satisfied that this portion of the St. Lawrence is perfectly equipped. I mentioned last year also that I proposed to improve aids to navigation from St. Francis to Le Platon, but I could not undertake to improve the balance before the channel was completed. We began this spring to improve these thirty-five miles. As regards the balance, it cannot be done for a year or two, because the work of dredging the channel and widening it and straightening
the curves will not be finished before three or four years; It would be useless to install costly apparatus in a channel which is too narrow and which could not be used at night in safety. The result of the improvements we have made is that steamers can sail from Montreal to Sorel and from Sorel to Montreal at night in perfect safety, which they never thought of doing before. These gas holders and automatic gas buoys cannot be procured in this country at present, but we are trying to get manufacturers to make them. At present we are obliged to import them from Germany and they have to be ordered six or seven months in advance. 'When my hon. friend asks me to state when the St. Lawrence route will be in perfect condition as regards aids to navigation, he cannot be serious. Improvements are going on every day and will have to go on as long as that river is navigable. The first work on the channel between Montreal and Quebec was begun in 1850 or 1855. At that time the water on the St. Peters flats was from nine to ten feet deep. Now the depth is thirty feet and it is contemplated to have thirty-two at low water and a channel five hundred feet wide or at least four hundred and fifty feet.


George William Fowler: What is the present width ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Five hundred In some places and in others three hundred and fifty, and we are going on increasing the depth so as to afford the shipping interests the necesssary facilities to navigate between the two ports. This work has been going on the last twenty-five or thirty years, but within the last ten years a good deal more has been accomplished than formerly. We are constantly in communication with tthe shipping interests, and I do not think that any board of shippers could find fault with what we have done. The only fault they might find is that we are not going fast enough, but others say we are going too fast. I myself think we are not going fast enough, but we are working according to our means and circumstances. As for the dredging, heavy expenses have been incurred by the Public Works Department to provide dredges. The Department of Public Works had antiquated dredges, dredges that could not go deeper than twenty-five feet, and that worked very slowly. All these difficulties could not be overcome in a year. The first point was the establishment of the shipyards at Sorel. For the proper working of these an efficient staff is required, and this cannot be provided at once for men have to be chosen and fitted for the special work they have to do. Though we are going faster and faster every year, we may not do all that the people expect of us. But I think that we have been doing the best that could be done under the circumstances.


George William Fowler: So far as the expenditure of money on the St. Lawrence route is concerned, I do not think that any hon. gentleman on this side will object, so long as we can see a reasonable prospect of securing good results from that expenditure. I do, however, find reason to criticise the manner in which the minister has expended some of the money placed at his disposal. For my part, I think before he incurred the expenditure necessary for a change of lights so as to use acetylene gas, he should have had a report from competent persons as to the advisability of this step and as to the amount that would be required, so that he could give to the committee some idea of cost and the advantages to be gained by incurring that cost. For my part, I would not care if the vote were $2,000,000 instead of $1,000,000, if the corresponding benefit is to be had ; because one of the most important things we have to do in this country in connection with our transportation system is to improve the St. Lawrence route. The frequent occurrence of accidents imposes a very heavy tax on our shipping in the way of high insurance rates, and this is a great injury to our commerce. So far as we have evidence before us, I think it is far from clear that the expenditure under the hon. gentleman has always been made in the best interest of the country. If the experiments of which he has spoken have taken place there should be some report before this committee, so that we may be able to form some idea of their value.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: Have the improvements on the St. Lawrence had any appreciable effect in reducing the rates of insurance, or, if not, is there any present prospect of a reduction ? This seems to be one of the heaviest burdens upon our commerce. It might be a matter of importance for the government to look into this question and see whether the insurance rates are based upon the actual statistics of the losses on the route or not. It may be worthy the consideration of the government whether the country should continue to submit to exorbitant insurance rates or whether we should take some step to form a Lloyd's Association for Canada.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: For the information of the hon. gentleman, I may repeat what I have stated here, that the improvements made and contemplated have had the effect of securing for the Canadian Pacific Railway Steamers-or Elder-Dempster Line -quite a reduction in the rate of insurance. Of course, there was probably not only that reason given at the time, but the reason that the Canadian Pacific It nil way offered so much guarantee as regards the organization of their service. But the better precautions taken for the safety of vessels has had its effect in this direction. If I wanted to take the time of the committee, I could produce hundreds of letters from captains of Mr. PREFONT AINE.
steamers, resolutions from boards of trade, resolutions from shipping conference, and so on, endorsing everything done by the department, and even going in advance of the department) and making suggestions for other improvements, I could read also an extract from the ' Shipping Gazette ' and ' Lloyd's List ' of the 15th January, 1904, stating in the plainest manner thrft the aids to navigation and the work going on were bringing about such good results that the time is not far distant when the reputation of the St. Lawrence route will be as good as the reputation of any other. The shipping interests have taken the matter in hand, and the suggestions they have made to the department have been accepted and we are trying to do the best we can under the circumstances.
As regards, what the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) has said to the effect that there is no report before the committee of experiments made, I can only say that when I became head of the department these experiments in the direction of substituting acetylene gas for coal oil were going on. I put myself in communication -with the officials who were conducting these experiments and, from day to day, I kept myself informed. I do not see what necessity there was for getting a report. The facts are there ; I have visited the places and examined into what was being done ; and, although I do not pretend to be an expert, the result has satisfied me that the experiments made have been successful and that the new system should be adopted in the public interest. And, as I have stated, the shipping interests are entirely in favour of these improvements, and demand their extension as rapidly as possible. '


George William Fowler: I may have been misinformed, but I understood that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company carried their own insurance on their ships. I remember that it was stated in the newspapers, when one of their vessels was lost, that it would be a total loss to the company.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think my hon. friend is talking about the Allan Line. The Allan Line does not insure.


George William Fowler: No, this was the Canadian Pacific Railway. I believe that one of their boats became a total loss on her first trip under the new management and it was stated in the papers that it was an entire loss to the company because they carried the insurance themselves. In that way it would seem that the improvements in the St. Lawrence route have not succeeded in reducing the number of casualties. Judging from the newspaper reports I should say that there had been a larger number of accidents last year than in the three preceding years.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The number of casualties has increased proportionately to
5822

the increase of trade. The hon. gentleman has referred to the accident to the 'Montery' at St. Pierre and Miquelon. This was not in our waters ; it is on the St. Lawrence route, and is charged against that route, but the cause of the accident is well known. It was not at all owing to deficient aids to navigation as the accident occurred within the light of one of the largest lighthouse^ on the French shore, and their lights were quite superior to those which we have in-! stalled at the present time, although we expect in time to be in a position to have the best. The increase in the tonnage and in trade has caused these accidents. It stands to reason that with the competition that exists accidents will happen but these accidents are not due to want of aids to navigation.
* Mr. SPROTJLE. They are due to bad pilotage in some instances.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Sometimes to bad pilotage but sometimes the accidents occur outside of pilotage ground. We are in con-1 stant communication with the shipping interests on the other side and with shipping companies, and it has been shown that the reproaches to the St. Lawrence route were in many eases not well founded. We have been trying to re-establish the reputation of the St. Lawrence route, and the article which I cited from the 'Shipping Gazette' and 'Lloyd's List' is in that line. The article dated January 15, 1904, and is as follows :
Canada has gone ahead very rapidly during the past year, and Montreal, as the export centre of the Dominion, has unquestionably had its full share of the enhanced activity. In the ' Annual Review ' which is issued by the Montreal ' Gazette,' it is stated that in the great staple products, the export business from Montreal during the season of navigation was larger than from any other port on the American continent, not excepting New York. ' No stronger evidence,' it is argued, ' of the cheapness, convenience, and advantage of the St. Lawrence route than this fact affords could well he given, nor can the end of the period of prosperity be yet discerned.' Notwithstanding, the year was not considered to be quite satisfactory, by shipping men, and high rates of insurance on cargoes and hulls are mentioned as one of the causes. We are told, however, that it is possible to attach too much importance to this matter, and that, if insurance is the drawback it is represented to be, it is surprising that the established lines increase the traffic and that new ones spring up to compete with them. The real difficulty, it is suggested, is that keen competition has reduced the rates at Amercian ports to an abnormally low figure. On the other hand, it is frankly acknowledged that when freights are low the insurance question becomes of greater consequence. It would appear that the accidents on the St. "Lawrence route were slightly heavier in 1903 than in the preceding year. Among the most serious were the total wreck of the ' Monterey,' and the disasters to
the 'Norwegian' and the 'Manchester Trader.' But it is put forward that these accidents can hardly he ascribed to the danger of the route, since they have all been proved to be due to error in judgment or incompetency on the part of the navigators. It is claimed that, while the St. Lawrence route is a little more dangerous than any other, yet ' with a certain amount of care and alertness, all accidents might easily be avoided.' That is, perhaps, putting it rather high. No doubt carelessness has played a rather prominent part in certain St. Lawrence disasters, but insurance rates to a certain extent speak for themselves. Human judgment is probably no more fallible in the St. Lawrence than elsewhere, but aids to human judgment may possibly be numerous or less effective than in some other waters. Casualty, how-ever, has happily not prevented Montreal's shipping from forging ahead. The total number of boats which arrived in the port was 797 last year, as against 758 in 1902. The net registered tonnage of 1,541,000 then recorded was last year exceeded by about 450,000 tons, the increase being largely due to the growth in size of the regular liners now engaged in Canadian trade. One of the main features of the year has, of course, been the acquisition of the Elder-Dempster and Beaver lines by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. By the service now established it is possible to convey passengers and goods from English ports to Chinese ports 'without their quitting the company's property. It is recorded that the Canadian Pacific Company have so far come up to the requirements, inasmuch as they made little change from the Elder-Dempster policy. The Finska-Lloyd, running monthly from La Pallice-Rochelle to Montreal, is also described as a successful venture, and so, likewise, is the enterprise of the Canadian Ocean and Inland Company, which gives a service between inland ports of Canada and Europe. The older lines all show an advance, both in the number of voyages and in tonnage.


George William Fowler: The minister stated that there were more accidents last year than the year before. He has also stated that the number of casualties has kept pace with the increased tonnage. That being the case, it would seem that all of these improvements have not brought about the desired end. which is that the St. Lawrence route shall be more safe by reason of these improvements than it has been in the past. The minister has also said1 that the number of accidents was occasioned not by any dangers of the route but by. carelessness or lack of judgment on the part of those navigating the route. Does it not stand to reason that the same conditions of carelessness prevailed in previous years ? The minister has not stated that the men navigating the St. Lawrence route last year were less competent than the men who navigated it in 1902, 1901 or 1900. Therefore we must take it for granted that the accidents caused by carelessness or bad judgment on the part of those navigators was as great in those years as in 1903. That being the case it seems to me that all the money we have
5823	COMMONS	5824
*
expended in connection with the St. Lawrence route has not done away with the dangers of the route. I would like the minister to address himself to that phase of the question for a moment. We are anxious that a sufficient amount shall he expended to make the St. Lawrence route as safe as any route in the world. I would be glad if the hon. minister were in a position to convince the committee that the policy that his predecessor adopted before him is the right one and that it will bring about the end which we have in view ; that is the real, bona fide improvement of the St. Lawrence . route.


David Henderson: I have been wondering after listening to the discussion for three-quarters of an hour whether there is any other navigable water in the Dominion of Canada than the St. Lawrence river, especially that part of it between Montreal and Sorel. We are asked to vote $500,000 for the erection of lighthouses and aids to navigation, but we have not heard a word about any expenditure that is to be made outside of the little preserve of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman should have given us some information as to why all this money is to be dumped into the St. Lawrence river, which seems to me to be simply a dumping ground for the cash of this country, and has been for a great many years without producing very many results. I am sorry to hear the minister say that it may be four or five years yet before he or those who may succeed him will be able to announce that the St. Lawrence river would be at all fit for navigation. We know at the present time that practically it is not, because only very recently a serious accident occurred just in the neighbourhood of where the hon. gentleman is spending this very large sum of money.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: What accident does the hon. gentleman allude to ?


David Henderson: I allude to the accident on the 'St. Lawrence about four weeks ago, where one vessel ran into another.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That was a collision.


David Henderson: Not in the light of day, but in the light of the illumination, I should say, that the hon. gentleman has been endeavouring to spread over the St. Lawrence for the purpose of protecting the lives and property of the people of Canada. Yet, in face of this occurrence, we are told that we have to wait some four or five years more before we will be able to escape catas-trophies of that kind. But I desire to speak seriously upon this matter. I hope the hon. gentleman is not going to spend all his money in the upper St. Lawrence, between Montreal and Sorel, because there are other parts of the country that are entitled Mr. FOWLER.
to receive some little consideration from the hon. gentleman. I am not going to ask very much of him, but I hope he will grant the little I do ask, and I trust at the same time that he will extend beyond even -what I ask and give his careful attention to the regions to the west of Montreal, because there must be many parts of the country where lighthouses will be required. I believe that on the upper lakes, Lake Superior especially, he will find ample opportunity for spending money and improving the system to assist the enormous amount of navigation that is coursing through those waters. I presume the hon. minister has visited the St. Clair river at some time in his life. If lie has not visited Sarnia within the last five or ten years, I would counsel him to pay a flying visit to that district and to sit down for about half an hour and watch the number of vessels which pass during that time. I am* quite sure he would be astonished. I have heard it said that on that river, and I have not the slightest doubt but what it is quite true, there are more vessels passing through than there are practically crossing the Atlantic ocean. There is an enormous amount of navigation on the upper lakes and rivers, and yet it seems that all these waters are to be neglected for the sake of the improvement of the St. Lawrence river. I draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that the navigation of the St. Lawrence is a mere trifle. It is a very small thing compared with the navigation of the upper lakes and the rivers connecting these lakes. I do not suppose it amounts to a tenth part- perhaps I may not be far astray when I say the twentieth part-of the navigation of these inland waters, and surely the hon. gentleman will be able to spare some of this $500,000 to give some attention to the lighting up of the rivers and lakes west of Montreal. But the particular item to which I desire to draw the attention of the hon. minister is one in which I am rather personally interested, and I think I need only mention it to bring it to the recollection of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
I say Minister of Marine and Fisheries, because the matter I refer to has more reference to fisheries than to marine. One year ago, after the hon. gentleman came into office, I drew his attention to the case in my own county of the little town of Bronte, where the government had been constructing a wharf and dredging out the mouth of the creek for the purpose of improving the harbour. I desire to remind him that in that neighbourhood, in Lake Ontario, adjacent to the town of Bronte, a very considerable amount of fishing is going on. It is the home of the Cisco herring. The fishery extends out ten or fifteen miles, and a very large amount of fishing is being done. Very frequently, in the late autumn, storms blow up on the lake and the fishermen, as on the Atlantic coast, are subjected to very great danger. Sometimes the men are caught out

in a storm while setting or taking in their nets, and on a dark night it is difficult for them to find their way back to port. I have asked the minister-and I am sorry to say that no action has been taken-if he could not take, say, $200 or $300-I do not think it would cost more than $200-to erect a skeleton lighthouse sufficiently high to place a light that will be seen for ten or fifteen miles out by the fishermen on a dark night. It need only be lighted for a comparatively small portion of the year, but it would be a guide to the fishermen in the darkness to a port of safety, and perhaps be the means of saving valuable lives. The expenditure would be small compared with the advantages that would be gained, and I am quite sure that the minister would not only confer a favour on these people, but that he would receive their hearty approbation and thanks if he would not allow this matter to drift along year after year, but if he would put somebody to work on this small job, and during the current summer, before the rough weather of the fall sets in, have a light erected there in order to give to these people the advantage which I have suggested.
I presume the minister will tell me that he does not want to erect a lighthouse until the pier is built. I think I can remove that difficulty. The minister can erect a light at the end of the pier so far as it has been completed, and if that be found an unsuitable location, and I do not think it will, it can be changed afterwards to the end of the pier when completed. Heretofore lights' have been built upon the bank of the lake or the people have placed lights in their window's hoping that the fishermen would see them, so that I am sure a lighthouse erected at the present end of the pier would be an improvement. The construction of this wharf seems to be one of these interminable jobs that have a beginning and never have an end. It has been going on for four years, whereas if ordinary business sense had been applied the whole work including the lighthouse would have been constructed in one or two seasons, so that in the dark and stormy nights of the fall, the fishermen would be able to return thanks to him for the consideration shown for their welfare by providing this necessary essential to their operations. I appeal to the minister to be good enough to give this matter his immediate attention, and if he does I am sure it will be appreciated in that section of the country.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have given,this matter all the attention it deserves. After the hon. gentleman spoke to me on this matter last session, the chief engineer of the department was sent up there in September and this is his report :
Report :
I have to report that in accordance with instructions I visited Bronte on the 19th Inst.,
and put myself in communication with Mr. W. H. Speers, and in company with Mr. Speers, Dr. Bucke, ex-reeve of the township, the contractor for the breakwater, and other residents, I inspected the harbour, which is an artificial one, formed by building two crib-work breakwaters out into the lake from the mouth of Bronte creek. This small harbour is the headquarters of a large trade in ciscoes, but this year the fish have not struck in and consequently very little fishing has been done out of Bronte.
The breakwaters are not completed, and I find the feeling general that the work of establishing a lighthouse should be postponed unc.l the completion of the breakwaters.
I consider this work can be allowed to stand over without any detriment to the interest of navigation.


WM. P. ANDERSON,
[Stage Direction]
Chief engineer.
In the face of this report of the chief engineer I do not see what I could do, but of course I would be disposed to look into it again. I can put the matter before the lighthouse board, aud if they decide that this light is more needed than others I will abide by their decision and erect it with great pleasure.
David Henderson: When I represented the matter to the minister last year, he thought I had made out a very good case and he practically assured me that the light would be erected. I quite understand the purpose of these delays. The elections are coming on


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Surely the hon. gentleman does not suspect the intention of the chief engineer ; surely he does not cast a doubt on the chief engineer's honesty and integrity.


David Henderson: I will say nothing about the chief engineer, but so far as the minister is concerned I have not the slightest suspicion, because I am quite satisfied without suspecting. This lighthouse was promised in 1890 by the gentleman who opposed me in the riding


William Pate Mulock: That would be under the Conservative government.


David Henderson: I should have said in 1900, I am obliged to the Postmaster General for correcting me. I believe the Postmaster General spoke to these fishermen in Bronte, and while I ao not know that he promised the light, his friend whom he took there did.


William Mulock: I think I never had the honour of meeting the gentlemen of Bronte.


David Henderson: The Postmaster General must have forgotten, and judging from his remarks yesterday he seeems to be very familiar with the question. There is no doubt that it was promised and promised for a purpose


Romuald-Charlemagne Laurier: For the purpose of giving light.


David Henderson: Not so much for the purpose of throwing light upon Bronte, as throwing light upon something else, and I may tell the minister that the purpose was accomplished. The people took the Liberal candidate at his word, and gave him their votes so that instead of having a majority of possibly fourteen, which the Liberal candidate formerly had he raised the majority to fifty. The people did their part, but I will not promise the Minister of Marine, that if he does not do his part the people will continue to do as they did before. I believe they will get out of patience and come to the conclusion that once or twice is often enough to be fooled in that way. I do not think the engineer has said that it would not be advisable to erect this light, but whether or not, I am satisfied that it is a very desirable thing to do. I have been in the village of Bronte on a dark stormy night, and I know that the utmost concern was felt for the safety of the poor men out in the lake who had no means of guiding themselves back to harbour. We are making provision here for lights on the Atlantic coast and other places, for then-protection, and there is no reason why the important fishing station of Bronte should not be provided for too. I do not believe in making fish of one and flesh of another. This fishing industry at Bronte, spoken of so lightly by the engineer, is very much more extensive than he perhaps has knowledge of. I am not aware that it is decreasing. I agree that it varies from year to year, but at any rate a great number of people are fishermen, and they have their money invested in boats and nets. They make their livelihood out of fishing and they should be facilitated in their industry just as well as the fishermen on the Atlantic coast and down on the Bay of Fundy.
These fishermen do not get any bounty ; they do not ask it ; I do not say that they are entitled to it. But they contribute their share to the taxation of this country, and why should they not get something back in the shape of improvements which are very desirable and necessary ? I was led to understand by the minister last year that this was something that was to be accomplished and X regret very much to hear the minister to-night throwing cold water on it, and bringing at this late*date a report from hi si engineer discrediting the erection of this lighthouse. I do not ask for anything extravagant. I do not think it would cost a private individual over $200, and I do not think it would cost the government over ?300. I invite the minister to look into the matter again, and I trust he will change his mind and give these people a little more kindly consideration than he has meted out to them in the past.


Mr. E. D. SMITH.: There are some additional lights on the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec, but very few additional stations. Will the minister explain how Sir WILFRID LATJRTER,
this is ? What is the extra cost of putting additional lights at a station ? Does it entail any extra men or any extra expense ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are different kinds of stations. There are lighthouses and fog or signal stations. There .are no light stations between Montreal and Sorel, but there are forty-five additional gas buoys and some range lights and other lights that have been re-arranged in order to make the navigation perfectly safe during the night.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Is the navigation so safe now that a vessel can go at night at full speed all the way through ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Yes.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I notice that in the report of some investigations- into shipwrecks it is said that in one case the vessel was only going at the rate of four knots ani hour, I take it in the day time. I notice in the pamphlet which the minister circulates, ' and which is very much like a campaign document, all the comparisons being between the year 1896 and the year 1903, that there has been an increase in the number of lights of 46, while thex-e has only been an increase of four stations. There has been a decrease in the number of lightships of two. No increase in bomb signals, nine in , 1903, the same as in 1896. Steam fog whistles two in each case, steam fog horns nine in each year, gas buoys ten in 1896-increased to twelve in 1903. Wooden buoys increase from 140 to 170, day beacons unchanged 59 in each case. Surely if the St. Lawrence was in such a bad shape seven years ago, the additional thirty wooden buoys and forty-six additional lights at the stations that were already there have not made very much improvement. I think this route requires a gi-eat deal more attention from the hon. minister than it has received. It is the outlet for more than half the goods exported from this country. Last year no less than $132,000,000 of goods passed down that route.
It should be made so safe that there would be none of these casualties. The minister in his annual report shows that there were investigations into nine casualties along that route, while there were at least an equal number that wei-e not investigated.
In view of these facts, there must be some-, thing wrong with the route-not a sufficient number of lights or buoys properly placed. In one of the casualties it was-stated that the buoys were out of place; What method does the minster take to see that the buoys are kept in place ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Special officers are appointed to look after the buoys and keep them in place, and they are pati-olling the St. Lawrence all the time. Sometimes it happens that a buoy gets out of place. It may be dragged by a boat that may have sfranded near the buoy. As soon as this
5S29

is brought to the notice of the official in
charge, if he is not himself on the spot,' it is remedied. Such things will happen, and cannot be prevented. We have com-| pleted the lighting of the channel on both sides between Montreal and Sorel, and we are completing the balance. We are attending not only to the ocean route of the St. Lawrence, but also to the upper St. Lawrence, doing every thing that has been asked by the Marine Association on the lakes. We are making these improvements as fast as we can get the apparatus and the material.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would like to ask the minister what power he exercises with regard to the southern points of Newfoundland.	'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have no power, i All we can do in these foreign waters is draw the attention of the Home government to anything that is wrong. There are accidents charged to the St. Lawrence route which do not belong to it. Take the accident to the ' Monterey ' on the coast of St. Pierre and Miquelon. Those islands are in the gulf of the St. Lawrence, but the accident took place within the range of one of the best lighthouses in the world. Could we be held responsible for that ? Other accidents have happened for which the aids to navigation should not be blamed, but which were due to mistakes on the part of mariners and pilots.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: No doubt there are shipwrecks which are not due to the lack of aids to navigation, but the St. Lawrence route must compare unfavourably with that of New York, since the insurance rates are so much higher. I am of the opinion that our St. Lawrence route can be made almost, if not quite, as safe as the New York route, and the government would be justified in going to any reasonable expense to bring * about that result. Has the minister investigated thoroughly the question of submarine signals V There are appliances which are claimed to be very effective for finding out the approach of other vessels or ice floes. What is the result of the investigation which the minister made on the coast of the United States ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: At present we are installing four stations of wireless telegraphy down in the gulf-the Marconi system. We have investigated on the sound between New York and Boston a new invention which is called the submarine bell signal. Examinations have been made from time to time for over three years of this invention. It has been recommended specially by flie lighthouse board and all the shippping interests, but we have not yet adopted it.' The question may come up later in the supplementaries if we can come to some satisfactory arrangement with the inventors. Besides these wireless stations
I So
we are providing new7 fog alarms to replace those which have become obsolete.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: What has the bon. gentleman done with regard to the pilots V Two, if not three of them were blamed entirely for certain accidents. I understand that the pilotage system on the St. Lawrence, has not been for years what it should be, and steps should be taken to make it perfect. No pilot should be allowed to take charge of a vessel unless he has a certificate.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hou. gentleman must know that the pilots are obliged to submit to an examination every year and they cannot get a branch before they have served a certain number of years as apprentice-seven years, I think. It is well known that during the past few7 years the present government have been trying to improve the pilotage system. An investigation into the whole system was made in 1897, and the recommendations of the commissioners were embodied in laws adopted by parliament from time to time since that date. I certainly am not open to any reproach for any neglect in that respect. When I took charge of the department, I put myself in communication with the pilots, and I had special means of knowing the conditions as I had been a harbour commissioner in Montreal during many years. I convinced the pilots that they could improve their methods and inspire greater confidence by organizing differently, and I induced them to renounce their allegiance to the harbour commissioners of Montreal, and accept entirely the direction and control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, under certain rules and regulations which were approved by them. Since the opening of navigation, there has only been one accident on the St. Lawrence route, which could be attributable to the fault of the pilots, and that is the extraordinary accident which occurred three weeks ago, when a steamer of the Richelieu Company, the ' Canada ' came into collision with the ' Cape Breton.' The investigation into this accident w7ill begin Monday, and the responsibility be placed where it belongs. There w7ere two accidents last year on the Saguenay river due to the fault of the pilots. A boat was stranded on the rocks in broad daylight, and this was not due to any lack of aids to navigation, but to the fault of the pilot, who did not know the Saguenay route.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: What sort of an examination did he pass ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not control the examinations to which these pilots are submitted by the Quebec Harbour Commissioners. This particular pilot had served seven years apprenticeship and had been a pilot for quite a number of years. Unfortunately, the harbour commissioners of Quebec did not provide pilots for the Sams VISED EDITION

guenay that knew the river as they should know it. I have now taken over control of the pilotage for the Saguenay river, and hope to he able to provide pilots that have passed a special examination for that river. The fact is, we have been working on these improvements for every quarter where they have been found necessary, and we have been doing our best to inspire the confidence of the shipping interest. The result is that any improvement that we have made is received -with nothing but praise by the shipping people.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. minister explain the expenditure in connection with the lighting system in the harbour of Halifax 5


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I take it that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) refers to the lightship. A lightship had been contracted for my predecessor, to be delivered, I think, in August. The ship was delivered a little late, but still it was installed last fall. This lightship was called the Lurcher, and was installed on the Lurcher shoal, always a difficult-point and one for which this improvement has been asked for years and years. The installation of this lightship has given great satisfaction to the shipping interest.


Richard Blain: I understand that there had also been the purchase of a wharf there ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We purchased a wharf at Dartmouth on the other side of the harbour from Halifax. It was purchased from Mr. George J. Troop. We wanted the property as a place to keep the oil, gas buoys and other things of that kind necessary in connection with the appliances for the' safety of navigation in the waters of that section. We have not yet expended any rnopey on the property itself, but, in the supplementary estimates we shall ask a little money to put the property in such a condition as to make it useful to the department.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman did not state the price.
Mr. *PREFONTAINE. I think it was $15,000. It was considered a very low price. The department was told that we could not get a property at that figure, but we managed to do it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have any of these gas lights been established in Georgian bay ? If not. how many is it contemplated to establish during the present year, and where are they to be ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Eight gas and one gas beacon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: On Kill Bear Point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I understand the minister's explanation this afternoon, the inten-


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: tion is to do away with the series of light keepers and establish acetylene gas lights.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is the intention. But we can only make these improvements as we get the necessary appliances. In order to carry on the work extensively on Georgian bay, we shall require a station somewhere about Parry Sound I do not know exactly where we shall choose the site-to keep apparatus, to prepare the gas buoys and gas, and keep the holders and carry on the work of changing them.


Richard Blain: I suppose the hon. gentleman has estimated the cost of maintenance of the acetylene system as against the old system.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I gave the figures the other night. They showed, I think, that the lights would be about thirty per cent cheaper and about five or six times more penetrating and with greater illuminating power.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the illuminant on the Lurcher lightship ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Electricity.


John Waterhouse Daniel: She has a dynamo aboard?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: In reading the reports of the commissioner in charge of the investigations into casualties, I find it indicated that the pilots were not well posted at all. For instance, in the investigation into the wreck of the ' Iberian,' Captain Salmon the commissioner says :
The court is of the opinion that pilots should have a better knowledge of the compass and charts and steer by compass when the buoys are so far apart as to be invisible one from the other, instead of trusting entirely to shore marks, which in the present instance were ill-defined.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman (Mr. E. D. Smith) surely will not hold-me responsible for pilots who were examined fifteen or twenty years ago. I am trying to improve the system as I have already had the honour to state. It is true that this is one of the points to which attention has been drawn by Captain Salmon, and we are toying to improve the examinations for pilots. For instance, this year the examination we have given the pilots to pass is most severe, so as to make sure that only those are appointed who are able to render the services we expect from them, and to inspire the confidence of the people. But surely I cannot be held responsible for pilots passed under insufficient examination by the harbour commissioners of Quebec or of Montreal or of Halifax. They were not under my control as those at Montreal and the Saguenay are at the present time. The others are not directly under my control and I cannot reach them except by amending the law. And surely hon. gen-

tlemen opposite will grant me the necessary time to have these laws passed. This year I have had a couple of amendments put through, and I have others to propose. But these things must be done gradually. You have to deal with a body of people who have been left, to a certain extent, independent and, of course, there is always a good deal of difficulty in reaching them, and it is impossible to reach them at once-it takes time. Formerly, for instance, candidates were not examined as regards their sight or hearing, and in other respects the examination was very poor. We have changed that as regards the pilots of Montreal and we are trying to do the same thing with regard to the rest of the Dominion wherever we can arrive at an improvement.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would suggest that the authority seems to be very much divided. The Minister of Marine has under his care only a portion of the pilots. The harbour commissioners of Quebec seem to have control Of some of them. I think this parliament would be very glad to allow the minister opportunity to bring in amendments of the law so as to take under his care the whole of these pilots.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I suppose the lion gentleman will consult my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) in the matter because he is the defender of the pilots and will have to take care of them. I am going as. fast as I can, and some think I am going too fast, but I am doing the best 1 can.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: In case the minister amends the Act, would he suggest that these old pilots, who were examined fifteen years ago, will have to pass a new examination 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: By all means.
Salaries of temporary officers, engineers and draughtsmen at Ottawa, at rates exceeding $400 per annum, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $12,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase over last year of $2,500.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: On account of the expansion of the department and the construction of new lights, the department has had to employ additional draughtsmen, and for that reason the amount is increased.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister give us the details ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This increase goes to temporary clerks, draughtsmen, &c. This
was as follows :
Per
annum.
H. E. Fosbery. draughtsmen	$ 850
J. W. C. Roberts "		 840
W. C. Surtees	"	
800J. F. Murphy	"	
750
F. J. Alexander, engineer and
draughtsman	1,200
Per
annum.
E. C. Larose, engineer and
draughtsman	$ 1,200
Esther Edmonds, stenographer and
clerk		500
Agnes O'Connor, stenographer and
clerk	 500
J. L. Burnand, stenographer and
clerk	 550
Mildred LaFleur, stenographer and
clerk	 500
Bessie Blount, stenographer and
clerk	  500
L. F. Gorman, stenographer and
clerk	 600
Ido TOtu, stenographer and clerk... 550 H. Tremblay	"	" .. 700R. Frechette	"	" .. 720'	$10,760
Then there is Mr. J. R. Boudreau, $1,200 ; end Mr. J. Rochon, $500, Which brings the amount up to $12,460.


George Taylor: How many of these are new men last year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They change to some extent. Sometimes they think that they will improve their situation and they leave the department and we replace them by others, and do the best we can under the circumstances. I think there are four new ones.


George Taylor: That is a heavy increase for one year.
To provide for wireless stations at Point Amour, Heath Point, Anticosti, Fame Point, Cape Race, Belle Isle and Sable island, $25,000.


George Taylor: Has this money been spent ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, part of it is being spent at the present time. I think that by the 15th of August the four stations will be installed.


George Taylor: What is the total cost of one of these stations ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About $5,000. We have to provide a boat with a crew to carry the material and workmen.


George Taylor: $25,000 was voted last year. Was that spent ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, that was returned. The operation of the Fame Point station began bn June 9th. The test has proven that it is a complete success. Communication was maintained at a distance of 65 miles up and down with the ' Parisian.' It takes about fourteen days to establish a station, and the work is now going on. The contract made with the Marconi Company is that if it is a success they are to be paid, if it is not we pay nothing except the expenditure which we incur in carrying material and men to the different stations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many stations are there now ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have only one estabiished at the present time, but the contract is for four stations. However, we intend to establish more. We intend to establish a station on Sable island, one at Sydney, one at Fame Point, one at Cape Race and one at Belle Isle.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Are most of the ocean liners coming into Montreal fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus, so that they can communicate with these stations ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Three of the lines, the Allan Line, the Elder-Dempster Line and the Beaver Line are fitted with the apparatus, the other lines are coming in and installing the apparatus.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister intend to establish a station at each of these points ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are seven stations then, not four.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have contracted only for four, but we intend to establish more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I am correct in understanding that $25,000 is sufficient to provide for the seven stations ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, not for the seven. I do not think we will have time to establish that number before the vote lapses. We will have to provide in the supplementary estimates for a further sum, deducting whatever has not been expended out of this sum.
To provide for the expenses of the Montreal Pilot Commissioner's Court, $2,000.


Richard Blain: How many cases were tried by this court last year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think there have been two or three cases tried by this commissioner.


Richard Blain: What is the nature of the cases ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: $18,000 was expended last year for investigations which took place through this commissioner in Montreal.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would the minister state the number of casualties and wrecks that took place in Canadian waters ? The report gives the details of those that occurred in the Gulf of St. Lawrence only, and simply gives the total number of those that occurred in Canadian waters. Where can one ascertain the particulars of those wrecks that occurred in Canadian waters, but not in the Gulf of St. Lawrence V


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Every wreck that was investigated is mentioned in the report.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: but those that take place outside of Canadian waters are not investigated.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am speaking of those that did occur in Canadian waters, but not in the Gulf of St. Lawrence or the St. Law-renpe river.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: On pages 86 to 93 of the report of the department the hon. gentleman will find a complete report of the investigations into wrecks.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Those investigations, I take it, refer to those casualties that occurred in the Gulf of iSt. Lawrence and from that out.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Every place where there is a casualty.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This refers to the investigations that were held ; was an investigation held into every wreck that occurred ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: An investigation was held into every wreck where we had jurisdiction. That was the demand made by the different boards of trade throughout the country.
Repairs to wharfs, $3,000.	'


George William Fowler: Where are these wharfs located 5


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Small sums - are spent by the department in repairing wharfs situated in different parts of the country which are under the control of the department not exceeding $15.
Scientific institutions and hydrographic surveys, magnetic observatory, $2,700.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is that 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: At Agincourt, near Toronto.
Hydrographic surveys, $35,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hydrographic survey being continued on Lake Superior 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How long do you expect it will take the department to complete the work up there ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is pretty hard for me to say. I am taking over the hydrographic survey work of the Department of Railways and Canals and Department of Public Works. I am organizing these surveys in such a way as to be in a position within the next five or six months to know exactly how long it will take to complete what has been undertaken. There is work that has been done for the last five years on certain rivers and lakes but the charts have not been published. This is a service that will have to be completely organized. I suppose the work in the Lake Superior region will be completed in a year fro in now. I do not say that the charts will be completed but
1

we will be able to have them published as soon as their preparation is completed. We have been asked to survey large lakes in different parts of the country. Of. course we will do that gradually as the expansion of the country goes on. We will take the Ottawa river this year because a hydrographic survey of the Ottawa river has never been properly made. The navigators] on the Ottawa river are very anxious to get a chart of that river.
Mr. SPROtTLE. Where were you operating last year ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: On Lake Superior. Mr. SPROtTLE. Lake Superior is a large lake.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Near Port Arthur.
Mr. SPROtTLE. Do you intend to start another party to survey the St. Lawrence and allow the work to go on on Lake Superior as you have been doing for some years past ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Oh, of course.
Marine hospitals-care of sick seamen in the marine hospitals in the maritime provinces and repairs to marine hospitals, $50,000.
Mr. SPROtTLE. Are these confined to the maritime provinces ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: No, in other places we make arrangements with the local hospitals by ..which seamen are taken care of at a certain price.
Mr. SPROtTLE. You pay so much per capita ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the expense entailed for attending sick' mariners in the harbour of St. John and how are they attended ? I notice that the department have collected in sick mariner's dues over $6,000 at that port andJ I would like to know how ffiuch was expended in looking after the sick mariners ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: ' There was collected at St. John, $6,466 and in the province of New Brunswick 428 s'ick seamen were treated. I have not the figures showing how much it cost. If they are treated at the hospital they are charged at ninety cents per day. We collect a good deal more1 than we pay and that is a very live question. It was brought up last year but there was no decision arrived at. Surely we will have to come to some understanding with the shipping people so that they may take care of their own seamen as is done in other countries. It is my opinion that they should, although I do not know whether that opinion will be endorsed by the government.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether the amount paid to
the hospital for each sick sailor per day has been increased from ninety cents per day .


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: We are going to put 'it at the same rate as in Montreal, where it is $1.20 per day.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When will that increase, commence 'i


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: On the 1st July.
Steamboat inspection-inspector of Dominion steamers and fog-alarms, $1,700.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would like to ask the hon. minister how long this gentleman has been in this position as inspector of Dominion steamers and fog alarms ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: About twenty years.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: It would seem from the report of the investigations into the shipwrecks that he has not been looking very carefully after the requirements of the route. With regard to the stranding of the barque ' Sardhana ' the report states with reference to the aids to navigation :
The fog system at Pointe des Monts is insufficient ; the evidence of various witnesses goes to show that it was impossible to bear the fog signal even after the vessel stranded.


Mr PREFONT AINE.: It is on the rec-commendation of Mr. Stephens and the chief engineer that we have decided to incur this heavy expenditure to improve the fog alarms. The old machinery was good, but it was not strong enough, and as the changing involved a large expenditure, and as other things were more pressing, the department did not go on with the expenditure but we have decided to do so now.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The%iinister cannot spend money on any service in the Dominion where it is more needed.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Give me a chance ; I am well disposed.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The department is spending a great deal more money now than formerly, and I regret that there has not been a corresponding increase in the efficiency of the service. I would urge on the minister to devote all his energies to perfecting the route and making it as safe as possible.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Yon may be sure I will.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of tlie House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will be absent.


William Pate Mulock: I have a few small supplementary items, which will not
5S39

take muck time, but I would like to dispose of them to-morrow, as it is the end of the year.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the Minister of the Interior will follow the Postmaster General.


George Taylor: It was promised that we would not sit after six o'clock to-morrow, if we made progress and we have made excellent progress to-night.


William Stevens Fielding: There was some impression of that kind in the inind of the Prime Minister, but we will leave it until to-morrrow. I do not say nay, to the proposal.


George Taylor: It would be convenient for many members to know if they could get away by the seven o'clock,train.


William Stevens Fielding: I think that is the way the matter will eventuate, but I would prefer the Prime Minister to make the statement when the House opens.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.12 p.m.-
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 30, 1904.