1905-03-06

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 98) to incorporate the Imperial Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Belcourt.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Out.).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to inquire of the government whether or not there are to be any changes made in the Bills that have been introduced by the Prime Minister for the establishment of new provinces in the Northwest Territories ? I venture to mention this because I see in newspapers that are supposed to be in the confidence of the government, rumours-nay more than rumours, direct statements-that there are to be certain changes made in the provisions of these Bills. In connection with this matter, it seems to me that the practice followed by the Prime Minister with regard to these Bills, and also the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill of two years ago. is not a practice supported by any competent authority. I refer to the practice of introducing a Bill with which the House is not at all familiar, and proceeding to debate it in a manner which is usual only upon the second reading. I am aware, of course, that it is not only perfectly proper, but that it is usual to make a succinct statement explanatory of the provisions of a Bill upon its first reading, but I do not find any authority for proceeding to debate a Bill upon its first reading, before the measure is laid before the House in printed form and before the House has had an opportunity of becoming familiar with its provisions. I am well aware that it was the intention of the government to have favoured me personally with a copy of the Bill some little time in advance of its introduction ; but, unfortunately, for reasons which were no doubt beyond the control of the government, that intention was not carried out, and I received the Bill only about the time the Prime Minister rose to introduce it. But even if I had received the Bill say twenty-four hours in advance, as might perhaps have been very Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
proper under the circumstances, that would not have afforded an opportunity to other members of the House who are equally interested with myself in discussing the measure, if it was to be discussed at that stage, to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the scope and meaning of the provisions of the Bill before proceeding to discuss it. I mention this because it seems to me that if this practice is to be followed by the government in the future in regard to important measures of this kind, it would be well to have each Bill printed two or three days in advance of its introduction, so that, if there is to be a discussion on the first reading, the House can proceed intelligently with that discussion, and can have an opportunity beforehand of giving the Bill that consideration which, of course, is absolutely necessary to a measure of this kind.
Now, I have asked as to changes in the Bill. If they have not come to any conclusion with regard to changes in the Bill ; if they have not come to any conclusion up to the present time, I would very respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that, if any changes of importance are to be made in the provisions of this Bill before the second reading is reached, it would be highly in the interest of the members who will have to discuss the measure, and indeed would be very much in the interest of the country as a whole, that the Prime Minister should acquaint the House with the nature of those changes a reasonable time before the second reading is brought on. I have no doubt that the right hon. gentleman will assent to this as a reasonable request, and that it will be complied with.
Let me add just one word of personal explanation with regard to myself. I do not usually trouble the House with very much personal explanation about statements with regard to myself in the public press ; but there have been a number of suggestions or statements made as to my recent absence from the House which I think must proceed upon an entire misunderstanding. I quote only one of these, which is not couched perhaps in a very offensive form, but which conveys a suggestion which is absolutely untrue :	,
That the constant factors in our politics are not wholly unknown to some of our Conservative friends the tactful absence of Mr. Borden from Ottawa at this juncture abundantly illustrates.
And so on in other journals, some of the suggestions being couched in a somewhat more impertinent form than that which I have just read. I had no intention of absenting myself from the city of Ottawa up to four o'clock of the afternoon of last Wednesday week, when I received a telegram announcing the sudden death of a very near and dear relative under very distressing circumstances. On the following

morning I left for my home in Halifax for that reason and that reason alone, expecting to return to Ottawa by noon of the following Tuesday. As I have already mentioned in this House, I did not reach Halifax on Friday evening owing to the snow blockade, but 1 reached there on Monday evening, more than seventy-two hours late. I left Halifax on Wednesday morning and arrived at Ottawa on Thursday evening. I think it is due to myself to make this explanation, because X do not think that in my public life I have usually been found wanting in my attendance on parliament; nor do I think that anything has been displayed in my public career which would lead any journalist of even the most suspicious type to suppose that I would have gone to Halifax on this particular occasion if it had not been absolutely necessary, in my judgment, that I should do so. I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for having been compelled in self defence to inflict this statement of private and personal affairs upon the House, and I know that under the circumstances the House will pardon me for doing so.
There is one other matter which I forgot to mention. On the introduction of this Bill I brought to the attention of the government the fact that a number of returns which had been moved for had not yet been brought down. I also pointed out that there was certain information which I thought would be necessary for the intelligent discussion of the questions that are to be considered in the House, and that it should be brought down in a shape to be readily available to every member of the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Mr. Speaker, I think I voice the feeling of the House when I say to my hon. friend that no apology was needed from him as to his absence from the House. Unfortunately, we are all victims of the press, and if we were *to take very seriously everything that is said of us, our repose would be considerably affected. But I think we can make allowance for the newspaper men in their desire to give the latest news. Everybody knows the painful circumstances under which my hon. friend had to leave this House, and no one, I can assure him, speaking for this side, had any suspicion that his absence was due to any other cause than domestic affliction. With regard to the main question which my hon. friend has put to me, I do not agree with him as to the constitutional practice. I admit that in Canada the discussion generally takes place on the second reading of a Bill. This is so in England also ; but my hon. friend is aware that in England every important measure, I do not say invariably, but as a rule, is explained by the minister in charge of the Bill upon its presentation for the first reading. Thereupon the matter is left for some time for the deliberation of the House and the
country. This practice I have followed on this occasion, and I believe yet that it is the best method. The government have explained their policy, and have left it to the judgment of the House and the country. If the Bill were to be presented without any explanation, the country would be without the real reasons which prompted the government in introducing it. If the first reading were to be followed immediately by a discussion, I think the House, especially the opposition, would be taken at a disadvantage, and the government might be charged with sharp practice ; but if the Bill is left for a reasonable time after being introduced, the opposition have an opportunity to prepare and explain their views upon it. I still think this is the best policy that can be followed.
My hon. friend has asked me if it was the intention of the government to introduce changes into this Bill. I have only to reply that it is open to the party who introduces a Bill to change it at all times. I have seen few Bills introduced into this House or any deliberative assembly which have gone through the third reading without being considerably amended, and the more important the Bill the more likely is it to be amended. Even Bills of a very minor importance are very often amended so as to be hardly recognizable when they leave the committee. Whether or not any changes shall be made will be known as the Bill goes through its various stages; and if any should be made, they shall be made in the ordinary course. With regard to the information asked for by my hon, friend, I shall endeavour to comply with his request.


Mr. FOSTER.: It seems to me that in addition to the information already asked, ii would be advisable that a definite summary be furnished of the different changes, dating from confederation, in the financial terms which have taken place to the benefit of the provinces. There has been legislation in various years, adding to the provincial subsidies. If a concise memo, could be made of all these changes with reference to each of the provinces, showing the additions that each one has received to its subsidy and matters of that kind, that would help us very much when we come to discuss Ihe financial clauses of this measure.


Mr. FIELDING.: I agree with my hon. friend that a memo, of that character would be useful, and shall endeavour to have it produced before the second reading of the Bill is proceeded with.
Hon. PETER 'WHITE. It would be desirable that in the case of a long speech such as that which was delivered by the right hon. the leader of the government when introducing this Bill, a copy of the Bill should be also at the time, before the House. It would be well hereafter that members of the

House, should be given the opportunity of becoming conversant with the contents of the measures introduced, when the speech explained that measure on its introduction is delivered. Let me quote from Sir John Bourinot :
It is usual on the introduction of a Bill-on the motion for leave-to explain clearly and succinctly its main provisions ; but it is not the practice to debate it at length at that stage, such discussion being more properly and conveniently deferred to the second reading when the Bill is printed and the House in a position to discuss its principle. Sometimes, however, a short discussion may arise on some features of the Bill on the motion for its introduction, as there is no rule to prevent a debate.
That is quite true, but; when ou an important Bill, such as that creating new provinces in the Northwest Territories, the main speech of its introducer is made on the mo-t'OJi for leave to introduce, X think the Bill itself should then be in the hands of hon. members, so that they might be seized of its contents before it is introduced.


Wilfrid Laurier: So far as my information goes, and I think it is accurate, this is not the English practice.


Mr. WHITE.: I do not know what the English practice is.


Wilfrid Laurier: In this country we have been accustomed to explain Bills on their second reading, but in England all important measures are fully exposed and explained on their first reading by the minister in charge.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there is much difference between the right hon. gentleman and myself regarding the practice, but the question is whether the practice is carried out, and the only difference between us is as to the practice which was pursued in this case.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House ill committee on Bill (No. 28) to incorporate the Northwest Telephone Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Mr. BOLE.: The point I desire to raise is whether it is advisable we should endorse the principle of incorporating more telephones. A Bill somewhat similar to this was introduced in the Manitoba Legislature a few weeks ago and was opposed by the council of the city of Winnipeg, which I have the honour to represent in this House. They opposed it chiefly on the ground that as the policy of taking over the business of telephone companies by the government was in the air, it would not be advisable to incorporate any more companies, and the Bill was sent back to the committee in order that Mr. WHITE.
they might carefully inquire into the whole question of having telephone business conducted by the government. When the Bill before us was introduced into this House, I regret very much that I was not present and therefore unable to put on record my objection ; and I deem it now my duty to reflect the opinion expressed by the city of Winnipeg, an opinion with which I am in full sympathy and accord. I have in my hands a resolution passed by the city council of Winnipeg on February 20, last, which is as follows :
That as this council have a reasonable hope that the telephone system may in the near future he under government control, they would look with disfavour on the granting of any new telephone charters as complicating the situation, and hereby instruct our solicitors to oppose any such legislation now contemplated at Ottawa.
With the spirit of that resolution I am fully in harmony. A telephone businessf being essentially a monopoly and an important public utility, it is dangerous to have it in the hands of a private corporation. A great many cities throughout the United States, and I think in Canada also, have made thorough inquiries into this subject. The city of San Francisco had an application before it for a charter for a local exchange, but representations were made to the council that the telephone business was essentially a monopoly, and therefore no new telephone company should be chartered and the application was not granted. Instead, the city of San Francisco appointed a commission to inquire into the whole subject, and the commission reported. This is the last clause of its report, as published in the bulletin of the League of American Municipalities in November, 1904 :
Inasmuch as a telephone was essentially a monopoly, that it would simply increase the burden on the -citizens when they increased the number of telephone companies. There is no other public utility with which we come in contact where there are so many objections to competition.
That is the mandate of a commission which has made extensive inquiries, which visited all the important cities on the Pacific coast and examined into the conditions.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman tell ns exactly what commission that was, I did not quite hear him.


David Wesley Bole: A commission was appointed by the city of San Francisco to inquire into the whole question of the telephone business. An application was made by certain promoters to the city of San Francisco for permission to construct and operate a rival telephone business in San Francisco. Representations were made to the city council that to multiply telephone lines would be a nuisance, and the city council therefore

appointed a commission to inquire into tlie whole question and they have reported as I stated that the rival telephone company is a nuisance and recommend that the request of the promoters should not be granted.
Now with respect to rates, it is very true that nearly all independent companies start out with low rates; that is the experience throughout Canada and the United States, but the same authority that I have just quoted states that the editor has made extensive inquiries into the whole subject, and I shall read his observation with respect to the question of rates. He said -
During the past' decade hundreds of independent telephone companies have been started in all parts of the country and although their rates are much lower than those charged by the Bell companies the competition does not usually result in any saving to the telephone users generally. The Bell companies have almost invariably refused to meet the cut rates of their new competitors for the very good reason, perhaps, that while they may temporarily suffer a falling oft in patronage, they soon recover and finally increase the number of their subscribers in the face of the competition. In the various cities of all sizes and conditions, where we have investigated the subject of telephone competition, we find the Bell companies have been able to maintain their rates, and at the same time greatly increase the number of their subscribers. This fact must be taken as evidence that the Bell service is considered by telephone users to be worth the price asked for it. The fact is that in every city where there are two telephone companies in operation the business and professional men find it necessary to have the service of both companies, and where the Bell rates are not reduced by the competition these users have forced upon them an additional expense for telephone service.
It will be seen from this that while the rates are invariably lower when they start because of their short connections and because the new company is first connected with business houses, still it appears to be the result of the subsequent extension of their lines that the cost of operation is increased proportionately beyond their income. Nearly all companies, as nearly as I can learn have got into difficulties ; there are some companies that have succeeded in Canada and some in the United States, hut I find that the almost invariable rule is that competing companies have failed and gone into insolvency. I might also quote another extract from the same authority. They say :
In practically every city where we have investigated the financial history and status of independent telephone companies, we find the receipts have been inadequate to cover the charges against the business, and this general condition may safely be attributed to the low rates at which the Independent companies undertake to furnish service.
I am not here as the special advocate of the Bell Telephone Company. On the con-I
trary I believe that the Bell Telephone Company have by nature a monopoly and I believe that a monopoly of an important public utility should not he in the hands of any private corporation, and I think therefore that we could verj properly consider at this time the policy of having the telephone business conducted by the government. As time goes on these applications for telephone charters will increase in number and as they increase they will become a nuisance to telephone users. It is well known to every person who has lived in a city where there is a duplicate telephone service that business men are obliged to put in two sets, and the result is that while the introduction of a new company may reduce the rates, at the same time at the end of the year it is found that the citizens are paying more for telephone rates than before. I therefore feel it is my duty to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I must ask you not to rise and report progress now. This Bill has been through the Railway Committee and has passed there with some stringent amendments. Every precaution has been taken to make the Bill a satisfactory one in every respect, and I do not see any reason why this House should throw the Bill out at this stage simply because the member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) asks to have it done. Under clause 19 of the present Bill the city of Winnipeg does not need to use this telephone company's service if they do not want to. Provision is made that the company cannot exercise rights in any municipality whatever without the consent of that municipality, except for the purpose of running one through line through the municipality. Because the city of Winnipeg may be acting in the interests of the Bell Telephone Company, and no one can object to their doing so, to my mind that is not a reason why all the other portions of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and that portion of Ontario to the east of Winnipeg down to the great lakes, should be left without competition if they desire competition. The Bill has been carefully considered in committee, several amendments have been added and in fact everything has been done to make it as wide as possible ; there is nothing whatever in the way of monopoly. It was provided in the Bill that any other telephone company or any individual having a private system could connect wires with the wires of this company when established, so there is no reason whatever for throwing out the Bill at the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole).


Mr. D. ROSS.: I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg whether he can give the committee any information as to the time when the provincial government of Mani-

toba is going to adopt the policy of government ownership of telephone lines ?


David Wesley Bole: I did not state that the provincial government of Manitoba were going to adopt that policy. I think that the government which should adopt that policy is the Dominion government.


Mr. BLAIN.: Might I ask the introducer of the Bill if the important changes that were made in the Railway Committee have been printed.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, and the printed Bill has been distributed ; you will probably find it tacked inside the original Bill.


George Eulas Foster: It does not seem to me that the member for Winnipeg has given sufficient reasons as to why the committee should rise and report progress. His object seems to be to have the government take hold of the matter and, as far at least as the trunk line service is concerned, perform that service. If his purpose in moving that the committee rise is to bring that about, it would seem that we ought to have some expression from the government as to whether they feel favourable to that: otherwise we may, as the hon. gentleman who has last spoken (Mr. Turriff) has suggested, be depriving large portions of the country of the benefit of a competitive telephone system, and at the same time not be advancing the cause that the hon. gentleman has at heart. So far as my information goes, I should be disposed to question the reliability of the report made by a commission in San Francisco as interpreted by the hon. gentleman. It ought to be presumed that they would know what they are reporting about; but so far as my information goes, it is not true that all or a majority of the independent telephone companies in the United States of America, have been financial failures. I think it is true that within the last eight or ten years independent telephone service in the United States pf America, commencing at zero point, is at present in a greater condition of development and has more phones than the Bell Telephone system of the United States of America-at least if they have not more, they have about an equal number, and are operating them to-day in every part of the United States of America. One great difficulty that an independent telephone company has to meet in its inception is that it does not possess any trunk lines, and consequently long distance service is made very difficult, and that is an element which has to be taken into considei'ation. But this Bill, so far as it can do so, if I understand it, provides that a monopoly shall not be had in long distance work, that there shall be the same interchange of message service between the different lines as there is now for instance amongst railways, that running rights so to speak can be given under a rea-Mr. D. ROSS.
sonable toll whereby a new company can have services of the trunk line system by paying therefor according to reasonable rates. I do not like to admit the assumption that rivalry and competition tend to increase prices. It seems to me that rivalry and competition tend inevitably to reduce prices, and that therefore it is not more costly to the people who are users than if it were one monopoly. It seems to me there have not been very strong reasons given why we should defer the work of the committee on this Bill. Of course if the companies who are interested state that they would look with favour upon providing a general trunk system, or taking the whole question under government charge in this country, that would be a sufficient reason, and for my part I should be willing to vote with my hon. friend who made the motion ; otherwise I do not see that sufficient reasons have been given.
Motion negatived.
On section 1,-incorporation-corporate name.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: This is amended by providing that the corporate name of the company shall be, ' The Northwest Telephone and Telegraph Company.' The corporate name now is, ' The Northwest Telephone Company.' That amendment was made by the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: The copy I have is marked, ' Reprinted as amended and reported by the Railway Committee,' and the name of the company as set out in the first clause is the Northwest Telephone Company.


Mr. HYMAN.: I may explain that. The title of the Bill is an Act to incorporate the Northwest Telephone Company, and that will be changed before the third reading of the Bill. This is a necessary change to conform with that.


Robert Laird Borden: Why should that be changed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is understood that it is to be changed. It refers to telegraphs as well as to telephones. There will be an amendment made to change it when the proper time comes on the third reading of the Bill.


Hon.  H. R.@: L, BORDEN. It gives the power of operating telegraphs as well as telephones ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.
On section 10,-business of company.


George Eulas Foster: Where does the provision for the assent of the municipality come in ?


John Gillanders Turriff: In clause 19.


Robert Laird Borden: What is intended by the expression * provincial and muni-

cipal franchises ' ? It seems to be rather an unusual form of words.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is provided in the Bill that they cannot operate in any municipality without first acquiring the franchise from that municipality in order to do business, and it is provided by this section that they cannot acquire a municipal franchise and dispose of the franchise. They cannot sell that franchise.


Robert Laird Borden: The word ' franchise ' is a very inappropriate word to express that which the hon. gentleman has just stated. The word has a certain signification in the law, and it will be so interpreted in this Bill, but the court interpreting the Bill would be forced to discard that interpretation and seek for something else. I hardly understand why the expression should be used, why it should have occurred to any one to use words of that character with an intention of that kind. ' Acquire and use provincial and municipal franchises' -what this expression means, as I understand the hon. gentleman, is to acquire permission from provinces or municipalities to construct and operate telephone lines within their boundaries. If that is what is intended, I would, in the first place, have thought that it was absolutely unnecessary to make a provision of that sort, but if it is desired to do so, it would be very much better to say so instead of using a form of words which has a very much wider signification.


Charles Smith Hyman: What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) suggest ? It might be acceptable to the promoter of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not thought very much about that. My mind has been more directed towards the criticism of the words which are there at the present time.


Charles Smith Hyman: Cannot that franchise of which the hon. gentleman speaks be given to the company under this wording ?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a franchise at all.


Charles Smith Hyman: That very question that the hon. gentleman brings up was discussed very fully in the committee, and it was felt that these words practically meant that all rights given by a municipality to the company would be considered to be a franchise.


Robert Laird Borden: Any one who is familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada will remember that in a case decided six or seven years ago the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court gave a very full definition of what the word ' franchise ' means at common law. The meaning, as defined by him, at common law- and it cannot be the meaning given to it here to-day-is entirely inappropriate to the intention which has been suggested by the
hon. gentleman who is moving this Bill, and I would suggest some form of expression like this-' acquire and use any privilege granted by any provincial or municipal authority.'


Mr. GALLIHER.: From the municipality, the province or from individuals who might hold such privilege from them.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking without much consideration on the spur of the moment, but I would suggest ' acquire and use any privilege granted to the company by any provincial or municipal authority.'


William Alfred Galliher: To this particular company ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, that is what I mean.


Charles Smith Hyman: If my hon. friend takes exception to this wording, I would suggest that the rest of the Bill be gone over, that we then rise and that we take it up in committee again.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


Charles Marcil: Section 10 stands.
On section 11,-amalgamation and pooling prohibited.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is the same provision that was put in a Bill last year, except that this is made general. The Bill last year was confined to the Beil Telephone Company.


Robert Laird Borden: I think this is all right.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is simply to prevent amalgamation under another name.
On section 12,-sale to or acquisition of similar company prohibited.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest that this section might be made a little more comprehensive. Will the hon. gentleman have any objection to inserting after the word ' its,' where it occurs the second time in the second line of this section, the further words ' rights, powers, privileges ' ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no objection to that.


William Alfred Galliher: That would make it conform with the other sections.


Robert Laird Borden: That the section he amended by inserting the words ' rights, powers, privileges ' in the second line of section 12 after the word ' its.'
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 13,-'agreements witli other companies ; rates and charges ; Governor in Council may order inquiry by a judge.


Robert Laird Borden: Subsection 2 raises rather an interesting question, one to which I have not given very much consideration, but I would like to know whether it has been under the consideration of the government. That is : Whether or not it is desirable to retain under control of the Governor in Council the revision of telephone rates, or whether it would not be better to give that control to some independent body. We have the Railway Commission constituted at great cost to control rates on railways, and no reason occurs to me at present why the same body should not control telephone rates. Has this matter been considered by the government, and if so with what result?


Charles Smith Hyman: The clause in this Bill is the usual clause. If hereafter it is the policy of the government to transfer to the Railway Commission the power to control these rates, of course this company would be brought'under that provision of the General Act. This Bill ought to be considered apart altogether from any policy of the government in the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: When the Bill for the establishment of the Railway Commission was before the House, very cogent reasons were given by the then Minister of Railways why a commission composed of men specially qualified who would give their whole time to the matter, could deal more effectually and thoroughly with questions of this kind than could members of the administration. Parliament coincided with these reasons which are equally cogent in regard to telephone matters. This is a subject which ought to engage the immediate attention of the government.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIv. Did we give the Railway Commission power over telegraph rates ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the power was conferred on the Railway Commission, but I do not see any particular reason why it should not be. We all know that members of an administration have a great deal of their time occupied with their political duties, and they cannot be expected to so thoroughly deal with matters of this kind as would an independent tribunal. We know also that immediately upon the institution of the Railway Commission matters which would never have come before the railway committee of the Privy Council were brought to the attention of the Railway Commission and have been dealt with. It has been suggested by the member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) that a telephone in order to be effective must essentially be a monopoly. 1 am not saying whether the statement is correct or not, but assuming that it is correct, it necessarily follows that you must either have the telephone as a government institution, or you must have it as a monoply in the hands of a private corporation or pri-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
vate corporations under the most effective control that can possibly be devised, so far as rates and operations are concerned. It is important that the government should take this into consideration at the earliest possible date.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not think there can be any two opinions on the main question which the hon. member has brought up. Of course that would have to be brought about by a general amendment to the Railway Act, and not in connection with this private Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not suggesting that we should make any change hero, but I avail of this as a convenient time to press on the government the advisability, if not the absolute necessity, of having the control of these rates placed in the hands of an independent commission.


George Eulas Foster: The intention of subsection 2 was that the municipalities should have the right to apply for a revision of rates, but I do not think that is quite clear by the language of the section. If it is not clear it should be made clear.


Charles Smith Hyman: That was the intention of the clause-can you suggest a better wording?


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest that it should read :
' May from time to time apply for such revision and be heard upon the application therefor.'


Charles Smith Hyman: Very well, we will make that amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HAGGART.: There is nothing in this Bill to empower the government to expropriate this property at any time. Of course the government could exercise the right of eminent domain, but notwithstanding that there is the same power in England they insert in these Acts a clause giving notice to the stockholders that the government may at some future time expropriate the property and fix the terms of expropriation. There should be some similar provision to these acts just as we have in the Grand Trunk Act.
On section 17,-borrowing powers.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it usual to grant these powers in this absolutely unlimited form ?


Charles Smith Hyman: If I am not mistaken, these are the exact words of an Act passed last session of exactly the same character.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman forgets that a Railway Act has been passed in the meantime, and that sections 192,

193 and 194 of that Act do not apply to this at all.


William Alfred Galliher: In the Railway Committee I took occasion to object to this clause being allowed not only in this Bill, but in any Bill of this nature. While it was suggested there that the lenders of money would no doubt look after themselves with regard to the security-and I am perfectly satisfied to leave that matter to them-what I am concerned for, and what I think we ought all to be concerned for, is the interests of the minority shareholders. The unlimited borrowing powers given to companies often leave them free to borrow more than they require to carry on business on a sound commercial basis, and that has been the rock on which many companies have gone to pieces. I think the borrowing powers of companies of this kind should be limited. For instance, it is provided here that two-thirds in value of the subscribed stock, which may be held by one or two men, may pass a by-law enabling the company to borrow to any amount it sees fit. The holders of the other one-third of the subscribed stock may object, but they are powerless.


Mr. BELCOURT.: This section, I understand, is in the exact words of the section in the General Companies' Act, of 1902. It may be desirable to limit the borrowing powers of a company of this kind, but I cannot see how it can be done.


Robert Laird Borden: In some of the English statutes the borrowing powers of the company are limited by the amount of the paid up capital. The difference between this company and the companies incorporated under the General Companies' Act is that this company is for the purpose of carrying on a public work, while the other companies are not invested with the same privileges, but are formed for ordinary commercial purposes, and parliament may not be specially concerned in regard to their borrowing powers. This company is in the same category as a railway company, and every argument which goes to restrict the borrowing powers of a railway company applies with equal force to this company. I think these borrowing powers should be limited, otherwise, you may have an enormous capitalization by means of bonds, and that may be given as a reason why the rates to be paid by the public should be kept up to an undue figure.


Mr. STOCKTON.: Under the Joint Stock Companies' Act of the province of New Brunswick the power of borrowing is limited to 75 per cent of the stock actually paid up. That is the rule generally applied to incorporated companies, and there is no difficulty there. It does seem to me that an unlimited power to borrow is not a
desirable power to give to a company of this class.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Possibly we might limit the borrowing power to two-thirds of the assets of the company ; but it is difficult to determine what are the assets of a company. I agree with the hon. leader of the opposition that in a case of this kind there ought to be a limit to the borrowing power, but I cannot think of any way in which it could be fixed. The suggestion of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Stockton) would hardly do in this instance, because the company might have, say $100,000 paid up capital and yet have assets of many millions. It might have very large assets outside of its paid up capital, and it would be an injustice to the company to limit it to only 75 per cent of its paid up capital. If you made it say two thirds of its assets, then it would be probably within the mark.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: How would you determine the assets ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: There is the difficulty, I quite agree.


Robert Laird Borden: I think this should stand so that we may consider it a little.
Section 18 allowed to stand.
On section 19,-approval by municipality before exercise of right; exclusive long distance line ; interpretation of long distance line and arbitration of disputes.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it intended by the second section that the location of the line shall be subject to the approval of the municipal council or such officers as it may appoint ? If so, this is pretty awkwardly expressed.


Charles Smith Hyman: This whole section is one which appeared in several Bills last session and the session before. It was drawn up after consultation with the municipal bodies and they all agreed to it as it was worded. We have put it in exactly as it is worded in these other Bills.


John Graham Haggart: Why not put it in as it was worded in the Railway Act ? You have eliminated from your Bill clauses 192 and 193 of the Railway Act, thinking that they applied only to railway companies, but you have included clauses 194 and 195 of the same Act.


Charles Smith Hyman: I did not look into this matter carefully but was satisfied that this would meet the views of the municipalities, as it was drafted after consultation with them and was approved by them. And as it is entirely in their protection and they were satisfied, I saw no objection to it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I wish to call attention to the words ' general by-laws and

regulations.' Xu some municipalities there are special by-laws, applicable to particular subjects, and this clause would prevent these special by-laws being applicable to these companies. I would suggest that the word ' general ' should be struck out where-ever it appears in this section.
Section as amended agreed to.


John Graham Haggart: One of them provides a method of settling disputes by the Board of Commissioners. You make that clause applicable and at the same time you have a special clause providing arbitration for the purpose of settling these disputes. We should have it clearly distinguished what subjects the board has control of and what matters come under the arbitration clause.


Hon.  H. R.@: I,. BORDEN. The difficulty is that three different tribunals are provided for the decision of certain disputes in connection with this company. In the first place, so far as rates are concerned, the Governor in Council has power ; under subsection 4, as concerns all matters in dispute relating to long distance lines they are to be determined by arbitration ; then, under section 20 you make sections 194 and 195 of the Railway Act apply, and under that you have a third tribunal.


Charles Smith Hyman: What do you suggest?


Robert Laird Borden: What I said a moment ago, that there should be a reference of all these matters to one tribunal, the Railway Commission. In that way you would avoid a great deal of confusion that must necessarily arise under this statute.
ill-. FOSTER. We have admitted the principle, of course, by section 194 and 195.


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course this Bill was drawn up without the whole matter being in the hands of the commission, and therefore the committee I ptresume, had to make the best of it as the case stood. In the first place they endeavoured to meet the wishes of the municipal authorities ; this is a special clause that they desired, and I do not know whether even if the matter was left under the control of the commissioners that the municipal authorities would be satisfied. This is a special provision made at their request and we are meeting their views.


John Graham Haggart: Have you met their views ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We have, so far as section 19 is concerned. That is word for word and in exact accordance with the agreement. They appeared before the committee and made known their wishes in another case and we hare met their views. They wished to have it in this way and the committee acceded to their request. We had Mr. BELCOURT.
considerable discussion with these gentlemen.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman, with all deference to him, is confusing two things. We are not suggesting that any restriction placed by this Act upon the powers of the company shall toe taken away; we are not suggesting that any power of location conferred upon a municipal council shall be taken away. We are pointing out that you have under this Bill three different tribunals which are to adjudicate upon any case where the municipal council itself is not the final judge to determine the matter. The municipal council is given the power to itself determine matters as to which it has a certain interest, but apart from that there are other matters as to which it has no such power. These fall under this statute within the purview of three different tribunals, the Governor in Council, the arbitration provided under subsection 4 of clause 19 and the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no question about that.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. And, as the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has pointed out, not one of us would be able to say without a great deal of consideration at least-and courts might differ about it- whether subsection 4 or section 195 of the Railway Act should apply, and which should be the proper tribunal to go to first.


Charles Smith Hyman: What is the matter ?


George Eulas Foster: Do you not think you might take this into consideration with the other two sections?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no objection to this clause standing, but I would again say that in dealing with this we were dealing without any reference to the Railway Commission and dealt with it in the light of the law as it stood. I presume when the broad question comes up that all these matters will be decided, and possibly that clause 19 will become part of the general law. But in the meantime it is not part of the general law, and this is special legislation to meet the wishes of the municipalities.


George Eulas Foster: Get a hustle on your government and decide it.


Charles Smith Hyman: We have plenty to do just now.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The object the hon. gentleman has in view seems to me to be met by having half a dozen different jurisdictions ; the company can surely not escape its duty with all these tribunals.


John Graham Haggart: The question is whether you have given it distinctly to any tribunal.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: As far as section 20 is concerned, it does not seem doubtful to me. We have incorporated in the charter of this company sections 194 and 195 of the Railway Act. Section 194 gives jurisdiction to the Railway Commission to determine the manner in which the company will erect its system. Then we have incorporated the provision of the Telephone Company's Act which determines the manner in which the line shall be built, the height of poles, wiring and manner of stringing wires, &c.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose there is a dispute as to which has jurisdiction.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It seems to me that section 194 of the Railway Act would rp-piy.	I


Charles Smith Hyman: As against section 19.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think there was a great deal of doubt about that with all deference to my hon. and learned friend (Mr. Belcourt).


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I am discussing section 19.


Robert Laird Borden: Section 19 deals especially with location and provides for a settlement by arbitration. The question dealt with by section 19 is to be determined under section 19 ; but under the provisions of section 20. another tribunal is created, and I would not like to say off-hand, nor would my hon. and learned friend, just what you can determine under section 19 and under section 20.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I can quite see the difficulty; subsection 4 of section 19 creates an arbitration whereas section 20 brings it under the Railway Act.


John Graham Haggart: That is the trouble.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I see the conflict and think we should do away with one clause.


John Gillanders Turriff: When the Bill was before the committee sections 194 and 195 of the Railway Act were made applicable at the request of some one, I think, connected with the Railway Department who was in the committee.


Charles Smith Hyman: That only refers to section 194.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, it was covering the crossing by telephone lines over railway tracks.


John Graham Haggart: But includes both 194 and 195.
ilr. TURRIFF. No objections to give it to either tribunal.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Strike out subsection 4.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, subsection 4 is part of the agreement with municipal authorities. It would break faith with them. I move that section 19 stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 24,-subsection 5,
William Alfred Galliher: I notice that penalties are imposed by virtue of this Act, how are we going to carry out the enforcement of these penalties ? There is nothing in this Act providing for it.


John Graham Haggart: It is the moral influence they will exert.


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: In the provinces there is usually a general statute providing how penalties may be recovered in case no other provision is made. I am not aware that we have any such general statute for the Dominion but possibly there may be one; if not, the question which has been put to the government by my hon. friend (Mr. Gal-liher) is a very pertinent one.


Charles Smith Hyman: I suggest that that matter be brought up again when the Minister of Justice is present, and we will further consider the Bill.
Mr. TURRIFF moved that the committee rise, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 86) respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited.-Mr Campbell.
Bill (No. 87) to incorporate the International Terminal and Bridge Company.-Mr. T. G. Johnston.
Bill (No. 88) to incorporate the*Athabaska Northern Railway Company-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. S9) respecting Monterey Electric and Gas Company, Limited, and to change its name to ' Monterey Railway, Light and power Company.-Mr. Maedonell.
Bill (No. 91) respecting the Timagami Railway Company-Mr. McCool.
Bill (No. 92) respecting the Ottawa and New York Railway Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 93) respecting the Grand Council or the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association of Canada.-Mr. J. J. Hughes.
Bill (No. 94) respecting the Brockville, AA estport and Northwestern Railway.-Mr. Derbyshire.
Bill (No. 95) respecting Gillies Brothers, Limited.-Mr. A. A. AVright.
Bill (No. 96) respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.


[Stage Direction]
1.	Who is the owner or owners of the dredge which in the summer of 1904 performed dredging at Penetanguishene ?
2.	If a company, what is the name of the company ?
Charles Smith Hyman: Bowman & Company.


ATLANTIC AND LAKE SUPERIOR SUBSIDY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-'by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	What amount has been paid to the claimants against the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company since July 1st, 1904, on account of subsidy voted in 1901 for a line of railway between Caplin and Paspebiac ?
2.	Has the Department of Railways and Canals prepared [DOT] a statement showing to whom, by whom, on what date, and on whose recommendation, each separate payment comprised in the total amount was made ?
3.	Was any investigation by an official of the Department of Railways and Canals made regarding these claims prior to the 1st August, 1904 ? If so, by whom, and on what authority was the said investigation made ?
4.	Was any further investigation held after August 1st, 1904 ? If so, by whom, and on what authority ?
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: 1.	$24,513.58.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, by Mr. G. A. Mothersill, a commissioner appointed under chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
4.	Yes, by the Honourable Justice Lang-l'er, a commissioner appointed under chapter 114, of the Revised Statutes of Canada.


WHARF AT GREECE'S POINT.
Mr. PERLEY asked :: 1.	What was the total cost of the public wharf at Greece's Point, on the Carillon canal ?
2.	How many boats used this wharf, and what was the revenue received from it during the last year ?
3.	Who is in charge of this wharf, and how much did he receive for his services during last year ?
4.	Was he paid by fees or by salary ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: 1.	$5,452.19.
2.	The Marine Department have no record of the exact number of boats which used that wharf. The gross revenue last year (1903-4) was $60.93.
3.	Telesphore Ranger.
4.	Pees, being a commission of 25 per cent of the amount collected.


John Gillanders Turriff: 


WHARF AT HULL.
Mr. PERLEY asked :: 1.	What was the total cost of the public wharf
at Hull ? '	.	. .
2.	How many boats used this wharf, and what was the revenue received from it during last year ?
3.	Who is in charge of this wharf, and how much did he receive for his services during last year ?
4.	Was he paid by fees or by salary t


Hon. OHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: 1.	$54,049.76.
2.	Some ten boats periodically called at that wharf during the season of 1904. No wharfage charged.
3.	J. P. Labelle ; paid at the rate of 50 cents per day.
4.	By salary.


FISHWAY AT CARILLON CANAL.
Mr. PERLEY asked :: 1.	Is there a fishway or ladder provided at the government dam across the Ottawa river in connection with the Carillon canal ?
2.	If not, why not ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: 1.	No.
2.	Because the Department of Railways and Canals did not feel warranted in spend-mg $10,000 in its construction which was its estimated cost.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-MURRAY HARBOUR BRANCH.
Mr. A. A. McLEAN asked :: 1.	Has the Murray Harbour branch of the
Prince Edward Island Railway been handed over to the government by the contractors ? If so, when ?	.
2.	What amount, if any, is yet due to the contractors for work performed under their contracts ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: 1.	The Murray Harbour branch of the
Prince Edward Island Railway from Southport to Murray river was handed over to the government by the contractor on November . 5, 1904.	x ,
2.	The final estimate on his contract has been paid to the contractor for the branch.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CAPITAL ACCOUNT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHISHOLM-by Mr. W. Wright-asked :
1.	What was the total amount expended on
capital account in connection* with the Inter-

colonial Railway and its equipment, down to and including the financial year ending 30th June, 1897 ?
2.	'Within the above dates, and tor similar purposes, what sums were expended on capital account for branches, extensions, connections, and other subsidiary parts of the Intercolonial system 7
3.	What sums have been expended on capital account for the Intercolonial Railway and the Intercolonial system, and its connections and branches, yearly, since 30th June, 1897 ?
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: 1.	$65,750,099.87.
2.	$14,316,561.16. This amount is included in the answer to number one.
3.	1898, $252,756.80 ;	1899, $1,081,929.94 ;
1900, $3,255,348,29 ;	1901, $3,633,836.57 ;
1902, $4,626,841.05 ;	1903, $2,254,266.68 ;
1904. $1,880,856.60.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-FREE TRANSPORTATION OF COAL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KEMP-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Was coal transported free over the Intercolonial Railway to points in Ontario in the year 1902-3 ?
2.	If so, what quantity was transported free, and to what points in Ontario ?
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: 1.	Yes.
2.	495 tons. City of Ottawa.


PAYMENT OF HALIFAX FISHERY AWARD TO PROVINCES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CARVE LI, asked :
1.	Has a proposed case for reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, to determine the right of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island to be paid the amount of the Halifax fishery award, received by the Dominion, been submitted to the government on behalf of said provinces, or any, or which of them ?
2.	If so, have the terms of such proposed reference been approved by the Minister of Justice ?
3.	When is the case to be submitted to the Supreme Court for decision ?
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: 1.	Yes.
2.	The terms of such proposed reference have not yet been approved by the Minister of Justice, but are still under consideration.


RAILWAY SURVEYS IN JOLIETTE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Barker-moved for :
A return showing :-1. The names of the civil engineers and others, who were employed by the government, to make a survey for a line of railway in the county of Joliette in Quebec province, during the months of October and November, 1904.
2.	The salary paid to each of said engineers and assistants for the work already performed in the said county of Joliette.
3.	The number of days during which each of said engineers and assistants was employed.
4.	A copy of instructions given to said engineers ; also a copy of report with plan or other detailed information which said engineers have made.
5.	A statement showing the expenses (other than salary or salaries) entailed for the completion of said work and survey thus made in the said county of Joliette.
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: There is no objection to the motion, but it will be necessary to amend it by striking out the words ' employed by the government ' and substitute therefore ' employed by the commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway.'


Mr. BARKER.: You might put it in the alternative.	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have already stated that there was no survey by the government, but that there was a survey, as I understand it, by the Transcontinental Railway Commission.
. Motion as amended, agreed to.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS-LAYING OF RAILS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER moved for :
A return showing for each of the fiscal years from 1st July, 1897, to 30th June, 1904 : (a) of the number of tons (2,240 lbs.) of old rails taken up from each of the government railways ; the location and number of track miles which had been therewith laid, and the tons to the mile.
(b)	Of the number of tons 1(2,240 lbs.) of new rails and fastenings substituted in each Instance ; the tons to the mile, and the cost.
(c)	The gross quantity taken up in the above period, and the gross quantity substituted ; and the cost, if any, charged to capital, of taking up and substituting track ; and of carriage of rails and materials to and from the place of laying.
(d)	The disposition made of the rails and fastenings so taken up. If re-used on the government railways, when, where, and to what extent ; at what price charged out on relaying, and to what account ?
(e)	If not re-used, to what extent ; where, if any, they are stored ; and at what value they are carried, and in what account ; if credited to capital or to working account ; when, how and to what amount ?
(f)	If sold, to what extent, for what price, when, and to whom ; and where delivered at the price ; and to what account the proceeds were credited ?
Henry Robert Emmerson: In order to get the full information on this matter, I would suggest to my hon. friend that the date of the motion should be changed and that we should go further back.


George Eulas Foster: Put it back as far as you like ; I did not want to overburden you.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I (Jo not want to gat back to the time of Noah, but suppose we make the date the first of July, 1879.


George Eulas Foster: Very well.
Motion as amended, agreed to.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
A return showing in detail the various amounts expanded since two years upon the wharf and abutments situated at Isle Bizard, in Jacques Cartier county, Quebec.-Mr. Monk-by Mr. Barker.
Copies of all correspondence, documents, papers, and reports, not already brought down, relating to the harbour of Port Colborne, the breakwater thereof, and elevators, or proposed elevators therein.-Mr. Barker.
Copies of all petitions, memorials, and resolutions from the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, the executive of that province, and any correspondence relative to the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba to the west or north.- Mr. W. S. McCarthy.
Return showing the number and location, cost and earnings, of the cold storage establishments called * bait freezers,' of maritime Canada ; together with the returns, duly certified, of all such institutions, since 1900 ; the names and the salaries of all superintendents, officials and keepers of same ; and the amounts in pounds of the different kinds of fish therein stored ; the amount of bait from them used by bona fide fishermen, and the names of the same ; together with all such information as may permit of the thorough examination of 'the questien of government assisted refrigerators.-Mr. A. Martin-by Mr. A. A. McLean.
Return showing the names of residents in the Northwest Territories not entitled to a second homestead, for whom the sanction of the department has been given, allowing them to purchase additional quarter sections, subject' to ordinary cultivation conditions ; the dates upon which such sanctions were given ; the lands which have been purchased by such settlers in consequence of this authority, with the price agreed upon, and the sum paid down ; also the form in which the authority to make the sale was made known to the local agents of Dominion lands.-Mr. Lake.
Return of the ' statement of the case ' in the ' Canada-Cape Breton ' accident, as served by Captain Reid, of Montreal, upon witnesses whose certificate or license was liable to he dealt with in connection with the investigation regarding said casualty.-Mr. Ames-by Mr. Per-ley.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe) moved for :
Copies of all reports, returns, estimates, correspondence, writings, records, documents, memoranda, or -written or printed information of any kind in the possession or control of the Post Office Department, in reference to the question of establishing rural mail delivery in Mr. POSTER.
Canada, or the manner of establishing or conducting such service, and the probable cost ; including any information in the possession of the department r o the working of the United States system, or such a service or system elsewhere, and the annual expense .nd other particulars.
He said :	As subject of this mor n
has been engagm„ a good deal of attentiu from the people of the rural districts Canada, I gave notice to the Postmastv,„ General that I would discuss it to-day. We have had this matter referred to on several occasions, and some of us have been watching, as I believe the Postmaster General has been, the progress of this question in the United States. I do not know that the Postmaster General has given any very full statement in regard to it, except upon occasion last year, although I may not i>
correct as to this. I am referring to a discussion which took place on the 28th of June last, when the matter was brought up by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) who referred to the system as being wonderfully successful in the United States. The Postmaster General joined issue upon that statement. Whether or not it has been successful in the United States is important to consider in connection with the agitation now taking place in Canada. I am not, and probably no hon. member would be disposed, to commit himself to the proposition that the time has come when we should have rural mail delivery in Canada ; but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is considerable feeling throughout the country that this matter should at all events receive the earnest consideration of members of both sides of the House as one affecting a very large and important class of the people of Canada. I believe I shall have the sympathy of both sides of the House in saying that anything that we can do at a reasonable expense to bring more of the conveniences of city life within the reach of the people of the country ought to be cheerfully borne by the finances of the country in general; and in bringing this matter before the House, I do not wish to be understood as pursuing any line of attack on the Postmaster General, more than this, that I have formed the opinion, whether rightly or wrongly, that the hon. minister is under some misapprehension as to the true condition of this matter in the United States. I judge from the statement the hon. gentleman has made. Even if there is some ground for believing that the Postmaster General is justified in the gloomy view he takes of this matter as a result of looking at what has taken place in the' United States, yet the request of perhaps a large section of the rural constituents of Canada should be taken into consideration, namely, that an experiment should be conducted in a small section, a township or a county, so that we
[Stage Direction]
could by actual experience determine tor ourselve s whether or not the time has come when tL 5s system should be inaugurated. Iu answt .[DOT] to the hou. .yimpber for Bast Lambton, the lion. Postmaster General, last year, as**1- find in Hansard, on page 5750, said :
'do not know what n " f nm. friend means
>en he says that rural cfert^ery in the United .es has been successful. The United States . ople were rather dragooned into the estab-iishment of rtiral mail delivery, and it has raised very serious problems in the United States. I 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.
The lion, member for West Toronto, Mr. asked, 'how were the United States dragooned into this system ? ' The Postmaster General does not answer that, but he goes on to say :
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 iu working the system represented it as a huge success, and succeeded in having those views certified to in the official reports of the Postmaster General of the United States. I think the more
[Stage Direction]
Let me pause here to say that although the Postmaster General seems to have thought that the Postmaster General of the United States was deceived as to what had actually taken place in that country, yet, perusing the reports of the Postmaster General for the United States of the last three or four years, including that for the financial year ending the 30th of June last, I find no indication whatever that the postal authorities there have been deceived or misled iu any way in this matter ; hut, on the contrary, I find that down to a date even Inter than the last report-because I have taken the trouble to get later information-the uniform declaration is that in the United States at all events the system has been a great success. The lion, gentleman nays further :
I 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, but it would go on so that in five years the Postmaster General would have to ask the House to give $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 to establish rural de-67
livery. 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.
I can hardly imagine that the Postmaster General was in earnest in saying that. Our total expenditure In connection with the Post Office Department, as was then pointed out, is less than $5,000,000, and the United States, instead of beginning at even the moderate sum of $1,000,000 or $2,000,000, began the system with the expenditure of $40,000. That was considered sufficient for the inauguration of the system in the first instance in 1897 ; the expenditure was $50,000 in 1898, $150,000 in 1S99, $450,000 in 1900, $1,750,000 in 1901, $3,993,740 in 1902, $8,054,400 in 1903, and an estimate of $12,921,700 for 1904-at the time the financial year closed the whole of this has not been quite expended. Now, taking into consideration the relative density of population, and our numbers as compared with those of the United States, the system, if inaugurated iu Canada would of course for a long time be on a very limited scale. As a matter of fact, the United States intend to extend the rural mail delivery system only to those parts of the country where 100 families can be served on a route of twenty-five or thirty miles. So if you apply it to Canada it would not for a long time be necessary to extend it to a very great, number of sections of the country or to expend on it a very large sum of money.
There is another feature to which I wish to call attention in connection with what my hon. friend the Postmaster General has said. Rightly or wrongly-and I submit by the reports wrongly-he concluded that difficulties have been found to exist In con nection with the working of the system in the United States which render it impracticable here. But these difficulties do not really exist. The hon. gentleman says they started on the basis of paying for a courier and equipment $500 a year. That may have been the case, but as far as I can find from investigation, It began at $600 a year. However, that is not of very much consequence. He pointed out that the companies engaged in express and passenger traffic objected to these couriers carrying express parcels and passengers, with the result that these men engaged in the mail service demanded an Increase of salary', and the result of the pressure brought to bear by the express companies and the others engaged in the carrying trade was that the government had to increase the pay to $750 a year. That again is a misapprehension. I find that-not at the time the hon. gentleman spoke of, hut later on-the government did increase the rate to $720 a year, but that was only' for the longer distances, and the expense ranges from that rate down to $432 a y'ear. The Postmaster General then went on to .say' that if we were to establish this
[Stage Direction]


service, we would probably have to pay $1,000 a year ; and on an average that would represent about 15 cents a mile. But if we take into consideration the conditions existing in Canada and the rates we are paying for our mail carriage at present from place to place, we need not be very much afraid on that score, because the rates that are paid in Canada for such service will fall very far short of the fanciful rates which my bon. friend claims were demanded a year ago in the United States. If you take the rates of transportation in Canada, you will find that they will not exceed probably five cents a mile instead of fi1 teen. There is something interesting in the ' igures. You are well aware that this work; is done by contract after calling for ten? ers, and you would suppose that the rates vould be reasonably even all over the coin "y. But let me begin by taking for illustration South Simcoe and North Simcoe, and I will ike only the short distances of under a mhtC In South Simcoe, giving the stations, distances, the total number of trips and amounts paid, we have the following results :

[Stage Direction]
Name.
Angus to Railway Station ...	.
Colwell and Railway Station...
Utopia	ir	
Lefroy	u	
Nantyr and Railway Catch Post . Thornton and Railway Station... Vine and Railway Catch Post.... Alliston and Railway Station .... Beeton	n	..Cookstown	i,	....Tottenham	*n	....Everett	u	....Gleneairn	i.	....Lisle	ii	....Tioga	ii	....Allandale	n	...Average rate per trip	
Average yearly cost per transfer
Distance.	Total Trips.	Amount Paid.	Rate Per Trip.
Miles.		[DOT]8 eta.	
*	1,248	48 00	§	621	62 80	TG	024	87 92	024	31 40	312	00 00	3	936	85 30	A	624	56 52	±	1,248	87 92	3	1,248	169 66	i	1,248	150 72	I	1,248	49 00	A	93G	*50 00	!	312	50 00	312	25 00	I	024	43 96	i 8	1,872	100 00	14,040	1,158 26	SiW cts.
872'39

[Stage Direction]
624	120 00 91 50
	t	624	
	i	1,872 1.248 1.248 624	300 00
	[DOT] i		94 20
	|		314 00
Nottawa h 	3	114 00Smithdale 	|	312	25 12 78 00 60 00
Stayner ..: 1,248


Brentwood ..: 624	
New Lowell n ... 	
Anten Mills (l 	|	1,248 312	37 44 29 00Saurin and Mail Changing Post 	J	624	20 00Eimvale and Railway Station	936	100 00


Phelpston ..: A	312	42 38
			
f Average rate per trip			 .. ., ,		11,856	1,425 64
Average annual rate per station				
			
* Estimated. + Higher than South Simcoe by 45'87 per cent.


Mr. LENNOX.: Why is the difference ? In South Simcoe -a riding which is well represented, I think-we have an average of eight cents per trip ; whereas in North Simcoe, although tenders were called for, we have an average of twelve cents, or just 45*87 per cent higher for carrying these mails in North Simcoe
than in South Simcoe. No doubt it is not too much in either case, but it suggests a peculiar inquiry ; and it seems, now turning to North York, that I am, in a sense, between the devil and the deep sea. I take the longer distances, and we have the following results :


SOUTH SIMCOE.
[Stage Direction]
Name.
Alliston and Rosemont	
Alliston and Elmgrove	
Angus and Baxter	
Athlone and Tottenham	
Black Bank and Lisle Railway Station.
Churchill and Railway Station	
Egbert and Mail Changing Post	
Thornton and Ivy	
Bell Ewart and Lefroy Station	
Stroud and Railway Station	
Innisfil and Stroud	
Killyleagh and Thornton	
Earnscliffe and Rosemont	
Hone3rwood and Ry. Station	
Kilgorie and Whitfield	
Perm and Everett	
Rosemont and Shelburne	
Rosemont and Sheldon	
Ruskview and Terra Nova	
Penville and Tottenham	
Thompsonville and Railway Station....
Average rate per mile.
Distance.	Total Miles.	Amount Paid.	Rate per Mile.Miles. 9	5,610	$ cts. 234 72	cts. 4*17Hi	7.170	152 00	2147l	2,340	S8 00	3 3317{	10,920	219 48	28|	5,460	202 00	3 702 5	3,120	219 00	7043	1,872	90 00	4'8741	2,574	200 00	6'411	1,248	72 00	5'761	1,248	120 00	9-613	1,872	125 00	6663	624	25 00	454	3,432	200 00	5'8212	7,488	274 00	3-8544	936	60 00	64175	4,680	*100 00	2 1312	7,488	453 58	6053|	2,340 858	100 00	4-2724	40 00	4 66194	12,168	270 29	2-22l|	1,560	110 00	7-0585,020	3,355 47	3 * 94 cts.
* Estimated.

[Stage Direction]
Name.	Distance.	Total Miles.	Total Amount.	Rate per Mile.Miles.	8	cts.	cts.Apto and Phelpston	6	3,744	164	23	4-38Crossland and Phelpston	19	5,928	300	00	5 06Elm vale and Gibson	9	2,808	128	00	4*55Banda and Glencairn	24	1,560	124	80	8 8Cash town and Creemore	2	1,248	100	00	Colling wood and Gibraltar	124	3,900	235	00	6Creemore and Lavender	13	8,112	345	00	4*25Duntroon and Maxville 	14	8,736	316	00	3 61Glen Huron and Railway Station	14	936	140	00	14 95Nottawa and Rob Roy	
...	10	3,120	143	00	458Stayner and Sunnidale	1 u Strongville	
J	23j	7,410	155	79	2-10Barrie and Hillsdale	16	9,984	297	00	2-97it Midhurst	5	3,120	180	00	576Grenfel and Railway Station	24	520	78	00	15Minesing and Railway Station	2	1,248	72	27	5 79u Russellton	6	1,872	100	00	534Glen Huron and Railway Station	14	936	140	00	14 9565,182	3,019 09	Av. 84$,% c.

[Stage Direction]
Name.	Distance.	Total Miies.	Amount Paid.	Rate per Mile.Miles.	[DOT]$ cts.	cts.Sutton West and Vaehell	4	2,496	75 00	3-Mount Albert and Sharon	74	4,524	177 50	3 92< Queensville and Raven.shoe	6	3,744	150 00	4*Keswicke and Roche's Point	3	1,872	139 00	7'42Aurora and Scliomberg	15	4,200	U.2 25	3-80H Vandorf	84	5,148	290 00	5 ' 03(Renville and Newmarket	34	2,184	120 00	5 54Kettleby and Railway Station	is	3,744	229 20	6 12King and Strange	4|	2,964	198 00	0 68Linton and Kleinburg Railway Station	m	8,268	375 00	4 53Lloyd town and Schomberg Railway Station	'i	ti Tuam and Railway Station	
( ii and Railway Station	f	3,957	207 84	676[DOT]i Tuam	I	Schomberg and Tuam	5	580	59 00	10 14Temperance ville and Railway Station. . .. 	
Georgina Island and Verginia	4,056 832	200 00	4-934	40 00	4 80Newton Robinson and Bradford	9	5,616	305 00	6 49Deerhurst and Gilford	44	2,808	155 00	5 5250,693	3,002 79	Av. 5 t:!o°o cts.
Average 5'30 cents a mile.
Average in .South Simcoe is 3'94 cents per mile. Difference is (in favour of North York) 34 per cent.
I find from the Postmaster General's Report that the total number of miles of mail route travelled in South Simcoe was 85,020 at a cost of $3,355.47 or an average of 3'!)4 cents per mile for the whole riding. In North York, on the other hand, the total number of miles travelled was 56,693 at a cost of $3,002.79 or an average of 5'30 cents per mile. It is a peculiar thing that in the centre, in South Simcoe, the cost is lower by 45 per cent than in North Simcoe on the other hand, and 34 per cent lower than in North York on the other hand, although they are all by tender.
The matter to which I particularly want to direct attention is that if we take the average mileage cost for carrying mails in Canada and apply our information upon that point to the mileage that would be required for the free delivery if it were established, there is no reason to believe that it will entail anything like the expense which the Postmaster General seems to anticipate or be a matter of serious difficulty so far as we would require for the present to extend the system. The Postmaster General suggested that the United States had arrived at a position when they had to reconsider the matter, when in fact it had given rise to litigation and difficulty, and that in all probability they would like to get out of it. I find no suggestion of that kind in any of the reports in connection with post office management in the United States. I have examined the congressional record right down to date ; congress is sitting and Mr. LENNOX.
these matters are coming up for discussion every day, yet there in no information that any difficulty of this kind lias arisen. They have been extending the system from year to year. Beginning with forty-four trips they had at the end of the fiscal year 1904, established 24,556 trips, and by December 2, 1904, when the Postmaster General of the United States made his report, they had established 2S.073 trips, and he estimated that by January 15, just past, they would have 30,073 trips in operation. As the Postmaster General of the United States and his assistants point out, there had not at any time therefore been such a demand for this service nor had the service ever been so successful as in the fiscal year ending the 30th June, last. The postal authorities of the United States also point out that they were serving at the end of last year 12,000,000 people, and counting on the same basis, they are now serving at a cost of $12,000,000 nearly 13,500,000 people in the rural municipalities of the United States.
The president of the United States in his message to the Senate dated 6th December last gave some interesting information upon this service. He said :-
In the Post Office Department the service has increased in efficiency and conditions as to revenue and expenditure continue satisfactory. Included in these expenditures was a total appropriation of $12,956,637.35 for the continuation and extension of the rural free delivery service, which was an increase of $4,902,237.35 over the amount expended for this purpose in the

207S
preeediug fiscal year. Large as this expenditure has been, the beneficent results attained in extending the free distribution of mails to the residents of rural districts have justified the wisdom of the outlay. Statistics brought down to the 1st of October, 1904, show that on that date there were 27,138 rural routes established, serving approximately 12,000,000 people in rural districts, remote from post offices, and that there were pending at that time 3,859 petitions for the establishment of new rural routes. Unquestionably some part of the general increase in receipts is due to the increased postal facilities which the rural service has afforded.
Lest the Postmaster General or any member of this House should be misled as to the deficits of the mail service in the United States, I point to the enormous figures I have just read, and the fact that for many years, going back ten or fifteen years, there has been a deficit every year.
I have no desire to rob the Postmaster General of any credit he is entitled to in Canada for a different condition of things prevailing here, as long as it does not result in robbing the people who do the work. But I have stated the fact that in the United States the deficits have not been occasioned by the adoption of rural delivery ; but that on the other hand the Postmaster General there points out that the increased, receipts of the post office are to some extent due to the adoption of rural mail delivery ; and I also point out that they have been able to discontinue the. expenditure on the Star service route, effecting a saving of $579,324; and of rural post offices, to the amount of .$171,000, making a saving of $750,445.32, during the last year in consequence of the establishment of rural mail delivery, an important point in considering this question, i point out the fact that the Postmaster General's Report, and all these reports that I have taken occasion to peruse, contain many features well worthy of consideration in this country, a country where rural life contrasts unfavourably in respeet of conveniences and advantages with town life and city life, and where all the people of the country should be willing at a reasonable expense ho exitend these advantages to every section of the country. We will have, if we establish it, as pointed out by the United States Postmaster General, a great general increase in conveniences. He says also it has resulted in increasing the value of the farms, it has resulted in improving the highways, it has increased the values of markets to the farmer, and enabled him to transact his business more satisfactorily by giving him direct access from time to time with the carrier, to transmit money and to carry on many business transactions. Moreover what is as important as anything, it will bring increased comforts to the home, and make contrast between city and rural life less marked than it is to-day. It will tend to encourage the farmers' sons to stay upon
the farm, and thus add to the general prosperity of Canada, and by giving them facilities now denied. 1 propose to read an article from the ' Weekly Sun. ' I have great respect for the opinion of the agricultural journals of this country in a matter of this kind, because they come in close touch with the farmers, and the farmers after all are the people who have to bear the chief burden, if this matter is carried out. The article is headed ' The Country Can Afford it.'
Just before parliament prorogued, Sir Wm. Mulock, in answer to Mr. Lennox, said a study of the question of rural mail delivery had convinced him of the impossibility .and unwisdom of the inauguration of such a service for Canada, and that it would be many years before any government would recommend its adoption.
The expenditure necessary to extend the service to every farm house in the whole of the United States, including the most sparsely settled sections will not exceed on-e dollar per family, or less than half the value of the service to those enjoying it. A year or two ago the total expenditure on rural mail delivery in the United States was twelve million dollars.
A little above the mark there as to time as I have shown.
It would not cost anything like that sum to Introduce such a service here, and even if It did, what then ? The Laurier government has increased the expenditure on the general services of the country by fourteen million dollars, iu eight years. The amount that is wasted on little public works
[Stage Direction]
This is a matter that should strike my hon. friend the Postmaster General, in connection with a discussion we had recently.
[Stage Direction]
in the form of docks, &c., for doubtful constituencies, and in bounties to iron manufacturers and subsidies to steamboat owners and railway promoters, would easily meet the cost of providing the farmers of Canada with this great boon.
I regret having trespassed upon the attention of the House at such length, but I think the importance of the subject justifies me in doing so. In moving the motion that I have placed on the Order Paper for a return of the papers and documents in connection with this matter, my object was to introduce a discussion upon this question, and at the same time to urge upon the Postmaster General to consider the propriety of testing this matter for ourselves. It is not necessary to make an extensive experiment. As I have said, the sj stem was begun in the United States with a sum of $40,000. Let us appropriate $5,000 or $10,000 for an experiment in Canada, and if it is not found satisfactory, it will have served the purpose in the meantime, and will have satisfied the people that we are all united in a desire to promote the best interests of our farmers throughout the country.
Right Hon.   S@: There is no objection to the order passing with this exception. My recollection is that there are in the department some reports of a confidential character dealing with some of the workings in the United States ; those will have to be omitted. My bon. friend rested his argument largely upon the financial consequences involved in the establishment of this system. In doing so I think he directed his attention to the real difficulty in the way. Let me supplement his figures. He gave us the appropriations for the system in the United States down to and including the year 1904. He was correct so far as he went. The United States Congress appropriated in the session of 1903, for the service of the succeeding year, $12,921,700. My hon. friend's information doubtless came to a stop there, for he did not give us the figures of the estimate for the year 1905, nor for the year 1906. The appropriation for the year 1905 by Congress was $20,816,600. The Supply Bill that is now going through Congress contains an appropriation for 1906 o' $25,828,300. The appropriation therefore for 1906 is about one hundred per cent greater than it was for 1904, the last figures the hon. gentleman furnished to the House. The system began in 1897 with $40,000. It is true there was a vote of $40,000 at that time, but no real, substantial pi ogress was made until about 1901, when Congress appropriated $1,750,000. Now, beginning with $1,750,000 in 1901, the appropriations have reached $25,800,000 in a period of six years. That shows with what rapidity the expenditures have increased as the system extends. My hon. friend, I have no doubt, was perfectly right when he said that there was a greater demand in the United States last year for the extension of this system than ever before.


George Eulas Foster: Does that increase of expenditure take place in applying the system generally, or in applying the system from one section to another, and so increasing the expenditure in that way ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I do not quite understand the hon. gentleman's question.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to know whether they have adopted the system generally in the United States, and this expenditure is growing because of its application to the general system, or whether they have adopted the plan, experimentally if you like, for one district and they are extending it to another district.


Haughton Lennox: They have almost the whole territory covered now.


William Mulock: The system is being extended to a number of new points. They have not extended the system from the Atlantic to the Pacific and thus com-Mr. LENNOX.
pleted it, but, I dare say, from the influences that are brought to bear, they are making a beginning here and there and extending it to other points. Development is going on from ocean to ocean, and from north to south. Doubtless every Congressman who goes to Congress goes there pledged to get rural delivery for his constituents. I assume my hon. friend is quite right when he says that you cannot find in the ' Congressional Record ' any protests from representatives in Congress against the extension of the system. They all come pledged to secure it. The scheme is started, and when it has a footing in some localities every other locality is demanding what it is contributing to furnish to other districts. But the conditions in Canada are very different. Since we are dealing with figures, let me call my hon. friend's attention to the question of deficits. In 1902, practically before the country had commenced to feel the consequences of rural delivery, the revenue of the United States Post Office Department was only $2,937,649 below the cost. There was a deficit of a shade under $3,000,000, but for the year 1905 they have a deficit of $14,000,000 and odd. I may say that for some years, speaking from memory, I can recall having read the figures of the United States Post Office Department showing that they had a deficit of $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 a year. It gradually fell, and it looked as if they were ultimately going to put their post office on a paying basis. I have not seen the annual statement showing their deficits, although the figures can be discovered by reference to their reports, but the Post Office Department of the United States gradually began to approach a paying basis, the deficit having fallen, in 1902, to $2,937,000.


John Graham Haggart: Is the $24,000,000 odd voted this year for the purpose of covering the cost of rural delivery or for the purpose of meeting the deficit ?


William Mulock: The $25,800,000 is the estimated expenditure of rural delivery in the United States for the year 1906.


Haughton Lennox: And the establishment of new services.


William Mulock: For existing services, and this $5,000,000 extra over the appropriation of this year is doubtless for the extension of the service. Doubtless they are extending it every day. The expenditure has grown in four years from $3,900,000 to some $25,000,000.


Haughton Lennox: Is it not a fact that they have now got about six-sevenths of the total area covered that they expected to cover, so that they have almost reached their total expenditure ?


William Mulock: Nobody can answer that question. I will give my hon.

friend one illustration, and he will see that they have only touched the fringe of the thing yet. They do not serve the crossroads, and they do not go within a certain distance of houses. The courier will start from the post office where he gets his mail, he will go ten miles along the concession line, he will then cross over to another concession line and he will then return to the place of beginning, having probably travelled about twenty-five miles. The people on these cross-roads are not served. They will demand the service there. The $25,800,000 would be practically doubled-I will not say doubled-but would be enormously increased to serve the people living in between the concession lines. I believe this is one of the wildest schemes the United States ever embarked on. My hon. friend says there are no protests against it. There may not be any protests against this system any more than there are protests against the pension system, which is costing to-day $140,000,000, although it is forty years since the war was closed.


George Eulas Foster: They are good long livers there.


William Mulock: They are; but yet nobody in Congress would care to imperil his popularity with the Grand Army of the Republic by objecting to the increases of the classes to which pensions are payable.
I would not take the expression of opinion in Congress as a safe guide for us in Canada in a matter of this kind. Moreover, if we were disposed to favour this institution, our conditions are vastly different. It is true that in some sections we have as close settlement as in some parts of the United States, but I do not think any government will be powerful enough to establish rural delivery in favoured sections and not be compelled to yield to all demands and establish it in other sections as well. We have a population of 6,000,000 of people. They have a population of twelve times that at least. Our population is very sparse in districts, but a large part of our country is occupied by that sparse population. My hon. friend seemed to think that the establishment of rural delivery in the United States has caused a great increase in the revenue of the post office. He gave the figure, I think, as being 6 per cent of an increase over last year.


Haughton Lennox: Yes ; they gave 6 per cent. I did not intend to advance that. It was not an argument of mine. I was reading it from the report. I did not state that that was from rural mail delivery, but I said that it applied to the whole postal service.


William Mulock: Quite so ; but the hon. gentleman drew the inference that the establishment of a rural mail delivery had resulted in increasing the revenue.


Haughton Lennox: That is what they say. i


William Mulock: And he mentioned that the revenue of the Post Office Department of the United States increased 6 per cent last year. The United States is largely a commercial country. I have never made a comparison between the population in cities and rural districts in the United States and in Canada, but a country whose population is largely commercial will use the post office to a greater extent than will a country whose population is largely rural. No matter what may be the cause of the increase, whether it be because the people in the United States are more numerous in cities than in rural districts as compared with the people in Canada, yet I think our revenue incr&ises each year at a rate far in excess of 6 per cent. I have not here the figures, but I think I would be quite safe in saying that our revenue has increased quite ten per cent and we have no rural delivery, so that I think the hon. gentleman cannot get any comfort out of that argument.


George Eulas Foster: There is one point on which I would like the Postmaster General to give us information. Can it be found out somewhat nearly what the cost of the rural delivery is, and what the income is that is derived from the areas which are covered by rural delivery ; so that we can get at an idea of the relative income and outgo ?


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: The minister stated that the deficit in 1904 was $14,000,000. Is that correct ?


William Mulock: I gave the deficit for the year 1905. I think their financial year ends in March, but at all events the estimated deficit in the United States post office for the fiscal year 1905 is $14,340,938.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I received a letter from a congressman in Washington to-day and he distinctly states that the deficit in the rural mail delivery service has never exceeded $8,000,000.


William Mulock: I do not know that the United States government has ever balanced up the revenue and expenditure on rural mail delivery alone. The deficit in the Post Office Department before the rural mail delivery service was inaugurated amounted to about $3,000,000. In 1902 they commenced the expenditure on rural delivery, and while the deficit that year was only $2,900,000, it has grown in these past few years to be over $14,000,000, and the chief increased expenditure is for rural delivery.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House

is in my opinion a most important one. Last year when I asked the lion. Postmaster General what he was doing in regard to rural free delivery, I was surprised to hear the answer he gave to the House, and I think that if he investigates the subject, lie will admit that his remarks on that occasion were slightly exaggerated. He made the statement that the representatives of the United States had been dragooned into the present legislation. I do not believe the representatives of the United States are the class of people to be dragooned into any legislation that would be against the best interests of the people of that country. The lion. Postmaster General went so far as to say	*
The unfortunate administration is evidently at its wit's end to know what to do with this monster that has been raised lip, and has apparently no way of controlling the thing.
ilr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure and privilege to have visited a number of the districts where rural free delivery has been in operation for a number of years, and were a man to stand up in those districts and make such a statement as that, he would have a very cool reception; because I want to assure you that the people of the rural districts around the large cities of the United States are in hearty accord witli the administration in granting to them the delivery system which they have at the present time. The hon. minister made the statement that in a few years it would probably cost the people of Canada $25,000,000 to test rural free delivery. I would ask the hon. gentleman to take into consideration the following statement made by a congressman in a letter which I received to-day-I am sorry to say that the literature which lie has forwarded to me has not arrived :
I have sent you a lot of literature on the subject of the free delivery of mails in our rural territory. You will no doubt find in this material a good bit of information. The plan has worked very well with us. I think it makes a good deal of expense, usually creating a deficit of from four to eight millions of dollars yearly. This year the appropriation will be between twenty-three and twenty-five milltons of dollars. You see how enormously it has grown in extent and popularity. As a large majority of our people live in rural districts, you will appreciate how greatly interested the country has become.
Now, Mr. Speaker, taking the populatiou of the United States at 72,000,000. with au average deficit of say $6,000,000 on the rural free delivery system, and taking the population of Canada at 6,000,000, the deficit here would amount to about $500,000 per annum.
tSir WILLIAM MULOOK. How does the hon. gentleman prove that ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am merely proving it by the figures given in the United States.


William Mulock: How does the hon. gentleman prove that the deficit would be in proportion to the population ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the hon. minister will investigate the subject, he will find that the rural free delivery system, instead of extending over the sparsely settled districts, is confined to districts having a certain population, and there is no reason why the expense should he proportionately greater in Canada than it is in the United States. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) stated this afternoon that five-sixths of the territory of the United States had already been covered by this system. If that statement is true, we can readily see that the system is not going to be such an extravagant thing for the people of the United States as the hon. minister would lead us to believe. The hou. minister spoke of the cross roads in this country not being settled. If he had investigated the system of the United States, he would have learned that the boxes are placed along the highway, and that the free delivery man is not compelled to go down the side roads unless he is paid extra by the people be is serving. The bon. Postmaster General said to-day that the appropriation in the United States was large. I can only say that that fact should prove to the hon. minister the popularity of the system. I am very glad indeed that the hon. minster referred to the $14,000,000 deficit, because I understand that that covers all the postal deficiencies of the United States. All that we are asking the hon. Postmaster General to do at the present time is to make a thorough investigation of this matter. Would it not be wise to spend a few thousand dollars in obtaining all the information that could be gathered on the subject in the United States, and giving it to this House and to the people of this country, so as to enable us to judge whether or not the system could he introduced into this country with profit to our people? The present government seems to be legislating and catering to a large extent to the cities, towns and corporations of our country, and sadly neglecting the rural districts. I wish I could impress upon them the necessity of looking after the interests of the farmers of this country. Millions of dollars are voted away in this House each year for the building of piers and improving harbours, a great deal of which we approve of, no doubt; and $2,000,000 is to be spent in erecting a mint, for which no minister that I have heard lias been able yet to give a reasonable excuse. Under these circumstances, would it be asking too much that a few thousand dollars should be spent each year in making a test of the rural free delivery system in our country? If you investigate
20S5

the country post offices, you will find that we have to-day a most impoverished system. The postmaster of the little country post office is paid $25 or $5C per annum for looking after the mails, and a small pittance is paid to the man who carries the mails to and fro. The rural districts are not treated fairly under our present postal system. The hon. Postmaster General stated to-day that this would be vicious legislation to force upon the people of this country. I want to tell the hon. minister that the day is not far distant when he will be forced to take up this matter and investigate it. The people of this country will demand that he make a thorough investigation of the rural free delivery systems in different countries.


William Mulock: I did not say it would be a vicious system to introduce into Canada. I did not use that term. I said it would be a mistake from the financial standpoint.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I must have misunderstood the hon. minister. I will retract the statement, but I understood him to make the statement that it would be a visious system of legislation to force on the people of this country.


William Mulock: Unwise.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not wish to take up more of the time of the House at present, but I would sincerely urge my hon. friend the Postmaster General to have this matter thoroughly investigated and submit a report to the House at an early date.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to say a word or two in reply to the hon. the Postmaster General. I am sorry that having begun so well and kept on until dinner time in a fairly rapid strain, he declined afterwards to pursue what he evidently intended before we adjourned. The matter is one which, presented in the manner I saw fit to present it, in a non partisan manner, I thougut might have been approached by the hon. gentleman in a somewhat different attitude from that which he saw fit to assume ; and I certainly expected that after I had called his attention to certain misstatements, accidental or otherwise, which he made a year ago, he would have been careful to give the House accurate information on all the questions he dealt with this evening. I regret that he has not done so, and that on the important questions of deficits he gave to the House an entirely misleading impression of the facts concerning the United States. The receipts and expenditures in the United States, have resulted in deficits almost invariably for a long series of years. Turning to volume 17 of the House documents of 1902, at pages 12 and 13, the hon. gentleman will find a confirmation of what I say. There we have a table giving the receipts and expenditures in the United
States every tenth year from 1792, and I shall put this volume at the disposal of my hon. friend if he wishes to use it. But in order to be brief. I shall begin with the year 1860. I find that in the year 1S60 the reeipts in the United States were $8,518,067 and the expenditure $19,170,610, leaving a deficit of $10,052,543. Yet the hon. minister saw fit to tell the House that before they adopted the rural mail delivery system in the United States, they had no deficit.


William Mulock: I made no such statement.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman will find in ' Hansard ' what he said.


William Mulock: I never made any such statement.


Haughton Lennox: He began with a certain year-I forget what year it was-and said that in that year there was a deficit of $2,000,000 or thereabouts.


William Mulock: My hon. friend has not quite understood what I said. I said that for many years, speaking from memory, the deficits in the United States post office had been very considerable, but that of late years, prior to the adoption of the rural mail delivery, the annual deficit had been gradually becoming smaller, and I thought had fallen to $2,000,000 or $3,000,000. But I had the deficit for the decennial period ending December 1902. And for that year the deficit was $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 ; and at that time they had scarcely expended anything on rural delivery. But since four years, during which they had been making large expenditures on rural mail delivery, the deficit had increased from $2,000,000 to over $14,000,000.


Haughton Lennox: That statement bears out the proposition I started to make. My hon. friend saw fit to attribute the deficits to the establishment of rural mail delivery, and referring to the year 1902 he said the deficit was between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000.


William Mulock: I gave the exact figures for 1902.


Haughton Lennox: What is the fact ? The fact is that they began in 1860 with a deficit of more than 120 per cent on the revenues of the post office. Then in 1803, in the face of that condition of things, the United States government took upon themselves to pursue a policy of expansion. They established free deliveries in the cities, and the result has been that since then, taking the gross volume of business, the deficit, instead of showing an increased percentage, has been showing a decreasing percentage. At pages 12 and 13, I find this report:
With the phenomenal growth of population and other favouring conditions, the mail matter poured into the post office has rapidly helped

[DOT]to lessen the percentage of deficiencies. Despite largely increased expenditures, the revenues gradually approximated the expenditure after each added outlay has marked a new standard.
That is not exactly what my hon. friend intended.


William Mulock: That is precisely what I said.


Haughton Lennox: I sljall read it again :
In spite of the largely increased expenditure the revenues gradually approximated the expenditures after each added outlay

Including the large outlay for rural mail delivery.

has marked a new standard.
In the year 1899, when the rural mail delivery was introduced, it marked a new standard, and after each one of these standards, the Postmaster General of the United States points out that the revenues have gradually approximated the expenditures.


William Mulock: No, the hon. gentleman misunderstands the report he is reading. He must read it again. In 1899- the year it speaks about-the vote was $150,000 for the succeeding year. They only had voted that year $50,000 in 1898 for rural mail delivery in the United States. What effect could that have on the revenue of the United States post office for 1899? It could not have had the effect of a dollar.	.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: Hon. gentlemen are very prompt in saying ' hear, hear but if those same hon. gentlemen would honestly endeavour to study these questions and do something for the constituencies they represent, instead of from time to time interrupting with their ' hear, hears,' when they know nothing about the question-if they will study the question and then get up and tell the House what they know about it, I should be happy to give way to them, and for the present it will not take them very long to tell what they know. I do not profess to know everything about this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: It is a matter a very few have studied minutely. I do not think that my hon. friend the Postmaster General has shown any very great knowledge of the subject because he was unable to answer even the few questions put him by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) this afternoon. Nor has he been very clear in his elucidations, and it will be quite in keeping for him to take the ' hear, hears ' of his followers to heart and study the question. We are asking to have the report of this investigation, which he instituted a year or two ago, laid on the table, so that the country may know what it is, instead of his pigeon-Mr. LENNOX.
holing it and keeping it as a state secret and then proclaiming of his own mere motion what he shall or shall not do. As to the establishment of rural mail delivery I may say that in 1901 the first large expenditure was made, an expenditure of $1,750,000.


William Mulock: That was not in 1901 at all.


Haughton Lennox: That was the appropriation.


William Mulock: It was not made in 1902.


Haughton Lennox: The appropriation was made in 1901 of $1,750,000.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman spoke of the expenditure of $1,750,000 in 1901 ; I say that the expenditure in 1901 must have been limited to the appropriation for 1901 which was $540,000.


Haughton Lennox: The expenditure in 1901 was probably $450,000, and it will probably be gratifying to the Postmaster General to know that out of that $450,000 they succeeded in establishing 1,356 rural routes, representing on the average 100 families each, so that when the Postmaster General talks of starting with an expenditure of $2,000,000 and increasing that to to $25,000,000 in a few years, he shows, what the hon. gentlemen opposite know, that the Postmaster General does not know what he is talking about.


William Mulock: Will the hon. gentleman explain how it was that the expenditure has risen from the year 1900, when it was $450,000, to the year 1906, the coming year for which the appropriation is $26,000,000. How could he satisfy the country that we are not likely to press on at an equal speed in expenditure ? These figures indicate the use that the people of the United States make of the system ; are we not likely to be equally enterprising once we start it ?


Haughton Lennox: Now the hon. gentleman is trying to draw one of those fish across the track. We are not dealing with that question at all. It would be quite competent for the Postmaster General to tell us what he would do in this matter, but I am not here to outline a policy for the Postmaster General. I tell him that they have been extending their rural postal service at the rate of 700 routes a month, and that they have been answering the demands of the people in the interests of the people as they believe very rapidly, and beginning with a modest appropriation they have got up to $26,000,000 and they have still a very small percentage of expenditure for the rural service as compared with the city service.


William Mulock: This whole $20,000,000 is for the rural service, not for the city service. Does the hon. gentleman

think that Canada can afford to spend $26,000,000 for rural delivery ?


Haughton Lennox: No one in his senses would talk of an expenditure like that for rural delivery in Canada. We are spending only $4,500,000 for the whole postal service of Canada, and does any sane man-and I hope the hon. minister wants to assu ae that role-think of talking of an expenditure of $25,000,000 for a population of 5,000,000 people ? They are spending $26,000,000 not only in carrying on the rural mail delivery system in the United States, but in perfecting the system and establishing 10,000 new routes every year. They established 10,000 new routes last year and more than that are contemplated this year. In a few years, I think within a year or two if I understand the report aright, they expect to have a complete net work of free delivery routes over the whole territory' of the United States, so far as necessary, upon the basis which they have adopted of establishing a route only where.about 100 families can be embraced in a route of 25 miles or so.
This report goes on :
Despite largely increased expenditures, the revenues gradually approximated the expenses after each added outlay has marked a new standard.
In 1872 the receipts of the Post Office Department were in round numbers $22,000,000, against an expenditure of $26,500,000, a deficiency of $4,500,000, or 20-45 per cent of the revenue. In 1882 the receipts were $42,000,000, against an expenditure of $41,000,000, showing a surplus of $1,000,000. In 1892 the receipts had increased to $71,000,000, against an expenditure of $77,000,000, leaving a deficiency of $6,000,000, or 8'45 per cent of the revenue. In 1902 the receipts were about $122,000,000, with an expenditure of nearly $125,000,000, reducing the deficiency to about $3,000,000, or 2-46 per cent of the revenue.
1 have read this for the purpose of showing that, while the Postmaster General singled out a certain year to show the existence of deficits in the United States service, as a matter of fact deficits have marked the whole history of the business of the United States Post Office Department since 1822 with the exception of one single year, 1882, when there was a surplus of $1,000,000. It will be noticed that although the deficits are increasing the percentage of deficits is decreasing. In other words by a wise policy the Postmaster General of the United States is extending the service as public demands lequire it, and although there is nominally a larger deficit there is actually a less deficit upon the total business of the country. The Postmaster General of the United States continues:
Deficits in the postal service are not to he viewed with apprehension. It is the policy, whenever the postal receipts exceed or come near the expenditures, to extend postal facilities and cheapen the cost of the service to the public. The receipts in 1882 indicated such a
healthy condtion of the postal revenues and expenditures as to induce Congress to distribute the benefits of the surplus among the people in the reduction of letter postage from three cents per half ounce to two cents per ounce.
I thought the 2 cent rate was a discovery on our part of the continent, but it seems that they had discovered it first.
Inasmuch as the revenue received from first-class matter at the old rate of three cents per half ounce was about $16,000,000, the reduction of postage to those writing letters was in the neighbourhood of $5,000,000.
Under the seemingly double handicap of reduced rates and increased weights, the Post Office Department was compelled to face a newly created deficiency, which in 1885 was about $7,500,000.
The Bostmaster General of Canada must have known these facts. *The point to which I wish to call his attention is that when he was dealing with this matter and showing that by reason of tbeir adoption of rural mail delivery they have plunged themselves into a large deficit, it would have been fair, it would have been honest of him, to have said that they previously had large deficits, far in excess, in some years, of what they had since the establishment of rural mail delivery. In 1892 it was $6,000,000, and from that year until 1897 the deficiency grew to about $11,000,000. So we find that the deficits that have arisen have not been caused by the rural mail delivery. The Postmaster shows the very contrary, he shows tlat increased receipts have resulted from the fact of the establishment of rural mail delivery. He says :
During all this time the beneficent grant of cheaper postage not only aided business, but promoted the exchange of personal communications. It helped the farmers to secure the free distribution of literature from State agricultural stations, which Congress authorized in 1887.
Now. what is the argument to be deduced from the figures furnished by the United States ? The Postmaster General asks, Are we prepared to plunge ourselves into an expenditure of $25,000,000 ? Why Sir, the hon. gentleman shows that he has given very little consideration to the subject. In the United States, 13,000,000 of people are being served on an expenditure of about $12,000,000. The total expenditure of the United States in 1893-4. in connection with the post office was $152,000,000. Thirteeo million are one-sixth of the population of the United States, and one-sixth of the total expenditure for the post office is $25,000,000. In other words, whilst they have expended upon Tural mail delivery a matter of $12,000,000 or $13,000,000, a fair proportion of the total expenditure for the rural population for 13,000,000 people, would have been double that amount. Therefore I do not know that I could deduce any more concl l-slve argument to show, if not that this system should he adopted, at all events that it

should be seriously considered. That granted their expenditure of $12,000,000 or $14,000,000, or even $20.0000,000 or $26,000,000 in the United States on rural mail delivery, they are not expending one dollar more in proportion to the total expenditure in the Post Office Department for rural mail delivery, with vast benefit to the people of the United States, than they are for the service and the convenience of the rest of the population. Then take the receipts. The postal receipts in the United States last year were $143,000,000, one-sixth of that would be $24,000,000. They have expended in the United States a matter of $12,000,000 on the rural service being one-half the rate of expenditure elsewhere pointed out by the Pose-master General-and I hope our Postmaster General has read, it carefully-they have vastly increased receipts from almost every source by reason of rural mail delivery. The mails are carried to every man's gate notwithstanding the idea of cross roads which the hon. gentleman put forward. Wherever a route is established the service is carried, and the necessity of each man going to a rural post office is dispensed with. The letters are deposited there for him and he deposits the letters that he wants to have mailed, not only to the country generally, but even to his neighbour. The man registers a letter with the carrier, he can get a registered letter from the carrier, the carrier will take a letter to any person within a mile of the route on the payment of an additional postage, or a money order, or a money parcel, for a postage of eight cents. The whole service has been estimated as costing an average of eight cents a mile, and the proportionate revenue from these 13,000,000 people is not less than $24,000,000. So if you take the total expenditure which is contemplated in the current fiscal year in the United States, you will find that the system will be self sustaining. There were several other minor matters that the Postmaster General referred to. but I will not take time to reply to them. He talks of a protest, and makes insinuations against the honesty and integrity of the Congress of the United States. Why would not the members of Congress of the United States, as members of parliament here, be heard in protest if there is anything that is wrong, just as we voice our protest against this government when it does wrong ? It may lie. as the Postmaster General says, that they were silenced ; but for my part I believe there is as much honesty and integrity among the people of the United States, man for man. ns there is in other countries ; and if there were in the United States this giant wrong, this hydro-headed monster which the minister spoke of. we would hear a protest raised against it by the public men and people of the United States.


Haughton Lennox: 


George Eulas Foster: I had not the pleasure of being in the House when the Postmaster General finished his remarks. I had hoped that the Postmaster General would have given us a concise statement of what the results have been in the United States, not only in extension of the delivery and of the routes, and the increased cost of that extension, but also, if the Postmaster General's reports in the United States give the data for it, and I imagine they do, to find out what had resulted from this movement, so that we could have had both sides of the account so far as it could be given, and know how it stood financially, as to whether with the large extension and large increase in the expenses for these routes as extended, there was also a corresponding increase, in revenue and what the total amount collected out of this rural delivery route amounted to, so that we could trace a comparison between the expenditures and receipts. Now I think, though I am not expressing any opinion on the advisability of introducing rural delivery into Canada, still this much is true : The people of the United States who live alongside of us are making very extensive, and I will admit, some very expensive experiments in rural delivery. They have gone from 1897 to 1905 and 1906 and have increased the expenditures very largely, showing that they are not playing with the matter, the indications going to prove that they are going to make still larger operations, and it looks as if they intended to make it permanent in the United States. Now it is impossible for us in Canada living alongside of the United States and finding the farmers and the people living on the other side of the line having all these advantages of rural delivery and free delivery-I say it is impossible for our people here to be content unless there is some earnest attempt made to collate the facts, and if it does not involve too great an expenditure, to give to the farmers and dwellers in rural sections of Canada the same advantages that the rural populations have in the United States of America. The hoc. Postmaster General will see what I mean ; that an experiment of that kind cannot be carried on for a series of years and which is at present going on as if they intended to make it a permanent advantage and privilege to the people of the United States without the people in Canada demanding the very same thing. We will find that we will have to give this to the people of Canada provided it can be done without too great an expense in proportion to the added revenue which will come from the extension. However. I had hoped that the hon. Postmaster General would have been able to give us a concise and comprehensive statement as to both sides of the question, as to what the added revenues were as cor-

responding with the added expenditures. The hon. Postmaster General, 1 have no doubt, has been looking carefully into this question. Has he any idea as to that part of the matter?


William Mulock: Yes ; in a genera] way. When they established a rural mail delivery the expenditure was approaching the revenue. In the early years of the history of the United States post office there were large deficits.


George Eulas Foster: That was for the whole system ?


William Mulock: Without rural delivery. They were getting into a very satisfactory state, and they looked forward to the time when they hoped to have been able to have a self-sustaining department. The figures of the deficits will show that. But from the moment they inaugurated rural mail delivery deficits have increased, and in four years the expenditure on rural mail delivery has increased by probably $18,000,000, and the deficits in that time have increased from $2,900,000 to $14,000,000. While without rural delivery they were approaching a self-sustaining basis, since they have established rural delivery, each year, as they increased the expenditure on rural delivery, the deficit increased, and, whilst it is not conclusive, the presumption must be that the increased deficit has been occasioned by the increased rural delivery. Moreover, having looked over some of the reports of the Postmaster General of the United States, I think I can correctly say that they assign their increasing deficits to rural delivery.


Haughton Lennox: No ; you cannot find that in any of the last four reports.


William Mulock: Well, I will-give a little experience from my own observation now. I was going through a city in the United States last December. I called upon the postmaster in that city, and I asked him if he would mind giving me a tabulated statement showing the revenue collected on the routes of his city for the month of January each year since the establishment of his system. He got a few of them up for me-three or four-and I found that the establishment of these routes had not led to any increase in the volume of business, and comparing them with the three or four years, I was surprised to find that for the last year the number of letters and the quantity of mail matter carried by the courier on some routes were even less than for the corresponding month of earlier times. It did not. in that case, have the effect of keeping up the volume of business done. If the United States Post Office Department in their reports had separated the sources of revenue we could get that information, but they have not done that. They have combined the collections from cities where
they have a letter-carrier system with the collections and revenues from rural routes. There is a vast difference. It may be very wise and most necessary to have a letter-carrier delivery in large cities, but it is a different matter in sparsely settled districts.
I would rejoice if it were possible, because I think nobody can accuse me of not desiring to develop the post office if I could feel safe or justified in inaugurating this system, but I feel satisfied that once the system was started, even in an experimental stage or on fixed lines, nu government would be strong enough to resist the pressure for an extension of that system to all parts of the country. I believe that every member of Congress goes to Congress pledged to establish the same system in his district that is prevailing in other parts of the union. In this country we would labour under a great disadvantage, because our population is much more sparse than that of the United States. There are places where the country may be considered populous, but these are the exception. Then we would have to look into the question of the' relative expense. The figures, as given by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), showing what he estimated to be the cost of the service, would hardly be a safe guide. It would be more expensive and more difficult in our northern latitude than throughout the United States. Whilst part of their country is in a northern latitude, taking it as a whole, they will not have such a widespread area covered by snow, or as difficult a country, by reason of the inclement weather, in which to carry on this service as we have in Canada. If I can get the United States government to give me a tabulated statement, I will endeavour to do so. I will send an officer to see if they will give it, or to see if I can get a state- ' meat which will give us some fair data to go upon. I have information that is of a semi-confidential nature. I had several officers accompany these couriers as far west almost as Chicago. They got information which was confidential. I rely upon the information they gave me upon this occasion, and I would say that some of the reports made. I think, to the Washington authorities as to the supposed volume of revenue were somewhat exaggerated, to put it very mildly. I recall one instance on one route where the carrier was reporting some 500 pieces of mail matter when my officer counted the number of pieces of mail matter he carried, and it was many-fold less than that put in the return.


George Eulas Foster: The statement made by the hon. Postmaster General in one respect is certainly satisfactory, and is all that I was pressing for. I do not understand that my hon. friends who have been discussing this matter this afternoon wish to involve Canada in a tremendous expense unless it is justified.
It is just as I say, that if on a large scale

rural free delivery is given in the United States there will come a demand for it in this country, and the department particularly ought to be furnished with information so as to give a sufficient answer, if there is a sufficient answer, and if there is not a sufficient answer, why, to give the service, because one or the other will have to be given. I cannot think but what the United States officers, who are, I imagine, very competent officers, are not keeping pretty close tally on that, and that if there were some method of finding out about what revenue is being brought in from the extension of the free delivery system, and if the hon. Postmaster General can get hold of something satisfactory or trustworthy in that respect, so as to get at the basis of revenue to be hoped for from a free delivery system, we will have some ground upon which to go in our discussion of the subject. I will be very glad if the hon. Postmaster General can get that information for us.


Mr. H. S. CLEMENTS (West Kent).: If the hon. Postmaster General decides to try the experiment at some future time, I want to remark that West Kent is a good place to begin with.


William Mulock: I suppose every riding in the Dominion would put in a plea.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I quite agree with the l.on. gentleman from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) that the farmers of Canada are now clamouring for a rural mail delivery, and I would point out to the Postmaster General that we have a number of districts in the province of Ontario in which that mail service could well be established. The farmers are our heaviest tax payers, and it is high time that something should be done to bUng to their doors the conveniences of civilization. I trust the Postmaster General will take the matter into his serious consideration and that he will consider the advantages of West Kent when he is about to establish a rural mail delivery.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE (South Essex).: I am very much pleased to find that the Postmaster General is about to collect the information necessary to enable us to ascertain whether or not Canada can afford a rural delivery system. The hon. member for West Kent has spoken of his constituency as an excellent place in which to make the experiment, but I assure the House that I can offer an even more suitable territory, a territory nearer the border still, in the riding of South Essex. Before the opening of this session, a very compact township in that riding was so desirous of having a rural mail delivery, that the township suggested that it would be willing to pay half the cost if the government would undertake to pay the other half. I commend the enterprise of this township to the attention of Mr. FOSTER.
the Postmaster General. The people of Essex have seen the system work satisfactorily in the state of Michigan, and they have a feeling that what is good for the United States is certainly not too good for Canada. If the expense is not excessive, it will afford gieat satisfaction to the farmers of our country should the Postmaster General be able to establish the system, because now a days the farmer takes his daily paper and he wants conveniences similar to those which may be obtained in the cities. I thought in the earlier part of the session that the matter was at an end when it was stated that the expense was too great for this country to bear, and that they were getting tired of it in the United States, but I am glad the Postmaster General has offered to procure the information necessary to enable the House to form a satisfactory opinion, as to whether or not it would be wise to adopt the system in Canada.


Mr. D. DERBYSHIRE (Brockville).: I trust that when the Postmaster General is looking for a district in which to establish a rural mail delivery he will not forget the metropolitan district of Brockville. In no constituency in this grand Dominion can there be afforded such a splendid opportunity to demonstrate the successful working of this scheme as in the riding of Brockville. If it is possible to establish the system in any constituency in this Dominion I trust the Postmaster General will see his way clear to commence with Brockville.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I).: I want to put in just a word for Prince Edward Island. Ours is the most thickly populated province in this Dominion ; its inhabitants are almost altogether farmers, and since the object of a rural mail delivery is to benefit the farmers, the Postmaster General can find no better place that Prince Edward Island in which to begin.


Mr. A. A. LEFURGEY (Prince, P.E.I.).: I endorse the sentiments of the hon. member for King's (Mr. Hughes), but in the meantime I would ask that the Postmaster General should perfect the present system of mail delivery in Prince Edward Island. A few days ago a provincial by-election was being held in the province and as the constituency bordered on the port of departure for the boats crossing the straits, the boats and the mails were actually delayed in crossing in order to give employees an opportunity to vote for the Liberal candidate. 1L is a very poor postal system indeed which permits of delays to the mails for such a cause. Last year I made an appeal for a letter carrier service in the important city of Charlottetown, and to-day I repeat that request. However, if the Postmaster General is to experiment with a rural mail service he can commence in no better place than Prince Edward Island.


William Mulock: Are these all the ridings that want it ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Next.


William Mulock: I mentioned about some of this information being confidential, and subject to that I have no objection to the order.
Motion (Mr. Lennox) agreed to.


WELLAND CANAL-WATER-POWER LEASES.
Mr.   WM@: GERMAN (Welland) moved for :
A return showing all leases of water-power granted on the Welland canal, not included in the return made to an order of the House dated 3rd April, 1901 ; the names of the lessees ; the quantity of power granted in each lease ; the consideration named in each lease, together with the length of the term granted, and the amount of rental reserved in such leases unpaid, if any.
He said :	I desire to bring a few
matters to the attention of the government in connection with the water-power on the Welland canal, and to make a few suggestions thereon, which, if acted upon by the government, will result in great benefit to the operation of the Welland canal and advantage to the people of the country generally. In 1901 I obtained an order of the House for a return of all leases granted up to that time for surplus water on the Welland canal, the amount of rentals unpaid, the term of the leases, and the amount of rental reserved in each lease. I find in that return that water-power leases have been in existence for many years and that in some cases for a period of 15 jears the rentals had not been paid. Since that time other leases have been granted. The old leases were granted on various runs of stone. The old mills then in existence ground by stones and each run of stone was supposed to use 10 horse-power, the rental being $6 a horse-power or $60 for one run of stone and $120 for two run of stone.
These leases are still in existence, many of .them without having been cancelled ; lessees of water-power in later years have been obliged to pay a higher rental than was paid formerly ; and the whole matter in regard to leases of water-power on the Welland canal is in such a confused condition that it is working absolute injustice to the users of water. We find by the returns that people are using surplus water on what is called three levels, and the hydraulic engineers of the Department of Railways and Canals say that each of the levels above the locks will develop 450 horse-power; so that the people who are using the water of three levels have 1,350 horsepower, for which they are paying from $150 to $200 a year. We find that the late government, just before it went out of power, granted
leases of large blocks of water-power at the rate of 25 cents per horse-power. Neither party can blame the other in respect to the management of the water-power leases on the Welland canal. I mentioned this matter to the late Minister of Railways and Canals, (the Hon. Mr. Blair) and desired him to put the whole matter in a position that would be fair to the consumers of the water, but for some reason or other he was unable to do it. I mentioned the matter to the present Minister of Railways and Canals, and 1 am free to admit that he has promised to remedy the present condition of affairs. I only trust that ho will do it, and I -am bringing this matter now to the attention of parliament in order to emphasize what I said to him, and with a desire to induce him to bring about a condition of affairs in regard to the rental of water-powers on the Welland canal that will result in even-handed justice being dealt out to all. I suggested to the minister that $1 per horse-power for undeveloped water-power was a sufficient charge. If that rate were charged for the few leases in and adjoining the town of Thorold, and the rental were collected, it would yield over $11,000 a year to the government more than it is getting now. At present we find that the Wilson Carbide Works are using over 1,300 horse-power for which they are paying less than 10 cents per horse-power, if we are to be guided by the Auditor General's Report as to the amount of money received last year. The Riordan Paper Mills pay about the same amount. Then we have McClary & McLean. These are old leases.


William Mulock: When were these leases made ?


Mr. GERMAN.: The Riordan Paper Mills pay $240 a year, and they are in arrears $120 ; and they have surplus power on at least three levels that would make over 700 horse-power. That was one of the leases made just before the late government went out of power. The John Riordan lease is another of the old leases. It is for the surplus water on Lock 17, for which $200 a year is paid. The return does not give the date of the execution of the lease. The difficulty is that many of these leases have changed hands and are not now in the hands of the persons to whom they were originally granted. Messrs. McClary & McLean use 450 horse-power for which they pay $216 a year. The Wilson Carbide Works have an assignment of an old lease. When it was issued does not appear in the return, but it was fully fifty years ago. What I contend is that these old leases should all be cancelled and new leases issued at a rental which would be fair to all. If that were done, the government would receive a rental from the power on the Welland canal which would go far to defray the expenses of the canal ; and this is a matter worthy of con-

sideration, because the Welland canal and the other canals on the St. Lawrence route are now free. Many enterprises would be established if the water-power could be got at a reasonable rate. Some parties are paying $4 per horse-power. It may be said that they were foolish to accept a lease with that rental reserved. They did it because they thought they could not get power at a less rental. When we see people using waterpower for twelve or fifteen years without paying anything, and. some using large quantities and paying only 10 or 15 cents per horse-power, it is unfair that others should be asked to pay $4 per horse-power. If all these old leases which expired years ago were cancelled, new leases issued, and all users required to pay the same rental, the Department of Railways and Canals would receive a considerable revenue, and evenhanded justice would be meted out to all parties.


Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERiSON (Minister of Railways and Canals). There is no objection to this motion, but I wish to say a few words in connection with it. My attention was called to the condition of the leases on the Welland canal shortly after I became head of the department, and I am free to state that there lias been no question in connection with the canals which has been more perplexing than this one. I have given it a good deal of study, and even now the department is taking very active steps wi'th the view of applying some remedy. It is all very well to say that a great many of these leases should be cancelled, but in many of them it is a very serious question whether we have the legal power to cancel them. There is for instance an old lease which was entered into a good many years ago, and the question has arisen as to whether that lease was in perpetuity or for a period of forty-two years. That matter has been the subject of litigation. I have found also that many of these old leases bear a rental absurdly low. Perhaps at the time they were entered into, the conditions warranted such a low rental, hut under present conditions such rentals would be considered exceedingly low indeed. I find also that many rentals are in arrears and have been put in the hands of the Department of Justice for collection; and during the fiscal year we have succeeded in collecting a good many of these arrears, and I hope will be in the position to have them all wiped out in the near future. In any event, the leases in which the arrears are not paid, will certainly be cancelled if we have the right to cancel them. The whole question is not only receiving the attention of the department, but my own personal attention. I have already had placed before me a statement of ail the leases-their conditions, their rentals and their duration. Indeed many of the lessees or the assignees of the original lessee have approached the department with the view of securing further power and cancelling their old leases and have expressed their willingness to give high rentals. The department has been endeavouring to increase the rentals. As my hon. friend has stated there is one lease, with which he is thoroughly familiar, which was made at the rate of $4 per year. In some instances the rental is as low. I think as 30 cents per horse-power, which Is entirely too low. Also many discrepancies appear. Apparently there are desefiminations but in many instances these discriminations cannot be removed by the department on account of the terms of the original leases. From tlie standpoint of the department, a general increase is necessary. My hon. friend has certainly presented a strong case from the point of view of the rentals not collected, and no doubt his contention cannot be gainsaid, that we would have a greater revenue from low rentals, if we would collect them, tliau from higher rentals which are not collected. But judging from the excuses made, even had the rentals been higher, that would have made no difference as regards the collecting. I think that when the return is brought down, it will be quite apparent that the steps now being taken by the department and the inquiry I am personally instituting to obtain full information will be in the interest not only of the management of the canals but also of the lessees. On each of the canals we are making an effort to increase the rate per horse-power. That effort was made in connection with the Welland canal by ray predecessor; and certainly after I have been able to study the matter a little more closely, I shall be in a position to advise my colleagues, and I trust that the conclusion reached will be such as to meet the approval of the House and the country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.) moved :: For copies of all memoranda, papers or documents submitted to the government of Canada on behalf of the several provinces of Canada, urging a readjustment of the provincial subsidies ; together with any replies thereto ; and all correspondence between the government of Canada, or any member thereof, and the governments of the several provinces, or any members thereof, relating to such readjustment.
He said :	In moving this motion, I presume that I am drawing the attention of the House to a subject which is not new either to it or the country. But it is one which is of great importance to the great body of the electors, especially from a provincial standpoint. It is a matter of common knowledge that when confederation was consummated in 1807. the revenues which the provinces derived from customs


William Manley German: and excise were handed over to the Dominion authorities; and to compensate the provinces for the loss of these revenues, it was agreed that a certain amount of money would be paid them. It is unnecesary in this discussion that I should attempt to state in detail the principles on which these amounts were based. At that time no doubt the fathers of confederation had the idea that the amount set aside for the provinces would be sufficient to meet the ordinary expenses of local government, taking into consideration the revenues which they could raise within their own borders. X think it is also fair to assume that the framers of confederation had no conception that Canada would make such strides in advance as it has within the last thirty-seven years. No one could have conceived then that the revenues from these different sources in thirty-seven years would have amounted to the magnificent sum they have now reached. But while the revenues have increased from a Dominion standpoint, they have not increased as regards the provinces. On the other hand while the provincial revenues have not increased, unfortunately their expenditures have increased to an extent not then anticipated. That increase has become absolutely necessary. It will be admitted that it is impossible to carry on any business to-day as cheaply as it could have been managed some thirty-seven years ago. Nor can any one live as cheaply to-day. The country to-day could not be governed as cheaply as it was when confederation was formed ; and in addition, as regards the provinces, there are many matters for which the local governments have to provide that they were not then compelled to provide for. But outside of all that, the many necessary expenditures which have to be met by the local administrations have increased to such an extent that the amount at their disposal to-day is entirely inadequate. Take the question of schools, I shall not weary the House with a great array of figures, but take the figures in connection with this matter in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In New Brunswick alone in 1868 we expended the sum of $93,833 for schools whereas in 1904 that sum had increased to $192,735, and that does not include the expenditures or grants to colleges, technical schools and other institutions of learning but simply those to the ordinary common schools, high schools and grammar schools.
In Nova Scotia in 1868 the amount paid to schools was $145,280 and in 1904 that item had increased to the magnificent sum of $263,092. This also does not include the expenditure or grants made to colleges or technical schools.
What is true of the schools of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, I have no doubt will 68
be true of the schools of the other provinces of Canada and what is true of the schools is eery much more true of many of the other subjects which have to be managed and looked after by the provincial legislatures. We all know that the administration of justice is more expensive to-day than it was 37 years ago. We know that it costs more for legislation, that it costs more for the maintenance of prisons and asylums. In New Brunswick alone, after giving credit for all the income which we receive from the patients, we are spending to-day $50,900 in Hie management of the provincial asylums. Last year this was about one-eighth of the total grant we received from the Dominion government and what is true of New Brunswick must also be true to a great extent of the other provinces as well. Then too, in later years we have been compelled to make large grants to agriculture and I think that no person in this House or in the country can contend that the grants made to agriculture in any province are improperly made. But, Sir, perhaps the item; which has caused the greatest amount of financial difficulty to different provinces and that which most reduced the amount of available money for expenditures for ordinary affairs, is the expenditure for the construction of bridges and the maintenance of roads which every person must consider to be necessary and above and beyond all that would be the amount of money expended in railway subsidies. It may be said, it has been said in the past, and I presume it will be in the future that many of the pro-vinical governments have been improvident in their expenditures for railway subsidies, and I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that the same electors who elect representatives to this House elect the representatives in the local House and through these local members they demand these different expenditures. The very electors and the very people who contribute to the revenue of Canada are the people who demand the expenditures from the local legislature, and I say that in all justice these demands have to be met. It is a question for careful consideration how they are to be met.
In 1868 the total revenue of the Dominion from customs and excise duties together amounted to $11,580,968 and the total payment to the provinces amounted to $2,753,906 or 24 per cent of the total revenue of the Dominion from these two sources. In 1904 the Dominion received from these two sources of revenue the sum of $53,379,583 and they paid to the provinces altogether, exclusive of what it may have cost to maintain the government of the Northwest Territories which I did not take into consideration, the sum of $4,402,291 or a total of only 8 per cent of the revenue from these two sources. If you will add to that the proposed amount to be paid to



tlie new provinces by the Bill now under discussion, we will then be paying less than 12 per cent of the total revenue from these two sources or, in other words, we will next j tar be paying less than one half the percentage of the money which we receive now, as compared with the money which we received in 18G7 at the time of confederation. Now, Sir, this gives rise to many questions, and it has given rise to discussion particularly by the members of the local government. [DOT]'Various means have been taken in order to remedy this difficulty and it is not necessary for me to go into details. I shall only call attention to the fact that in 1887 the assembled wisdom of five of the pro-\ inces gathered at Quebec and there made certain suggestions that I am sorry to say1 were not carried out. They did not meet with the approbation of the government of the Dominion of that day, and the difficulty, instead of decreasing, is increasing, the different provincial governments have found themselves face to face with greater problems every year until in 1902 the wisdom of the different provinces again met in Quebec and again passed a series of resolutions, and it seems to me that the time has arrived when something ought to be done, when I believe something will be done in order to meet the requirements of the different provinces, because I contend that a certain amount of the money should be expended bj- the provincial governments. They can get nearer the homes of the people, can better judge their requirements and can do more good by the expenditure than can this House, and therefore I think that we may well consider whether or not a revision of these subsidies should not take place b37 which a larger amount will be placed to the credit of the different provinces so that they would be ia a position to better meet the requirements of the people than they are at the present time. Holding these views I felt it to be my duty to present them to the House in as brief a manner as I could, and I trust that this discussion may be the means of bringing about some arrangement between the federal government and the governments of the pro-^ mces, or rather of some arrangement being made by this parliament by which these subsidies will be re-arranged, so that the different provinces will receive a greater amount than they have received in the past.


Right Hon.   S@: There is no objection whatever to bringing down the correspondence which is sought by my hon. friend (Air. Car-veil) ; on the contrary I think a good purpose may be served if the memory of the country is refreshed as to what has taken place upon this subject for the last 15 years or so. The correspondence upon this subject is now pretty voluminous. It commenced, if I remember rightly, in the Mr. CARVELL.
year 1887 when there was a conference in Quebec between the representatives of the different provincial governments at which the subject of subsidies paid by the Dominion to the provinces was fully discussed. The tenor of this correspondence was that the principle adopted at confederation for the payment of subsidies out of the federal terasury was not entirely satisfactory, and that some other principle ought to be adopted. My recollection is that it was not so much an increase in subsidy that was desired as some principle of pa.ying the subsidy t.- be given to the provinces, and if I remember rightly, the proposition was that this proportion of payment should move with the population as established in the decennial census. Although these resolution^ were adopted in very solemn form at the time, no action was taken upon them by the Dominion government and for some years it was not pressed on the attention of the Dominion government by the provincial governments. At a subsequent date I think the federal government has received from all the provincial governments, either collectively or individually, a similar request pressing for a re-adjustment of the subsidies.
Two years ago another conference of the premiers of all the provinces met in the city of Ottawa. New resolutions were passed, much upon the same basis as those which had been adopted at the Quebec conference in 1887. Apart from these, the province of British Columbia, though it joined with the other provinces in a demand for a re-adjustment of the subsidies, put in a separate demand of its own, claiming that it was entitled to special treatment on account of special circumstances affecting that province and not the others. The matter has rested there, and it is not free from difficulties. I have had occasion more than once to express the view that I thought the principle adopted at the time of confederation of giving subsidies to the provinces, was not as wise as it might have been. But at all events, we find this principle in the Confederation Act to-day, and even if we do not agree with it, we must accept it and abide by it. I think if it were to be found that the principle adopted in 1867 is too drastic, that it should be more elastic than it is, perhaps the people at large would not be averse to taking the matter into renewed consideration.
But there are other matters besides the subsidies as to which the relations between the Dominion aard the provinces are not as satisfactory as I think they ought to be. The question of the fisheries which, up to 1889 or thereabouts, was in rather a satisfactory condition, has been much disturbed by a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it is now difficult to know where the jurisdiction of the provinces commences and where the jurisdiction of the Dominion ends in fishery matters.

Up to 1889 It was generally expected that the Dominion had about complete jurisdiction over all questions affecting the fisheries, but since that judgment it has been found that there Is a division of jurisdiction between the Dominion and the provinces as to certain fisheries. The question is not one, as I have said, which is free from difficulty. It has given rise to very compli

cated questions between the Dominion and the provinces, and I have thought for my part that it would be advisable to take some method of securing an adjustment of that question. I would be disposed-but in saying this I speak only my own mind, without having consulted my colleagues-I think the public interest would be served if the fisheries were vested altogether in one body or the other, but there should be no divided authority ; and I believe that the fisheries had better be vested in the Dominion than in the provinces. It may be that is a question also as to which we might very well consult the provinces in connection with the subsidies. How to deal with these difficulties is a matter that has not yet engaged the attention of the government. We have other matters pressing upon us, and which have been brought to our attention more than once, but I conceive that some time or other this matter also will have to be taken into serious consideration. I may say-and again speaking my personal feelings, not having the authority of my colleagues-that I believe it would be advisable at no distant day to have a conference between the Dominion and the provinces to discuss these very questions. I am not prepared to subscribe to everything that is said in the resolutions that have been adopted from time to time by the provinces in asking for a readjustment of the subsidies. While I agree mostly with the views expressed in all the provinces that the present system is too drastic, that it should be given more elasticity, still at the present moment I would not commit myself beyond saying that I view the matter with a considerable degree of interest. If it is to be approached and dealt with at all, I see no other method than to have the question discussed fully between representatives of the Dominion and the various provinces in a conference to be called for that purpose. Again I express only my own views, but at the same time I would be prepared to put them before my colleagues. I shall make diligence to have the whole correspondence brought down at the earliest possible day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 59) to [DOT]amend the Act respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court as to railway [DOT]debts.-Mr. Geoffrion.
6SJ
On section 1,-effect of sale in province of Quebec.
Mr. GEOFFRION.: I explained the purposes of the Bill when I introduced it. When it was in committee before, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) raised some difficulty about it, and wanted time to examine it to see if he could not overcome that difficulty. I have had an interview with the minister and the deputy minister, and we have come to the conclusion that this Bill should be amended so as to read as follows :
Any sale ordered by the Exchequer Court or a judge thereof under this Act shall, as respects railways wholly situated in the province of Quebec, have the same effect for all purposes as a sale by a sheriff has according to the laws of the province.
The difficulty found by the Minister of Justice in the Bill as drafted before, was that the sale of a railway situated in two provinces could not come under this law, so I have made an amendment that it shall apply only to a railway under federal control wholly situated in the province of Quebec, because this parliament has control of federal railways as it has control of insolvency laws. This Bill is really an Insolvency Act.


Samuel Barker: I was present when this Bill was discussed on a previous occasion, and I think it was left over for the consideration of the Minister of Justice. The words suggested seem on the face of them to cover the objections then raised. I suppose the minister has considered whether a sale within the province of Quebec by a sheriff under the law of Quebec might affect any question arising where a railway wholly within Quebec is yet for any purpose connected or affiliated with, or leased to, a company within another province. I am not sure whether that will affect the question.
I only suggest that to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: When this Bill was introduced it seemed to me that it was objectionable from the standpoint that it was applicable to a railway that would communicate between two provinces and that therefore, the law which might be applicable to one section of the railway would not be applicable to the other. I suggested the difficulty at the time and the result was that my hon. friend came down to the Department of Justice and we considered the Bill together. I asked him to confer with the deputy minister, in whom, I need not say,
I have the most absolute confidence, and I pointed out to my hon. friend the difficulty that occurred. The result was that this amendment was changed, but I must now in all frankness and sincerity admit that I did not consider the aspect of the question which is now put by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). While I think the BUI In its present form might go through,

I would not like it to be finally disposed of by tlie House until I had had an opportunity of considering the matter further.


Samuel Barker: I quite admit the hon. Minister of Justice has met every question that was raised on a previous occasion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think we had better report the Bill and allow it to stand for the third reading.
Section as amended agreed to.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) makes a suggestion which is a valuable one on the same lines. He points out to me that the Bill does not provide for those safeguards to the general public which were provided in the Insolvency Act and which are contained in the Winding Up Act. We should make provision that the sheriff's sale is to have in respect to the railway the same effect as the sale of ordinary property, and we should make the same requirements in respect to the giving of notice. Under our system it is necessary to give one month's notice of a sheriff's sale and it is to be published in such a way that everybody interested shall have ample notice and ample opportunity to come forward and bid. Therefore, I think that the suggestion ought to be considered and I would ask that the committee rise for the purpose of making provision for the giving of notice of sale. Than we can consider the objection of my hon. friend from Hamilton at the same time.
Progress reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Samuel Barker: What business -will we take up to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think we will take up Bills to-morrow, first the Bill to amend the Seamen's Act and some other matters and after that we will take up supply, going on with the railway estimates.


Samuel Barker: Which Bill will be taken up first?


Wilfrid Laurier: The first Bill, perhaps, will be the Bill to amend the Seamen's Act, then the Bill to amend the Franchise Act and then Supply.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) should be present in connection with the Bill to amend the Franchise Act because practically it is to give effect to a suggestion of his.


Samuel Barker: He will certainly be here to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 9.50 p.m,
Charles Fitzpatrick: Tuesday, March 7, 1905.