1909-02-26

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 79) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 80) respecting the Kootenay and Arrowhead Railway Company. - Mr. Geo. Taylor.
Bill (No. 81) respecting the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 82) respecting the Monarch Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Beattie.


Mr. L. A. A. RIVET (Hochelaga).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I wish to call the attention of the House, and at the same time enter my protest against an editorial published in ' La Presse,' yesterday, February 25, entitled, ' Les Surprises d'un projet de loi,' which states, partly at least, as follows:
The hon. member for St. James, Mtre Hono-re Gervais, has rendered a signal service to the city, in drawing the municipal authorities' attention, before it was too late, on the Bill of the ' Canadian, Liverpool and Western Railway Company ' now before parliament for sanction.
And further:
' La Presse ' has more than once contended that the parliament at Ottawa had no control whatever over the streets of a city, a matter which is altogether under provincial jurisdiction. Montreal has every interest to watch the Bills which are presented either before the provincial legislature, or the federal parliament. Is that done to-day with sufficient diligency?
The city of Montreal could organize, easily and with profit, a vigilance service which is needed to-day. Special agents-most probably these would be lawyers-should reside permanently during sessions either at Ottawa or at Quebec, so that the city could be notified of any measure being presented in which she would have interests of some sort.
But this service should be conducted with the utmost regularity, as a detective agency. We submit the idea to the wisdom of our aldermen; it rests to them now to perfect it and put in operation.
As I have said in the beginning, I think it my duty to protest in my own name and in behalf of my colleagues of the metropolis, who are particularly aimed at in that

editorial, against the false and unjust assertions against the hon. members of this House and of the Railway Committee.
In justice to the promoters of the proposed bill, to the members of the Railway Committee, and particularly to those who in that committee are more directly charged which the interests of the city of Montreal, I must protest against the double injustice of this article.
It is not true, as it is asserted, that the interests of Montreal have been at a particular moment in a serious and imminent danger, that if it had not been for the intervention of the hon. member for St. James, these rights and privileges would have been sacrificed. Every member of the Railway Committee knows what are his rights and duties, and I must immediately state that on the very first time that this bill came before the committee, Tuesday last, the promoters were disposed, in compliance with the request of several members, to add to their bill a clause having for object to safeguard the autonomy, not only of the city of Montreal, but of every municipality through which the company intended to construct its lines and distribute electrical energy.
It was thus entirely unnecessary and supremely unjust to say, as some Montreal papers, and especially ' La Presse,' did say, that the rights of the city of Montreal were in danger.
I protest once more in the name of the members of the committee against the false assertions of ' La Presse ' and other papers in which appeared sensational articles upon this question. I will add only one word as to that part of the editorial of ' La Presse ' where the creation of a vigilance service is suggested. For my part 1 state here that I am opposed to it. As a representative of the city of Monteral I know well enough my duties and the interests of the city of Montreal to dispense with this sort of guardianship to watch over me.
I believe that the interests of Montreal will be well guarded by the hon. members from that city whenever it will be necessary.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Post Office-Outside service-Salaries and allowance, $2,737,856.25.
['Certainly.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.', 'Monday. March 1, 1909.']
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: There is an increase in this item of $375.47, I shall be ready to give any details that the committee may desire, but I may explain the increase generally. In the post office inspector's division, there is an increase of $10,342.60, made up of the following:-38 increases of $50 each, $1,900;
two increases of $78.25 each, $156.50- one increase of $46; one increase of $40; 11 additional clerkships. These increases are statutory increases.


Mr. FOSTER.: Will the minister please state who the new appointees were with their offices and salaries?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the post office in spectors' offices,, we have appointed eleven additional clerks. In the Nova Scotia division, Mr. J. H. Kennedy, junior second-class clerk was transferred from the Auditor General's office to the Halifax post office at a salary of $1,000. In the Ottawa division, Mr. L. E. Johnston, appointed fourth-class clerk at $400, transferred to the London, Ontario, division. E. Stevenson and L. Hamilton Strong, appointed fourth-class clerks at $400 a year each. In the Manitoba division. D. I. Bailey appointed fourth-class at $400. In the Calgary division. T. Humphries was transferred from the post office in Toronto at $1,000, and C. E. Duncan was transferred at $700.


George Eulas Foster: That is, at the same salary as before?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, except that, in the west, we make a special allowance of 15 per cent. We sometimes transfer clerks from the inspectors' offices in the older provinces, because experienced officers are needed for new districts in the west. At present in the west, they have very good staffs. Sometimes, a clerk desires to be transferred from the west to an eastern office, or vice versa. This accounts for these transfers. In the Edmonton division, R. C. Ferguson, senior second-class clerk, transferred from the inside service at $1,100. C. Watson, junior second-class clerk, transferred from Toronto post office at $950. That makes $2,050 for the Edmonton division. In the Vancouver division W. F. Tracey, senior third-class clerk, transferred from junior third-class clerk at $800. A. L. Reid, senior third-class clerk transferred from the railway at $860. a total of $8,010. These represent the salaries of the 11 additional clerks in the inspectors' branches.


George Eulas Foster: What was the total amount of the salary increases? The minister explained the statutory increases and that is all he has explained so far.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have given the figures for the inspector's office, $10,342. In the railway mail service the figure is $117,553. In the post offices the increase is $247,581.25.
The second part of my hon. friend's question is what proportion of this increase is made applicable to the statutory increases, in the railway mail service the increase of $117,553 is made up as follows:

No. of
Increases.	Amount. Total.
3	
$100	0023..	..	.. ..  78	251	
30	06327..	..	50	0088 additional	12 mail transfer agents	1 additional messenger ..	
Increase in mileage allowance paid to the railway companies.. Increase in provisional alloWanoe

40.000	00
10.000	00
Total increase mail railway service	 $117,553 25


George Eulas Foster: If there are any exceptions to the statutory increases the minister might let us know later.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know of none. The amount is made up chiefly of statutory increases with the exception of the additional clerkships. I have given my hon. friend particulars of where these additional clerkships have been created. I come now to the additional clerkships. Mr. E. E. J. Evanturel was transferred from the Quebec office to the office of the superintendent of railway mail service in Quebec at $1,200. Mr. H. M. Harris was transferred from the Calgary post office to the office of the superintendent of railway mail service at Calgary at $670. There were nine new appointments at $400 and 75 new appointments at $501 Shall I give the names?


George Eulas Foster: I am not asking for the names. How are the new appointments divided?
for the establishment of a railway mail service. We have two systems, there is a baggage car service and a postal car service. If it is a baggage car, we pay the railway company 4 cents a mile; if it is a postal car, we give the company 8 cents a mile.


George Eulas Foster: What facilities do you get on the baggage car?


Rodolphe Lemieux: A postal car is a post office on wheels, and clerks are stationed in that car to sort and distribute letters, and deliver them at the several stations where the train stops.


George Eulas Foster: I asked what were the accommodations given you on a baggage car for which you pay 4 cents a mile ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We are supposed to get from the railway companies sufficient accommodation in a special baggage car for our mails, and they are delivered in bags at the stations.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any sorting in
the baggage car?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, only accommodation for bags. Sometimes the company does the work itself, and has a side service from the station to the nearest post office where the mails are distributed.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Would the minister tell us how many post office inspectors there are in the Dominion?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are divided between Halifax, Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa and Toronto.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might givi the number in each division.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is one at Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto. London, Winnipeg, North Bay (to be established shortly), Vancouver, Calgary, Moosejaw, Kingston, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Victoria.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The numbers are as follows :
Railway mail service division-
No.
Halifax	 6
St. John	 2
Quebec	 5
Montreal	  15
Ottawa	 9
Toronto	 8
London	 2
Winnipeg	 10
Moosejaw	 4
Calgary	  9
Vancouver	5


George Eulas Foster: Are all these railway mail clerks?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the railway mail service, travelling on postal cars.


George Eulas Foster: What is the necessity for the large increase in number?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The mileage of railways has increased. The moment a railway is built, application is made in the district Mr LEMIEUX.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister explain what is meant by the inspectors'
offices, on page S-2 of the Auditor General's Report, where $119,000 has been expended?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That includes the salaries paid in that branch throughout the country, and the sixteen inspectors cover the whole district. Let not any hon. gentleman be surprised at the increase in the number of employees in that branch, because the country is expanding, and the moment a new railway is built we are bound to extend the system to that railway.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister tell us how many men are employed in looking after the rural mail delivery service, outside and inside?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No new employee has been added to the Post Office Department for that branch. We have selected Mr. Ross, of Toronto, the superintendent of post offices in the Dominion, as the chief

organizer of the rural mail system. But we keep the same organization, the same inspector in each district, who will receive petitions, and these are sent to the department at Ottawa. The petitions are sent direct from the people in the country to that inspector, and he will himself advertise, as he does at present, for the opening of new stage routes, and will establish the system himself. We do not need any new employees for the rural mail service So that it will not cost the country one cent more.


Mr. DANIEL.: I would ask the Postmaster General what treatment he intends to give to the letter carriers in respect to their salaries. I presume it is the intention of the government to give them some increase, and perhaps the hon. gentleman might indicate to what extent? I know that in some places the letter carriers are very hard worked. I do hot know that they get any extra pay for extra work, but
I	do know that for ten days during the last elections, the letter carriers in the city of St. John were kept at work until
II	and 12 o'clock at night, delivering Liberal literature, party literature. I do not know that it was very successful, because when the people were roused out of bed at that unseemly hour of the night and came downstairs to take in letters, and found only some little brochure relating to the Liberal party, they were not filled with thanksgiving towards the Liberal party. That is by the way. But I would like to hear from the minister how he proposes to deal with the letter carriers in so far as their remuneration is concerned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As regards the extra work which may have been added to the letter carriers, either during the election or at any other time, for instance at the time of the centennial at Quebec, or during the exhibitions in Toronto or Ottawa, of course, they are paid extra. But under no circumstances should the letter carriers be employed for doing one party's work exclusively. He has to distribute the literature of both parties, my hon. friend knows.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I quite understand that.


Mr. BARR.: I do know, from what occurred in my own riding, that my opponent had his address sent down to Ottawa and it was franked back.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By whom?


John Barr: The initials J. S. F. are used for the frank. I cannot find these initials in the list but such is the case. I find that in many other ridings there are similar cases. By what authority were these addresses franked? There were 6,800 franke l in the county of Dufferin.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very glad that my hon. friend called my attention to that fact. I am not responsible for the abuse of the franking system in the House of Commons. That is permitted by law and the post offices in the parliament buildings are under control of the Speakers of both Houses. I have nothing to do with this part of the service. Last year some complaints were made as regards the service in this House. I am glad to be relieved of responsibility for that service by the Speakers of both Houses and the committee on internal economy. But, nobody has the right to so misuse his frank as to send for outside parties, literature, letters or parcels. Members, I know, as a rule, confine themselves to their own mail, but my attention has been called this year by one firm in Toronto to the fact that envelopes containing circulars were coming from the House of Commons under the franking privilege. I could not believe my eyes, but I was unable to ascertain whose initials they were. Again, I may tell hon. members who are new in this House that the franking privelige is strictly confined to the members of the House and that it is therefore personal to them only.


John Barr: After ten days have elapsed members of the house have no authority to frank.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


John Barr: Surely the Postmaster General does not pretend to divest himself of responsibility and to throw the whole blame on the Speakers of the two Houses? It is a notorious fact that what I have described occurred. In my own riding 6,800 of these addresses were received by the electors. I received one t myself. Therefore, I think that the hon. gentleman must hold himself responsible for that state of affairs. This is only one of the many other cases. Yet, no Conservative could avail himself of that privilege. Not only was ordinary literature transmitted, but here was the address of my opponent sent from this House and franked with the initials J. F. S. This is a palpable abuse. It occurred some ten days before the election and three days before the nomination. These addresses were sent around broadcast and not only that but the electors got tons and tons of literature. That is not British fair play. It is the reverse, and the Postmaster General cannot throw the burden upon some one else. He is responsible for it, he is at the head of the department, and if the Speakers of the House have allowed that to take place, I think there should be an investigation. I do not think it is quite fair that literature should be sent in that way from this House when the Conservative candidates had not the same privilege. Here is a concrete case

that should receive the attention of the minister.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It might happen that as last session was well known to be the last session of the parliament a good deal of mail matter might have accumulated.


Mr. J. D. REID.: No one knew that but the hon. minister.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know; it may not be true.


John Dowsley Reid: No, but the minister knew that it was the last session.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The post office in the House of Commons is not under my control. It is under the control of the Speaker. I do not appoint a man in the post office. I have no authority over the officials in the House of Commons post office, but I was assuming that if literature was sent to my hon. friend's riding after the session was over it might have accumulated here with other literature. At all events I do not wish to condone the action of the owner of the cabalistic letters J. S. F. The initials ' J.F.S.,' had no success in Dufferin. My hon. friend has been returned and we are all pleased to see him here.


John Barr: If the literature had borne fruit as they expected it would there might have been a different result. But my hon. friend says it might have accumulate. No, the time has passed for that; my opponent was not in the field, he had not issued his addressi and therefore it would have been utterly impossible for him to have sent it down here in time to have it franked during the session and sent back.
I care not who is responsible, whether it is the Speaker or not ; he ought to be brought before the bar of this House and we should know whether that state of affairs is going to continue.


Mr. HENDERSON.: My experience in the late election was somewhat like that of my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Barr). My opponent used the mails very freely and used the frank of some person whose frank is recognized in the House of Commons post office. The county of Halton was flooded with campaign literature having stamped upon it the 'Compliments of Dr. W. S. Harrison.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: That was your opponent?


David Henderson: That was my opponent. These envelopes, as the minister will observe from one I have caused to be laid on his desk, were passed through the House of Commons post office and franked by some one whose initials look like B. F. C. Who is B. F. C.?


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Customs.


John Barr: 


David Henderson: No, I think it is not the Minister of Customs nor yet is it the Postmaster General, but I believe there is no doubt that it is some one in the service of the government. We know that between sessions no member of parliament has the right to frank literature. The moment the gun fires, or, at any rate within a few days afterwards, the right of every member of the House to use the frank ceases and he is unable again to use his frank until he has been returned and within ten days again of the opening of the next session. I think it very peculiar that a gentleman who had never been in the House of Commons, who had never represented the county, should have a privilege from the government that was denied me. I did not have the privilege of franking letters at that time because this all took place between two sessions of parliament. These envelopes reached my county about ten days before the election and were circulated in very large numbers. The postage would be six cents each on these letters, or $60 a thousand, and there being 5,000 electors in my county the post office revenue has been robbed of at least $300 in that one county. I do not accuse the Postmaster General of having any guilty knowledge of this, nor do I accuse any officer in his department, for I think they are too careful of their duties to do such a thing. But no doubt there is some person in the employ of the government whose frank is recognized by the postmaster in the House of Commons and who either used this frank or permitted it to be used for the benefit of Dr. W. S. Harrison, my opponent. I am not complaining about the character of the literature sent out; it was very tame; it did not amount to much. One portion of it was intended as a tirade of abuse upon the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), but that hon. gentleman is held in so high esteem in Halton that it had no injurious effect on him and it certainly did not hurt me. Some more of that literature had reference to the prosperity of Canada under Liberal rule.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: Well, the people of Halton had been reading the newspapers and they understood more about the prosperity of Canada than they could learn from this literature which was sent out in a fraudulent way a week before the election. Dr. Harrison had a perfect right to circulate campaign literature in the county of Halton, but he had no right to circulate it at the expense of the country, because it was fraudulent, it was robbing the revenue of the country, it was pure graft. As I told the people in Halton, the very fact that a man seeking their support should come before them in such a manner, grafting and dredging the treasury, to endeavour fo secure his election; well, is it any won-

der that the people would not give their confidence to a man who would be party to such a thing. I most strenuously complain that any officer of the government should be permitted to do such an act. I do not ask that that official be dismissed, for that might be too harsh treatment and perhaps he did it in his zeal for the cause in which he felt a warm interest, but he certainly ought to receive such a strong rebuke as would deter him and others from doing that kind of thing in future. The Postmaster General, if he takes the Civil Service list, will be able to trace out who the guilty party is, and I think it is his duty to do so. I am quite sure there was no authority in law for this.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.
. Mr. HENDERSON. I am glad the minister assents to that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: I produced these envelopes in the county to show how my opponent was dredging the treasury, and I stated that I would draw the attention of the Postmaster General to it in the House of Commons, so that he might take steps to protect the revenue of the country. In every shop in every village throughout the country there were a number of these envelopes to be found in the waste paper baskets, showing that the people paid very little attention to the literature. But the point I make is that the revenue was robbed and that some measures ought to be taken to prevent its recurrence in the future.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: I don't want the hon. member for Halton to attribute any blame to the postmaster of the House of Commons.


David Henderson: I did not do so.


George Taylor: If the hon gentleman looks at the envelopes he will find they were mailed at the city post office and not in the House of Commons post office.


George Eulas Foster: Is there a frank on it?


George Taylor: There is a frank on it and the Postmaster General knows who it is. Now, this being mailed from the city post office who else than the minister has the right to frank a letter from that post office? As I understand it, it is only the minister and his secretary who can frank at that post office, and it is the duty of the Postmaster General to go to the city post office and ask why the official there allowed this mail matter to go out without this frank.


Mr. PERLEY.: I corroborate what has been said by my hon. friends. The Liberal literature circulated throughout my county was mailed at the city post office and the
initials used for the frank were very difficult to decipher. I took one of these envelopes to the city post office and the official there told me he knew the frank and that it was perfectly good, but he did not tell me the name. These envelopes containing Liberal campaign literature were circulated all over my county, and inside was a typewritten slip bearing the legend:	'with the compliments of P. R.
McGibbon.' This gentleman never was a member of the House of Commons, but nevertheless he was able to use this frank to send out his literature to appeal to the electors to vote against me.


John Barr: If the Postmaster General will look at the envelope he will find that it was franked with the initials only, and not the full name of the person who franked through the mails. Liberal campaign literature was similarly circulated throughout my county and my opponent, who was a very decent fellow, admitted at the nomination that he was asked from Ottawa to send down anything he wished to have franked through the mails and he regretted very much that he had done so. He said he did not understand the state of affairs or he would not have allowed this mail matter to go through the post office in a surreptitious way. The fact is now clear that these envelopes were not sent through the city post office, and so the Postmaster General himself must assume the responsibility. I do not blame the Postmaster General. I know that he is a man far above doing such a thing, knowing that it is contrary to the law. But it is up to him to investigate this matter and to let us know who is the culprit, and then punish him for what he has done.


David Henderson: My attention has been drawn to the fact that I made a mistake in reading the name of the post office on these envelopes. In examining the envelope more closely, I find that the stamp is the Ottawa post office instead of the House of Commons post office; so that the matter would come within the duties of the Postmaster General. I make this correction, because I do not wish to impute anything improper to the postmaster of the House of Commons.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am informed by the deputy that this was sent through the Ottawa post office, and not through the House of Commons post office, and therefore I must say that it was wrong.


George Taylor: What are the initials?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The initials are not very plain.


George Eulas Foster: Here is one on which the initials are very plain-"R. F. C."


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am informed by the deputy that when there is an accumulation of mail matter at the House of Commons, it is usual, in order to expedite its transmission, to send it direct in bags to the Ottawa post, where it is stamped. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Geo. Taylor) will remember that during the session of 1904 the corridors of the House were simply jammed with literature which was being sent out by both sides of the House, as we all expected the elections, and it took several weeks after the session to get that literature sent. We had to provide special cars for it. and it is onlv just to my predecessor, Sir Wm. Mulock. to say that he offered every facility to my hon. friend from Leeds to expedite the sending out of that mail matter.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Tons of it were never delivered.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not! think that is the testimony of the hon. member for Leeds. At all events, let me state my own case, and the House can judge from it. Of course, the frank of the Postmaster General is accepted at any post office, wherever he may be. However, during the last campaign I was not in Ottawa, but in Quebec, and I paid the postage at the Quebec post office on each letter and each circular I sent out. and gave instructions to my secretary to see that that was done. Of course, the ministers enjoy the privilege, while in office, of franking their own mail matter.


Mr.   BARK@: Can they extend the privilege to others?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I must say that they must not, and, speaking for myself, I would not. The franking privilege of members of the House of Commons is in the same position. Members of the House of Commons must not abuse' that privilege.


John Barr: I think we ought to have a promise from the minister before we pass this item that he will investigate this matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly. Notwithstanding what the hon. member from Leeds has stated, I certainly could not say what are the initials on this envelope. At all events, these initials at that date, and the stamn of the Ottawa post office on the envelope make the matter look rather suspicious, and I will have it investigated. Certainly, subject to the explanation I have just given I would not approve of it.


George Taylor: What are the initials of the deputy Postmaster! General?


Rodolphe Lemieux: "R. M. C."-Robert Miller Coulter. These are not his initials.


George Halsey Perley: Will the Hon. Postmaster General read the law on the subject?


George Eulas Foster: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sections 75 and 76 of the Post Office Act are as follows:
75.	All letters and other mailable matter addressed to or sent by the Governor General, or sent to or by any department of the government, at the seat of government, shall be free of Canadian postage under such regulations as are, from time to time, made in that respect by the Governor in Council.
76.	Letters and other mailable matter addressed to or sent by the Speaker or Clerk of the Senate or of the House of Commons at the seat of government shall be free of Canadian postage, and letters and other mailable matter addressed to or toy any member of either House at the seat of government, during any session of parliament, or to any of the members at the seat of government as aforesaid, during the ten days next before the meeting of parliament, shall be free of Canadian postage.


George Halsey Perley: According to that, the minister would have no right to frank anything except matter on the business of the department?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, the official business of the minister.


George Halsey Perley: Then, I would ask the minister what he would say if a minister of the Crown franked out during election time matter for other people?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would not do it myself;


George Halsey Perley: What would the minister say and do under these conditions ? Because I think I have in my office an envelope that was franked and used for this purpose.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In such a case, I would severely reprimand the minister.


George Taylor: The Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) referred to the fact that in the session of 1904, preceding the election, the whip of the Conservative party franked out a large amount of literature


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend (Mr*. Geo, Taylor) will allow me. I did not wish to find fault with that; he was acting with-* in his right in franking that literature out during session. But I said that the whips of both parties had franked a great deal of literature, and there was a large accumulation of it, as the hon. gentleman remembers, in the corridors of this House. That literature was sent out long after the session was over. What I said was in explanation of this case.


George Halsey Perley: The minister does not mean to suggest that these envelopes of which we have spoken were franked and mailed in this House during last session ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not say that.
Mr. PERLEY, But that is the suggestion. The hon. gentleman referred to four years ago This case has nothing to do with four

years ago, because these envelopes had in them typewritten slips which were marked as coming with the compliments of candidates of the Liberal party who were not nominated until weeks after the session was over. Why should the Postmaster General refer to the case of four years ago, and try to make the suggestion that possibly these envelopes were posted in this House last session, when he knows that that could not have been the case?


George Taylor: I am glad the Postmaster General has referred to this case of four years ago, and has quoted the law, and stated that I was within my rights in franking out literature during the session. But he will remember the discussion that took place in the press, and he will remember that every Grit paper in the country hounded me as a violator of the Independence of Parliament Act for having franked out this literature.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It did not hurt my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor). He is still here, and as young as ever.


George Taylor: The Postmaster General of that day, knowing that we were sending out literature, refused to have it sent down to the post office. That is why it remained here to block the corridor-it was simply to deprive us of the opportunity to get our literature out. The hon. gentleman said that I remained here after the session until it was gone. Nothing of the kind; I went home as soon as the session was over. The literature was sent down to the post office and was ultimately sent out, but even then, in many of the post offices throughout the country it was not delivered. But the case we are now discussing is a different case entirely. This matter was not mailed during the session under the frank of a member of parliament. As ha3 been pointed out, it was sent out with the compliments of men who were not nominated until long after the House was prorogued, and it was mailed at the city post office and not at this House of Commons. I have no doubt that the work of addressing this literature was done by civil servants and paid out of the public money. The Postmaster General should ascertain who franked this matter and should make them restore to the treasury the money thus unjustly taken. Unless the Postmaster General does this, he will not be discharging his duty faithfully. I am sure he knows whose frank is admitted to the post office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman say what initials were used ?


George Taylor: The Postmaster General must know whose frank it is. If not, then the postmaster at the city post office will know. The postmaster here can inform the Postmaster General why he accepted that stuff, and sent it out at the country's expense. He certainly would not do that except on an order approved by the Postmaster General or his deputy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I assure my hon. friend (Mr. Geo. Taylor) that, since I have been Postmaster General, no officer of the department has been authorized to take upon himself to let any political mail matter pass free through the Ottawa post office to please the party. I would not do it myself, and I would not allow my subordinates to do it. I challenge my hon. friend to name one single instance where this has been done by the post office authorities.


George Taylor: Hon. members here to-day have stated that this material has gone through.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I cannot distinguish the initials of the frank, nor can my hon. friend. I have stated that I will investigate this case. But I cannot make out the initials.


George Taylor: Then, better let the item stand until the minister makes the investigation and is ready to report to the committee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will investigate.


George Taylor: I say that this is the most outrageous case that ever took place in this House since I became a member of it. And yet I have had to take abuse for doing that which the Postmaster General himself admits was within my rights. But I do not mind, for the more abuse I get, the more my majority increases. I think it is the duty of the Postmaster General, in the interests of the country, to ascertain who is at fault in this matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will. .


Mr. BRADBURY.: As our Ontario friends have called attention to this matter, I would like to have the Postmaster General understand that Ontario is no exception. The province from which I come was flooded with this stuff. In my own county, three days before the election, this stuff was delivered in thousands of copies through the post offices. I attribute my success in the county largely to this literature, therefore, I am not going to protest against it. But it is an outrage that a private individual, one not a member of this House, should be allowed to frank material through the mail out of session and within a few days of election. I hope there will be an investigation, and, if it is proven that this was done without authority, that the parties responsible will be punished. I may say that the Conservative organizer in Winnipeg had dozens of these envelopes brought to him.


George Eulas Foster: Without postage ?


George Henry Bradbury: Yes, and the initials on the envelopes I make out to be ' B F C.'


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: Is the franking of unofficial matter an offence punishable under the Act ?	-


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have never made it a penalty. We have always thought that those enjoying the privilege would remain strictly within the privilege. But I am afraid we shall have to take severe measures if these are not forged names. Of course, a forgery comes under the criminal law.


Mr.   .T. D. TAYLOR@: I can tell the minister of a case in which, there is no difficulty in recognizing the name used. I have seen literature circulated in my riding, in session and out of session during the past two years, campaign literature of the Liberal party, and bearing the frank just as distinct as the address upon the letter,
' J. B., Sol. Gen.' I am sorry the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) has just left the Chamber. I wished to speak about this matter when he was present. After the session the frank is changed, so that it is evidently not a mere oversight, and the person sending it recognizes that the sessional frank does not carry in the recess. All through the recess the weekly circular letter of the Liberal party goes out in printed envelopes addressed to the Liberal press of this country and bearing the frank ' J. B., Solicitor General.' There is a clearly defined case on which the Postmaster General may work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would not condone any abuse of the franking privilege by even the Solicitor General, but I may frankly say that it happens sometimes that I send to some of my friends speeches delivered by the Minister of Finance or by the Minister of Customs. The Finance Minister may deliver a speech on the financial condition of the country which I judge should be read by some of my electors, and I would not consider it an abuse of privilege to send such a speech under my frank It is my official correspondence with the people in my county.


George Eulas Foster: We are not discussing that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the Solicitor General sends clippings to twenty-five or thirty papers in British Columbia each week, I would not consider that as an abuse. I do not know if the statement is true, although I do not challenge my hon. friend's assertion. The Solicitor General has entered the Chamber and is now in his seat and he will explain himself. I was Solicitor General myself and inquired if I was on the same footing as the ministers. I do not consider that an abuse. To send out tons of literature might be an abuse but to distribute twenty or sixty circulars to newspapers explaining the policy of the Liberal party does not appear to me an abuse.


George Henry Bradbury: 


James Davis Taylor: It may be because I am only a tyro in parliamentary affairs but I cannot subscribe to the doctrine of the Postmaster General. When this matter came to my attention I regarded it as an aggravated instance of petty graft, about as bad as any graft I had observed. As the Solicitor General is now in his seat, I shall repeat what I said, that during the past two years, in session and out of session, the weekly circular letter of the Liberal party, a letter devoted to the most scurrilous abuse of the Conservative party and its leaders.


Mr. BUREAU.: That is a matter of opinion.


James Davis Taylor: That is a matter of opinion, as the hon. gentleman says, and it is my opinion, and I have a right to state my opinion. This letter, devoted to scurrilous abuse of this side, goes out during session and during recess, bearing the frank of ' J. B., Solicitor General.' The letter is in print. It is not got up by the Solicitor General himself, or representing the product of his literary talents, but is a circular prepared outside, and printed outside as far as we can see and must be carried into the department. Every week 200 or 300 of them are sent out, all with that frank, and to my mind, 200 or 300 offences are thus committed each week against the postal laws to save the paltry sum of $3, which would carry these circulars through the mail. The reason thi3 seems an aggravated and a contemptible piece of graft, is that if the post office officials catch a private citizen in the unintentional act of putting a small piece of paper in a newspaper, they hale him before a magistrate and mulct him. Who would direct this prosecution ? Yet we find the Solicitor General, who would prosecute a private citizen, committing 300 offences every week and the Postmaster General saying that because this is party warfare, he sees no offence in it. I do not subscribe to that doctrine and feel that the House will not subscribe to any doctrine so monstrous as that.


Jacques Bureau: I have no apology to make. I am not surprised at the harangue of my over scrupulous friend from New Westminster. I heard him insinuate the other night that I was in collusion in letting out Bill Miner. I claim that in franking this literature there was no crime and no offence.


Samuel Hughes: Was it no crime to let out Bill Miner?


Jacques Bureau: I do not know but my friend had something to do with Bill Miner.


George Eulas Foster: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: That expression would not be in order.


Jacques Bureau: I take it back, I do not want to Connect my friend with Bill Miner;
I will let him connect others. I did not misuse the post office for any purpose. That literature notwithstanding the judgment of the hon. member for New Westminister fMr. J. D. Taylor) is sound literature. I have read some of it, and I think it contains sound principles, and if the people of British Columbia had followed it more closely they would be better off to-day than they are.


Mr. GEO. GORDON.: I would like to inform the Postmaster General of what took place in the district of Nipissing. Tons of this stuff were sent out franked in that way. The distribution was so general that even the Conservative candidate got a copy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What frank was it?


George Gordon: I have not got any with me now, but I can get some. Tons of that stuff was sent there franked, and went through the mails. Now the hon. gentleman from Halton (Mr. Henderson) figured out a little while ago that the loss to the Post Office Department was something over $300 in his constituency alone. Taking the 221 constituencies in the Dominion of Canada, you have a loss of $66,000 in the revenue of the Post Office Department. Now, if a man wipes the mark off a postage stamp and the country only loses 2 cents by it, he very soon finds himself before a police magistrate and receives severe sentence. I think the Postmaster General will not be doing his duty if he does not institute at once a thorough investigation into this whole matter, and see that the law is carried out according to what he read a little while ago. I think this is one of the most scandalous and disgraceful acts that could be perpetrated upon any people; and if he will investigate this outrage he will not only please the people of Canada, but please the majority of the members on his own side.


Mr. TURRIFF.: So far as my constituency is concerned, I did not see one piece of literature franked by any Liberal during the whole campaign, or any kind of franked literature. The hon. gentleman says there was a loss of $66,000 throughout the whole Dominion by this means. Well, if you have a loss of $66,000 through the use of franked literature, and still have a surplus of $1,500,000 or $2,000,000 to what an extent must the Conservatives have used the franking privilege in their time when they had a deficit every year of half a million dollars?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I hope the minister will not only investigate this subject himself, but that the Public Accounts Committee will bring before it some of these men and make a thorough investigation. The western part of the province of Ontario was flooded with this literature, practically every riding. I was in a great number of 53
ridings myself, and everywhere I found the ridings flooded with this literature, franked from Ottawa, tons of it. Listening to the statement of the minister with regard to the position that the Post Office Department in the House of Commons was in shortly after the close of the session, I could not help thinking that at least some, person in his department was well aware that this literature was being sent out after the 16th of September, because I have a piece of literature in my hand, explaining the wonderful boon of the rural free mail delivery which the minister promised to the people of Canada. This was sent into my riding.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sent from the Post Office Department? Is it a general pamphlet?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Y'es, a general pamphlet under the same stamp as mentioned by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain).


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the hon. gentleman mean that it was sent from the Post Office Department at Ottawa?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot help thinking that some one in the Post Office Department had something to do with placing in the literature ' Free rural mail delivery of Canada.' giving the explanation of it that the minister did in that wonderful speech of his at Niagara. This may not be an occasion to pursue the matter further, but I sincerely hope that I shall be given an opportunity to explain what I think the position of the minister was in regard to the stand he took on that occasion.


Mr. MADDIN.: I have here a postal card which was mailed to the leader of the opposition at Halifax, delivered there through the mails, and I would like to submit it to the Postmaster General. _It bears no frank at all, but it bears the Halifax-Campbell-ton stamp. I gather from that that the postal card was mailed on the train, and that the postal mail clerk was in collusion with the party whose ends were to be served. You will notice that it depicts the right hon. the leader of the government endeavouring to pull the hind leg off a horse, and on the front of it, in red type, it asks the people to support Mr. Reid and the greater Campbellton. This is not a more flagrant boast of a right to hold in contempt the legislation with regard to the Post Office Department than that offered by the Solicitor General. If the Postmaster General properly read the law a few moments ago, sections 75 and 76 of the Post Office Act, then I submit that the Solicitor General was guilty of a breach of that Act. If, in making his admission before this House he had exhibited any extenuating circumstances, or had shown that he repented or was sorry for what he had done, we could have some consideration for him; but he could not in a more flagrant way have exhibited his utter indifference and disregard



of one of the most important laws on our statute-books.


Jacques Bureau: Prosecute him for a breach of the laws.


James William Maddin: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the hon. gentleman pardon me for interrupting him? I do not wish to unload my sins on any other man's shoulders, but I wish to remind my hon. friend that post offices and customs houses, all public buildings, are under the charge of the Public Works Department and not under mine. Every public building is under the Minister of Public Works.


James William Maddin: Then I will not read any further from the letter. The Minister of Public Works may take cognizance of it. I will bring this aspect of the matter up at some other time because I have no desire to embarrass the Postmaster General with matters that do not come within his jurisdiction. But, I would like to emphasize the fact that the reading of the Post Office Act a few minutes ago by the Postmaster General is enough, on the voluntary admission of the Solicitor General, to show that he has violated that Act.


Jacques Bureau: I want the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maddin) to correct that statement. I never admitted that I violated the Act; I said that I had not violated the Act. I do not want it to go upon 'Hansard ' that I admitted that I hail violated the Act.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: A declaration by an hon. member as to what he said must be accepted.


James William Maddin: 


James William Maddin: I have no desire to misquote the hon. gentleman. I will put it this way.


Jacques Bureau: I want the hon. gentleman to take that back.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maddin) is stating it within order. I presume that is his intention.


James William Maddin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is my intention. I submit that on the admission of facts voluntarily made by the Solicitor General he has been guilty of an infringement of this Act, and that it is the duty of the Postmaster General to institute a prosecution against him.


Jacques Bureau: I never made that statement. I say I am not guilty of an infringement or of a violation of the Act, that I kept within the Act.


James William Maddin: I said that upon your admission of the facts-


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I do not understand the hon. member for South Cape Breton to be charging that the Solicitor General admitted a breach of the Act. I understand him to be stating that the facts that the Solicitor General mentioned con-situte a breach of the Act in his opinion.


James William Maddin: Exactly. That is all I do say and that is all I wish to convey. I submit that upon his admission of facts here this afternoon it becomes the duty of the Postmaster General, who is the special guardian of this piece of legislation, to see that it is lived up to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As regards that post card, it might happen that when post cards and ordinary envelopes are stamped some may escape the attention of the postmaster. During elections especially, ,or at any time, when there is a large mailing process going on it may happen that the stamp is forgotten upon one envelope. In the large offices in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Winnipeg, there are machines run by electricity for stamping envelopes and the absence of stamps sometimes escapes the attention of the stamper. In this case I have no hesitation in saying that if the postal card was knowingly mailed without a stamp, not only the sender but the stamper who passed it was guilty of an offence. I do not wish to justify the action of any guilty party but it quite often happens in ordinary business that a man may fail to detect the absence of a stamp on a letter or card. The very fact of sending an unstamped card to the leader of the opposition on a political question shows, it seems to me, that the sender could not have been acting in bad faith, and that it was a mistake. I would not defend a guilty act.


George Halsey Perley: I am very glad to hear the Postmaster General say that he .does not think that a minister of the Crown has a right to frank out, during recess, election literature for the benefit of candidates who are put forward by the Liberal party. I have obtained the envelope that I referred to. It is addressed to Mr. Murdoch McRae, Harrington East, Que.
It contains a speech delivered by Mr. E. M. Macdonald, M. P., Pictou, N. S., and inside there is a typewritten slip with the ' compliments of P. R. McGibbon.' It was mailed at the city post office on the 30th September and marked ' free.' I took it to the city post office and asked about the frank which seems to be in blue pencil, and they told me that it was ' S.A.F., M. A.' I am glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture is here, and I believe that it must be his frank. I would like, under these circumstances, to ask the Postmaster General to reprimand the Minister of Agriculture right here now, while we are all present.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the Minister of Agriculture be good enough to say whether it is his frank or not.


Mr. FISHER.: I cannot say whether it is, but it is quite possible.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I can only add the evidence afforded by what has taken place in my riding to what has already been said by many hon. members on this side of the House. I do not at all object) to a member using his franking privilege himself and perhaps overstepping the mark a little, but I certainly object to any person using the frank which is the special privilege of members of this House and of Cabinet Ministers. I think we have proof that somebody has been using a frank which he has no right to. We must not forget that we on this side of the House represent more than forty-five per cent of the electors of Canada, and I say it is not right for the government, or any one on behalf of the government, to use the special machinery of the government for the purpose of distributing campaign literature to the injury of forty-five per cent of the people. We have a concrete case of somebody having made use of the stamp which is the special privilege of a member of this House, and having passed the matter through the post office. There is no doubt that tons of that literature have been passed through the post office with that frank upon it, and the postmaster should have known that it bore the frank of somebody who was not entitled to use it. I want to ask the Postmaster General what he is going to do with the person who absolutely and without authority uses that stamp for the purpose of transmitting tons of literature through the mails, as has been done during the past year? I have noticed that 53J
it is a favourite way for ministers to dispose of a question by saying, ' I will inquire into it,' and then the interest drops, but, assuming that it is proved that this gentleman has used that frank without authority, what is the Postmaster General going to do? Is he simply going to administer a severe reprimand? If that is all he is going to do anybody will be justified in using the frank. If the Post Office Act does not provide some penalty for a man who unjustly uses the franking privilege it is high time that an amendment was brought in to make it a criminal offence for any person to use the franking privilege who has no authority to do so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may say at once that the supposed franks which have been exhibited this afternoon reveal a state of things which I will not tolerate.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no hesitation in saying that the envelope just produced by my hon. friend (Mr. Perley) dees not bear the initials of the Minister of Agriculture.
I know the initials of the Minister of Agriculture.


George Halsey Perley: What are they?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 



Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He admits it is his frank.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh no, he does not. My hon. friend insinuated a moment ago that the initials B.F.C. were the initials of a member of the government, but that is not clear to my mind. At all events I say that this state of things cannot be tolerated because the Post Office Department must have the respect of all parties in the country, and I intend for the future to see that the spirit and the letter of the law shall be carried out.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the past we may have been a little lax in framing regulations, trusting that those who enjoy the franking privilege would use it prudently and not indiscriminately. We will frame such regulations as in the future only purely official business bearing the frank of ministers and members of parliament will go through the mails. I may say that since the beginning of the session I have received complaints from certain firms in reference to the abuse of the franking privilege. I attribute the reason for these complaints to the fact that it was done by new members of the House.


Mr. SPROULE.: Does the Postmaster General mean to interpret the Act so as to prevent a member of parliament from franking any mailable matter unless it is of a business character?
1C71


Rodolphe Lemieux: A member of the House has a right to frank all his business letters -I mean business letters in connection with the. public business of the country. But, the other day I received from a firm in Toronto an envelope bearing the frank of one of the new-members of this House who sent.broadcast through'the country circulars inviting the public at large to subscribe to shares in a certain mine in the Gowganda district. That was clearly an abuse of the privilege. The franking privilege is given to enable a member to correspond with his Constituents, and with his family, and with the public generally on public affairs, but it is not given to enable a member to send thousands and thousands of circulars inviting persons to take shares in a mine. That is an abuse of the privilege. It seems to me it it is a mere matter of common sense.
Mr: CARVELL. Now that the Postmaster General has so clearly defined his view of the law and the attitude he intends to assume in the future, it seems to me there is one very important omission, because the Postmaster General has not stated the punishment he intends to mete out to the culprit who franks these documents in this way. I would imagine from the evidence given by so many hon. gentlemen opposite that there must have been a large number of these documents sent to different parts of Canada, and some punishment should be dealt out to the culprit. I would suggest to the Postmaster General that if in the first place he can find out who the official is, he should send him to the Bishop of British Columbia and get him to make a confession and I have no doubt the bishop would treat it as an absolute secret, and his name will not become public, and I dare say the bishop would very kindly assure us that there is no polities in it, and possibly His Lordship would be willing to absolve even the Solicitor General.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to the franking privilege. I quote from the Post Office regulations, page 21, which, referring to the Cabinet Ministers says:
All letters and other mailable matter from the public departments at Ottawa and franked as being of an official character.
That is the only right the ministers have to frank, and when the Solicitor General says he had a perfect right to do what he has done, I am not surprised at the interpretation of the law which we sometimes get from the Justice Department of Canada. The Postmaster General says that the private member of parliament has only the right to frank letters on the business of the country, but the regulation does not say that; it says:
Letters and other mailable matter addressed to or by any member of the Senate or of Mr. SPROULE.
the House of Commons whether on public business or on the personal affairs of such member.	.
That shows the interpretation of the law is broader in the case of a member of parliament than it is in the ease of a minister.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is meant by 'personal affairs.' ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume it is his own personal business. I do not know anything about the instance the Postmaster General has referred to, but if that member of parliament were engaged in mining it would be his personal business to send out these circulars, and the regulations would appear to justify him in that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will take my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) as my witness. Taking the regulations which he has just read and assuming that letters written to his family or to his constituents or to the public on public questions constitute his personal business as the word ' personal ' is generally understood, now would the hon. gentleman take it upon himself to send broadcast thousands and thousands of circulais under his frank, asking the public to subscribe to shares in a mine? He would not


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He would not, and every one knows he would not do it, and in not doing it he would be guided by his own conscience, his own sense of honour, and common sense.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I wished to draw attention to was the fact that a, private member of parliament has a greater right to the use of the franking privilege during the session than a minister of the Crown, if I correctly interpret the hon. gentleman's own regulations.


Mr. BURRELL.: It seems to me that it is time that a protest was put in against the remarks made by my hon. friend from Carle-ten, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell). Eighty or ninety of us are new members, and I think it is fair to assume that the majority of us have come here with an earnest desire to do the best we can for this country, very often regardless of political affiliations. I am aware that hon. gentlemen opposite, and those on this side, are working along different lines, and unfortunately on many occasions there is too much party recrimination and bitterness. Now, the present discussion involves a principle, and I want to express my satisfaction with the way in which the Postmaster General has dealt with this question. He has recognized that there is a principle at stake, and has shown a manly and honest desire to rectify the abuse referred to. But when these matters are under discussion, and an hon. member opposite gets up and introduces totally irre-

levant matter, for the purpose of flinging a cheap jibe at the opposite party, I think it is time for any member who has a sincere desire for the progress of this country along right lines to enter a protest against the irrelevancy and the levity of his remarks.


George Halsey Perley: We have gained a great deal when we have got from the minister a promise to try to rectify this evil. This frank is in plain blue pencil, and anybody might have made it, whether he had any authority or not. I was told at the post office that these were the initials of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and I wish to ask that hon. gentleman whether he gave anybody authority to frank literature of this kind with his frank in blue pencil on the envelopes, or whether he knew it was done?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not give authority to anybody to frank with a blue pencil in any way or shape, and did not know it was done.


George Eulas Foster: The question that has been discussed this afternoon is a little more important than probably the Solicitor General, from the way in which he met it, may think it to be. I consider it to be a very important question, because, as my hon. friend from British Columbia has said, there is a principle underlying it, and the Postmaster General has in that respect come face to face with it in a manly way and has acknowledged that there was an evasion of the Act, and has given the assurance to this House that, whether it was done by a colleague or by an outsider, he proposed to take what measures are necessary in order to prevent it occurring again. He went a little further: he proposed to investigate the matter and find out if he could what had been done, and what punishment or remedy could be enforced. If it was done with the authority of the Postmaster General or that of any of the ministers of the Crown, and if it was done with the authority of any of the ministers of the Crown after the session was over, they themselves would be responsible for the pecuniary damage and for any violation of the principle of the Act, if that were proved to have happened. But the fact is, and it is plain enough, that somebody has been robbing the public treasury. That is exactly what it means. Tf a man had gone into a country post office in the dead of night and abstracted from the till of the postmaster money belonging to the postal revenues, would he be a thief, or would he come before this House and say, I did it, I glory in it, and I am not going to make any apology for' it? It is plain what it means; and if $20 or $2,000 has been kept in the pocket of the man who by the law Ought to pay it into the Consolidated Fund of Canada for the service Canada did in carrying his mail matter, is it any less robbery of the public treasury? I do not think my hon. friend the Postmaster
General will deny that it is exactly the one and the same thing as the other. In the one ease your man comes and takes the money out in stealth by night; in the other case he robs the treasury just as effectively, because he either uses a power which he has no right to use or surreptitiously gets his carrying done without paying anything therefor. Now, we have three cases. We have the case of a private post card. No private post card can go through the postal service of this country without- a one cent stamp upon it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: This private post card is only one; but as long as there is the one which contravenes the law it is serious. When the hon. Postmaster General comes to investigate it, if he does, he might find out whether it slipped in between two others or not. Somebody must have posted it, and, prima facie, the man who posted it intended to defraud the revenue. No court or judge before whom the matter was tried would say that is probably how it happened. It is not the business of the judge and it is not the business of the Postmaster General, to suggest how it may have slipped in. There is the incriminating charge, and it is his business to suppose that his revenues have been defrauded, and to go as far as he can in tracing the fraud. That post card apparently was not posted at a, post office, but was put into a postal car on the railway between St. John or Campbellton and Halifax and sent to a gentleman at that time in the city of Halifax. There is one case; in how many cases was the same thing done? In the other case, what happened? The Solicitor General, if I understood him aright, took the ground that the matter that went out was good.
Will the Postmaster General examine that for a moment? If a man has defrauded the mails by putting a letter inside a news paper and so avoiding letter postage, is it any answer for him, when he is brought to bcok, to say :	1 But there were fine sentiments in that letter? Such an excuse would not be taken. Evidently, then, it is no excuse for the Solicitor General to say that the matter he sent out without paying the country's postage, as I believe he should have paid under the law, was good matter. This is not the kind of excuse that increases- very much our respect for the Justice Department of this country. Here is a man to whom we pay some thousands of dollars a year and his travelling expenses; he represents justice in this country ; ' before this House and this country he takes a position which I doubt if- any otner representative of a justice department has ever taken

that if the stuff is: good stuff it is no harm to send it through the mails without paying the proper legal postage. Here is a case in which the frank

is plain; the Postmaster General himself cannot cavil on that ground. If there is anything in the law on this subject, it is intended to preclude members of parliament or ministers from franking extraneous matter through the mails when the House is not in session. Extraneous matter, I say. I would not carry the prohibition too far. If a minister during recess wishes to write a letter to the firm of which he was a member, or to pay a bill, I would not object to his franking the letter. That is a point that no one would raise in this House. Every minister does it, I dare say, and no one would cavil at it. But has the minister a right to take my correspondence and save postage for me by franking it through the mails? He has not. Where, then, is the defence of the Solicitor General? What was this matter that was being sent out? Was it anything connected with the business of the Department of Justice? No. Was it anything connected with Mr. Ayles-worth's personal business? No. Was it anything connected with Mr. Jacques Bureau's personal business? No. Carry the case a little further. Mr. Aylesworth might have been writing to his constituents asking them to vote for him and to fight against Armstrong or whoever was going to be nominated ' against him. He might frank that letter; I would not find fault with that. But here is an organization that is conducting political warfare against nearly half the people, and it is so high-toned and so high-minded that it employs its Solicitor General to beat one of the departments that the government is trustee for, the Department of the Post Office, out of the petty postage on its letters. This weekly letter is an engine of the Liberal party; it is a part of its propagandist machinery, and is a matter entirely outside the personal business of Mr. Aylesworth or Mr. Bureau. It is posted every week of the year, in session or out of session, and is franked by the Justice Department. Does any one deny it? The solicitor General says that he has no apology for it. He might just as well frank the merchandise of the C. Ross Company on Sparks street. The great Liberal party ought to be more able than a private company to pay such expenses, and ought to be quite as manly to bear it. Will the Postmaster General inquire what the Liberal committee in the city of Ottawa were doing all last winter and up to the very day of election? If he does he will learn that tons and tons, millions and millions of copies of brochures and pamphlets were sent away from Ottawa under frank and scattered over every constituency in this country. I have here a statement by the secretary of that organization in the city of Ottawa stating exactly what was being sent out-so many copies of this or of that, to go into the several constituencies before election day.


George Eulas Foster: Did the Liberal party pay any of that postage after the House was prorogued ? That is worth inquiring into. If this postage was not paid a wrong was done, somebody has robbed the treasury, and somebody should be punished for it. But there is worse than this, and I ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) to pay attention. All this would be bad enough, but there is still more in it. Here is a Liberal-Conservative running in the county of Argenteuil. He gets up his own literature and pays for it. While he is a member of parliament he has a right to frank anything he likes into his county by way of propaganda-that is a matter between him and his constituency. But one day after the close of the session he has no such right. A Mr. McGibbon opposes him in his county-whether he was a candidate before the House closed or not T do not know. It would be bad enough for members of parliament or cabinet ministers to frank literature through the mails after session, but it appears that, again and again, those who never were members of parliament, who were not even nominated for parliament until after the House closed, sent their literature under frank, or had it sent in some way first to Ottawa and from Ottawa throughout the constituency. His Majesty's post office paid the bill; the public revenue loses that much. The frank of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) was used to defraud the revenue of a large amount. Here are two things, one of which is unfair and the other absolutely dishonest. It is unfair that the Liberal-Conservative candidate should have to bear his own expense, while the Liberal candidate, by reason of his party being in power, should be able to send his literature without expense, taking the money from the taxes of the Liberal-Conservatives as well as from those of the Liberals of this country. The Minister of Agriculture has not denied that he franked literature after the House was closed; he said it was possible that it might be his frank. I would be loath to believe that any one would have the gall to put the initials ' S.A.F.,M.A.' on envelopes and send them through the post office. I should be inclined to think, under the admission of the Minister of Agriculture, that he himself had so franked this literature, or had authorized it to be done. He will not deny that it may be his own; I cannot deny that it may be a forgery of his name. If Sir Richard Cartwright or Mr. Fielding makes a speech in parliament I have no objection to their sending them out by the thousands under frank. But I do not believe that they have the right to take up the campaign of Mr. McGibbon in his constituency and frank his literature. This matter cannot rest here. If it were treated by every one as it has been by the Postmaster General

we could leave it to him, but the Department of Justice has said that what they did was absolutely right and that they had no apology; they flaunted defiance in the face of this House. The matter must be tried out and we must know whether the government is going to put its imprimatur on a doctrine like that. I do not believe the government will. I give them credit for long consciences sometimes, but I do not think they will father that doctrine. I am sorry the Justice Department put itself in a position like that before this House and before the intelligent fourth estate 1 see before me, especially on this side of Mr. Speaker's chair, and before the country at large.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friends have referred to what appears to be my frank on certain literature that was sent out during the political campaign. I may be wrong in my interpretation of a minister's privilege in franking outside of the session, but I have always supposed that he has the same privilege as members of parliament have during the session of parliament.


George Eulas Foster: Right.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Members of parliament during session were able to frank anything whatever it might be which they wished to send out connected with their public position as members of parliament. I believed that as a minister I had a right to frank anything I sent out relating to my public position as a minister. I do not know whether that was my frank or not; I certainly never gave authority to put a pencil frank in that way on any envelope. I do not know what the contents were. I do not think I should send out literature sent to me or my department by any one else under my frank. I think that would be improper, but I have always felt that I had a perfect right to frank during the recess such matters as members have been franking during the session. I have been acting upon that principle. If my interpretation of my privilege has been wrong, I am prepared to bow to the proper and legal interpretation and to forego such privilege in the future. I have acted upon that principle for many years, and I know that my predecessors in this and every other government have done the same thing. I know that members have franked tons of literature in each of the last three sessions. I am willing to stand by what I have done in the past, as I know that I have simply been following the practice of all other ministers.


Mr. M. CLARK (Red Deer).: I rise to endorse in a very few words what I consider was a noble appeal to this House, and to the new members on the part of the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell.). I am certain he will get the ear of a large portion of this
country when he asks the members of this House to cease from mutual recrimination, and devote themselves to more imnortant work by example and by precept, of raising the public life of the country, and attending to the legislative and administrative business they were sent here to do. I thought when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) rose to his feet and referred to the member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell), that the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo had sown his seed upon ground where we might not have expected it to bring forth very good fruit, but where it had brought forth very good fruit, for the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) endorsed, as I understood in his opening words, the proposition laid down by the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell). He said quite truly that there is a principle at stake in this thing, and the minister faced the principle nobly, boldly, and honestly, and promised that he would do his best to see that no abuse of this kind occurred. I take it that the response of the minister t-o the appeal which had been made to the whole House by the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) was perfect. But after this commencement what do we find the hon. member for North Toronto doing? I could not describe his speech better than by saying it was the most magnificent example of what had been described by the member for Yale-Cariboo in the term mutual recrimination How much further forward are we going to get by talking of one another as robbers and thieves? If that is not the language of recrimination, I do not know the meaning of the word. He appealed, as I understood him, to the great Liberal government as he described it, to show some high-mindedness. Wherever the Liberal government goes for its lessons in high-mindedness, the last place I should go is to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: For the matter of that I do not think that if I did go I should be followed by many of his friends on that side of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: I am thoroughly in agreement with the logic of what has fallen from the lips of the Minister of Agriculture. I think the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was not only wrong in taste in not following the very good advice given him, but that he was hopelessly weak in his logic. If members are to be allowed to break the law during the session, he may rely upon it that ministers will break the law during the recess. The whole weakness in the case of the opposition in this matter is to be found in a remark of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Middlebro).

16IP
He said that he would restrict the franking privilege to members, or would even allow them to go a little over the mark. Well, we all go over the mark. Will the hon. member for North Toronto rise and say that he has never franked a letter for some one which, strictly interpreting, the law, he had no right to do? I notice that he loes not rise. If I wanted to imitate his picturesque and forcible style of oratory, I should point my linger at him and say that he was a robber and a. thief; but I abstain. Now, I would like to give the Postmaster General every encouragement to go along the line he has promised to pursue. After all, I wonder that hon. members on the opposition side of the House do not see that in all these discussions about political purity what they are really doing is aspersing their own country-that is what it amounts to in the end, they are aspersing their own country. They are attacking the morality of the people and of the nation to which we belong, because the practice of this government has just been endorsed by a majority of the people of this country. I do not think that the most Pharisaical man opposite would rise in his place and say that all the political morality of Canada is on the opposition side of the House of Commons. I do not believe that even the hon. member for North Toronto would be equal to that bold statement. They are attacking the people of this country, they are attacking the political morality of this country. The way to cure the evil is for ministers to face criticism such as this, boldly and honestly; it is for the House of Commons, to respond honestly, as individuals and as a corporate body, to such appeals as the member for Yale-Cari-boo (Mr. Burrell) has made to-day. I have responded to these appeals because I have fought two elections in this country; one of them I lost, and one of them I won. So far as I was personally concerned they were pure elections; I was not in a position to buy votes even if I could, and I would not buy them if I was able to do so. Let the electors be good enough not to be bought; let the candidates be good enough not to buy them, and you will soon see an improvement in the political morality of the country. With regard to the logic of this thing. I think my hon. friend is hopelessly wrong. If we are to have improvement in this matter, the franking right must be restricted to the utmost possible extent. You cannot break a law in little pieces. That would be the last word I would like to utter on this occasion.


George Halsey Perley: I must say I like the
way in which the Minister of Agriculture spoke about this matter, and also the Postmaster General ; but I cannot understand how he could interpret the regulations Mr. M. CLARK.
in the way he says he did. Section 114, which refers to this subject, seems to me to be quite plain. Referring to mail that is sent out from Ottawa, it says:
All letters and other mailable matter posted from the public departments at Ottawa and franked as being of an official character.
That is all it says. When it refers to mail matter coming into Ottawa it says:
-all correspondence addressed to the ministers in charge of the said departments or to their private secretaries or to the deputy heads or secretaries
comes free. But in reference to mail matter going out, )the language is distinct, that the frank only covers matter of an official character. Now I cannot see by what stretch of imagination the Minister of Agriculture can claim that this campaign literature sent out all over the country, was a document of an official character. I do not suppose he will suggest that, so I cannot understand by what method of reasoning he reaches his conclusion. As I understand the regulations, during the session of the House we are all supposed to be on an equality. We are two parties in this country. Last session when we were sending out literature, we received every civility and service from the post office authorities here, everything was done to give us fair play, to gentlemen on this side equally with those opposite. Now during the session we are all on an equality, we all have a right to frank literature to our respective counties, or to any other county. But as I read this section 114, the moment a session of parliament is over, ministers of the Crown have no longer this right which belongs to members during the session; they then come back to their official right, which is limited strictly to 'the official business of this country. Now how can the Minister of Agriculture argue that that right extends to them during the recess ? I submit it would be exceedingly unfair during an election. We are all supposed to be on an equality. Opposition members have to pay postage on their literature during recess, and why should not their opponents pay postage also? I do not knqw how this was done whether the literature was sent in by the government candidates to Ottawa and franked out from here, or whether the Liberal party had an office here in Ottawa with a, staff of clerks engaged in writing those mystic letters on these envelopes.. But it was not fair play to the Conservative side. I would like to know how the Minister of Agriculture can imagine that section 114 of this Postal Guide gives him any authority to frank letters during recess, to other counties than his own?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I confess I have never carefully read the law. I knew what the practice had been from time immemorial,

and I followed it, supposing that my predecessors during their administration had followed the law.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The whole subject was discussed at great length in this Home about ten years ago, and the distinction which has been pointed out by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) was clearly and forcibly pointed out at that time. During a session a member of parliament, as I recollect the regulation-I have not got it under my hand-is at liberty to send out literature, any documents, whether of a public or private nature, under his frank. I suppose the reason for that is obvious; it would be impossible in the post office to make any distinction between documents of a public character sent out by a member and those of a private character. At all events there is the language of the regulation, and you cannot put any restriction upon it so long as it remains as it is. But when you come to the power of a minister of the Crown outside of a session of parliament, the language is very different; a minister's power to use his frank is restricted, as I have always understood it, to documents of an official character. Therefore, there is no confusion or lack of logic, as has been suggested, in the position taken on this side of the House. I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture was complying with the law in doing what he has acknowledged that he did on this occasion. The regulation with respect to a member of parliament, is in these words:
Letters and other mailable matter addressed to or by any member of the Senate or of the House of Commons while at Ottawa, during any session of parliament, or to any such member at Ottawa, during the ten days next before the meeting of parliament, may pass free of postage.
Now with regard to ministers of the Crown, the case is entirely different.
All letters and other mailable matter posted from the public departments at Ottawa and franked as being of an * official character-
Shall pass through the post office free. Campaign literature can not properly or legally be franked as being of an official character; the Minister of Agriculture will recognize that at once. Thus, there is this very important difference, a difference which ought to be recognized and adhered to by a minister of the Crown so long as the regulations are in the form in which we find them at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have followed very closely this debate and I reiterate the statement that some regulations should be framed so as to draw the line between use and abuse. In this matter, we have trusted to the personal honour and sense of propriety of members of the
House. I will not go so far as to say, as did my hon. friend from North Toronto, that, because there was some literature flanked during the recent campaign, some of the heads of these departments should be accused of theft and robbery. I say that might have been an abuse, but I would not go so far as to say that it was a crime. At all events, the regulations must be made clearer and I intend to frame them in such a way as will, in the future, not lead to the imputation of motives to either side of this House. Before the end of the sesion I may have occasion to discuss this question again and I hope everybody will find that justice will be done to both parties.


Jacques Bureau: I do not want the idea to go abroad, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has sought to convey it, that I have been engaged in robbing the country ever since I have been Solicitor General. The hon. gentleman has had his innings now and he is always happy to give me a crack when the opportunity offers, and I suppose he now feels satisfied. When he got up he had in his mind one of two things, either that he wanted to heap some abuse upon myself, or else he felt that he was standing by a principle and desired to have an evil corrected. As my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has said, the hon. gentleman has himself franked a letter for another, but it does not follow that he is a public thief, and ought to be branded as such in the country. If I franked this weekly letter I did not do it to save money. I am not so close or stingy. I did it because it had been done before, as I well knew, because I have in my possession papers and other documents that were franked by ministers of the Crown under the old regime ad: dressed to myself and my father. It may be that under a strict interpretation of the regulations I was wrong, but when I said that I had no apology to make I said so with a full appreciation of my words. 1 never thought the hon. member for North Toronto was getting so careful of the public treasury and was becoming so close that all of a sudden he would make a crime of it. This is a usage which has prevailed for years which is now stronger, not only than the regulations but than the law itself. It has been done for many years, and if so where are you going to draw the line? I made the statement that I thought I was not violating the law and I repeat that I never thought I was violating the law, because I never thought that for years and years and years such a violation could take place without a remedy being provided. I franked this letter because it was in accordance with the usage, and now my hon. friend wants to convey to the country the idea that I have set up as my justification the claim that it was good matter. I never
1G33

made any such statement. My hon. friend with all his volubility of language and his wonderful imagination, can take out of my words, maybe misplaced, what I never meant, in odder to put an improper interpretation upon them and to impute a wrong purpose. I made this statement because the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) said that this letter was something that was indecent, and should not go through the mails.


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise to a point of order. I object to be misrepresented by the Solicitor General. I never made any such statement.


Jacques Bureau: How did you qualify that letter?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. gentleman says that he did not make that statement you must not insist.


Jacques Bureau: It may be that I am mistaken. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, but he did qualify it. Have I not the right to ask him how he qualified it?


An hon. MEMBER.: Scurrilous.


Jacques Bureau: Thank you. He called it ' scurrilous ' matter; that is no better. I do not want it to be said that I stood here and bragged that I had done it. I said that I had no apology to make for what I have done, and I repeat it. My hon. friend does not expect me to run across the floor, cross my hands, get down on my knees before him and say: Oh thou, the only virtuous man on earth, forgive me! I will not do it. I did only what has been done for years and a thing which would not justify anybody in holding it up to the country as a threat against the welfare of Canada. If we have robbed the country, notwithstanding all our thieveries the Postmaster General is able to come here to-day and make the statement that the Post Office Department, instead of having a deficit, as it had in years past, finishes the year with a surplus, and I will leave it to the people to judge if the exercise of the franking privilege has been the cause of a less efficient service, or of deficits. I do not want to incriminate the hon. member for North Toronto, but I know that he used to carry stamps around with him all the time to post letters to his family when he .was a minister of the Crown. [DOT] I do not want the hon. member for North Toronto to make an unjust attack upon the Minister of Justice, for whom I know he has a special love, because I said that I had no apology to make for what I had done. I speak for myself and myself alone.


George Eulas Foster: It is a playful habit for some of my good friends on the other side of the House, if they are new members, to immediately lead an attack upon the mem-Mr. BUREAU.
ber for North Toronto. He seems to be a form of ladder on which to climb towards a sudden notoriety if nothing more in the House. I do not know how to explain it. There may be some natural explanation; I am not quite sure. I suppose a fly would rather make its onset on the horns of the ox than be flittering around the dust heap or something of that kind. There may be a principle in human nature that thinks that nobility comes out of that kind of thing. It is also the playful habit of some hon. gentlemen to impute to me what I did not say. The Postmaster General came very close to doing that. I was drawing a lesson, I drew it properly, I drew it in very plain, definite language so that any man could understand what I said, and I declared that there was no shadow of difference between the man who went into a post office at the dead of night and by stealth and secrecy burglarized the post office, and thus robs the treasury, and a man who surreptitiously and wrongfully put mail matter into the service and had it carried at the instance of the country thereby making the country pay the bill; it was jobbing the revenues just the same. When you discuss a principle and try to make two things equal, you are not under any conscious knowledge, until you are taken up a moment. afterwards, that you called the Solicitor General a thief, that you called the Postmaster General a robber and that you called the Minister of Agriculture a burglar or anything of that kind. Some class of minds may reason that way; I am not responsible for every class of mind that there is in this country, and I suppose I have to be under a disability on that account. Now, my hon. friend grew rather dramatic-it is allowable to him-and he figuratively crossed the House, dropped on his-I am afraid not very hardened-knees, and apostrophized the member for North Toronto as the only virtuous man. That is a lovely little failing the members on the other side of the House have. They think it is a manly way of making a statement which they do not care to make on their own responsibility. My good and recently acquired friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) started out nob' y and had he only stopped where he started he would be farther ahead than he was at the end, because he started with the enunciation of the principle that we were not to have recrimination in this House and he did not go far before he wondered whether he would come to the member for North Toronto as_ an example of high mindedness.


Michael Clark: For lessons in high mindedness; quote accurately.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, for lessons in high mindedness. Now, what did my hon. friend mean by that? Did he mean to start out on the principle of brotherly amity that was enunciated by my hon. friend from Yale-

Cariboo (Mr. Burrell)? He may have thought he was on that skating rink but it seemed to me he was floundering on ice far away. He went on to make two or three other allusions; what did they mean? Had they anything to do with this argument? Starting from his hypothesis he should not have used them because they introduced the principle of scrap between the parties, and that was a thing his soul abhorred. Now my hon. friend, was I not right in saying that had you stopped where you started your ground would have been, more logical than it was at the end?


Michael Clark: It would have been better for you.


George Eulas Foster: Well, I suppose that remark is on the principle that the fly that jabs at the bull's horn thinks he is doing a tremendous piece of battle, and if it pleases the fly and does not hurt the bull, I suppose there is no great harm in it; it is just a question for the onlooker and the outsider who is not prejudiced either way to form a judgment upon. Now, the whole thing is simply this: The member for Three Eivers, although he may not realize it- sometimes we think he has not quite realized it-is a little more than simply a member of the House; he is the Solicitor General of Canada. He is a part of the Justice Department of this country, and he can hardly make a statement such as he has made this afternoon and disassociate himself from his department and from his position. We look to the Department of Justice-whether it is the minister or whether it is the Solicitor General, we look to him as an exponent of the law, and I allowed myself in an unguarded moment to make a query as to whether one who seemed to have come so far short of a proper definition of this law would shed lustre and brilliance upon the department to which, for some reason or other unknown to most of us, he has been for some years allied.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PEIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 44) to incorporate the Canadian, Liverpool and Western Eailway Company.-Mr. Girard.
On section 2,
The works of the company are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.
Mr.   BAEKEE@: This raises a question which has been suggested in this House before and which was discussed at some length in the Eailway Committee-the propriety of putting such a clause as this into Acts of parliament without reference to the truth of the statement thus made. I raised the question in committee. I do not question, nor has anybody ever questioned, so far as I know, the constitutional power of this House to declare a work to be for the general advantage of Canada. Nor does anybody question the fact that, when parliament makes this declaration concerning any given work, then, under the clause of the British North America Act, the work becomes legally one for the general advantage of Canada. I do not wish to occupy the attention of the House at length, but I desire to protest formally and strongly against the idea apparently entertained by members of this House that there is no question to be considered in reference to inserting such a provision in a Bill as to whether the statement thus made is true or false. Some hon. members seem to think that because parliament has the power to declare a work to be for the general advantage of Canada, that settles the question, and that if we exercise our powers that makes it all right. What I contend is that the constitution intended and requires that before the House expresses such an opinion by Act of Parliament, it should satisfy itself of the truth of the statement; it should be convinced that the work is really one for the advantage of Canada as a whole. I am convinced, from what passed in the committee the other day, that the question whether this work is or is not one for the general advantage of Canada was not considered. This subject has been before the House again and again, and with all respect to the House, I say that the matter has been dealt with without regard to the truth or falsity of the statement made, that this declaration that a work is for the general advantage of Canada has been put into Acts of Parliament when, in my opinion, it was actually false, and without hon. members considering for one moment whether the statement was true or the very opposite of true. We have spent hours and hours in discussing such questions and without much result. But I do not propose to let a Bill of this kind pass thi^ House without entering my protest against the practise that I have just mentioned. The constitution intended that the provinces should control certain works within their confines, but it gave to this parliament the power and right, when it found a ease to warrant it, to declare a work, even though within provincial limits, to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, and therefore one to be controlled by this parliament. I protest against such a statement being put into a Bill of this kind without due consideration, and against any hon. member voting in favour of inserting such a statement in a Bill unless he is convinced that the statement is true.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I am not directly or indirectly interested in this Bill, except as a member of this House and a member of the Railway Committee. Nor do I take exception to the argument of my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker); in fact, I quite concur with him on the question of principle. I believe that, unless there is within the scope of the corporation^ objects that are interprovincial or international in their character, we should not attempt to incorporate such a body or give it any powers. This Bill was very fully considered by the committee. I know nothing with respect to the objects of the company or the gentlemen who seek to be incorporated except what appears in the Bill. In the Bill certain objects are set forth, and it is clear that it is the intention of the incorporators to do a transcontinental and export business, to place themselves in a position to make connection with through railways and steamships and to have steamships of their own. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) need only refer to clause A of section 8. Or, if that does not satisfy him, let him refer to section 13, wherein it is stated that these gentlemen who seek incorporation desire to form a company that can enter into agreement with transcontinental railway companies, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern of Quebec, showing clearly that the object of this railway is to do an interprovincial, transcontinental and even international traffic. There is also clause A of section 10 which covers the right to engage in a navigation enterprise in connection with their railway, clearly having in view an export business. Now, I quite appreciate this fact -that, unless upon the facts we can declare that the work is for the general advantage of Canada we should not listen to the prayer of the petition. But if they desire to have power to do business that is beyond the limits of one province and so come within the jurisdiction of this parliament, it seems to me that in such a case it is for us to give them their powers, because they cannot get them elsewhere. The .moment we are not able to declare that the works of a company are for the general advantage of Canada, we are without jurisdiction and have no power even to enact such legislation; it is ultra vires of this parliament. A provincial legislature could incorporate these gentlemen, but could not grant them the powers asked for under sections 13, 10 and 8 of this Bill.


Mr. BARKER.: Is there any doubt that a provincial legislature can authorize its own creation to make any. ..contract with another company that has powers partly from the legislature creating that company?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would have to be ratified by this parliament.


Samuel Barker: 


Samuel Barker: Not at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: However, that is entirely begging the question; they could not get the powers asked in section 13. These jealousies that are stirred up as between the provincial and Dominion government are, I think, not in the best interests of either the province or the Dominion. Wherever a transportation company can come within the scope of the Dominion parliament, I think it is in the interests of transportation in this country that they should come here and that we should incorporate them. It is all important in the interests of transportation that the Railway Commission should have jurisdiction over the companies, certainly over railway companies seeking to make traffic agreements with other railroad corporations in other provinces, so that the railways may be subject to the orders of the commission. In the case of a purely local or provincial corporation the company should not come within the scope of the Dominion Railway Commission. I do not take issue with my hon. friend in his theory. All that he has said is very true, but it is not applicable to the circumstances of this Bill. That is why I supported the Bill in the committee. I would hesitate to support the granting of a Dominion charter to any railway, purely provincial in character. I am just as zealous in that regard as is my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). I speak for myself as one member of the committee, and only for myself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member (Mr. Emmerson) argues strongly that a provincial railway could not take advantage of the provision of clause 13, could not enter into agreements in regard to the handling of freight, &c. The Ontario and Northern Railway, which is entirely provincial, has entered into agreements with Dominion railways, and no trouble has resulted. This is done with many railways.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Would the Railway Commission have power to exercise any jurisdiction over that provincial entity?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are two Railway Commissions, the provincial and the Dominion, and the provincial commission has jurisdiction over provincial railways just as the Dominion has over Dominion railways. This company professes to desire to carry on transportation by navigation, but we find it is too frequently the ease that companies ask for rights of this kind, or the right to build storehouses or elevators, or to navigate inland wateTs, which in all probability they will never do, but abandon these rights of their charters and depend on the other features of their charters. We had a Power Bill before the House a few days ago. It originally applied to three rivers, the Rainy river, which

was international, the Nipigon which was navigable, and the Pigeon, which was neither navigable nor international. The Pigeon river was dropped from the Bill this year. I believe that the other two streams were taken in in order to get away from the control and jurisdiction of the provinces, on the grounds that one was a navigable river and the other an international stream. When a work is to be declared for the general advantage of Canada the promoter should be made to show that it is in reality for the general advantage. That phase in a Bill should not be a mere allegation Without any tangible foundation. This railway is all in the province of Quebec and the Quebec legislature could incorporate the company and give them power to do anything they desire to do. We had a representative of the provincial government come before our committee and protesting in the strongest way that it was an invasion of provincial rights, and would likely lead to trouble if it was continued. Surely we ought to have some respect for representatives of provincial governments when they come before us and tell us that we are invading their rights. We should have the strongest ground for doing so, otherwise we will be doing what the hon. gentleman says we ought to avoid, that is, creating difficulties between the provinces and the federal government. That is what we are doing here, and when we have representatives from the province protesting against it, saying that they have a right to give all the powers requisite to enable this corporation to carry out the purposes of its undertakings within a province, and in face of that are we going to usurp their authority by stating in this parliament that it is a work for the general advantage of Canada, and take it under our own control, and deprive the provinces of the control they are entitled to exercise? I think we should go very slowly on this question. As my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has said this question has been argued over and over again, and we have not been able to make our opinions prevail. The question is becoming more intense every year. The province of Ontario comes down here from time to time; there are several Bills on the paper of a similar character in which that province is interested. Last year they sent down their representatives, and I am told will do the same this year, to remonstrate against the invasion of provincial rights. The province of Quebec is doing its best to avoid the difficulty, the province of Ontario is putting forth all its influence to avoid it, and if, in face of these facts, we do over and over again invade provincial rights, we must in the end provoke a contest that will lead to no good results. I think we would be well advised if we took an early opportunity of ascertaining what the respective rights of the provinces and the Dominion are, so that we may keep within our rights, and not always be infringing upon the rights of the provinces. The more we do so the greater will be the trouble, and the more difficult will be a settlement in the future when this question comes to a climax, as it undoubtedly will some time.


Mr. CARVELL.: I agree somewhat with the hon. member for East Grey (Mr Sproule) when he claims that there should be a principle laid down to guide us in matters of this kind. We have had this question before the Railway Committee many times during the last three or four years, in fact there is hardly a Bill coming before the Railway Committee asking that a work be declared for the general advantage of Canada, on which we have not heard the question of provincial rights discussed. I do not intend to discuss the reasons why I should vote for this Bill, because I am willing to adopt the reasons advanced by my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). I think he has stated sufficient reasons to justify us in voting for the Bill. But I want to go further than that. There seems to be a doctrine advanced by many hon, gentlemen, especially those from Ontario, that we have no right to grant legislation or to create an entity if it be wholly within any province of Canada. Now I want to refer the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and also the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker)-and they are both reasonable men, the hon. member for Hamilton is no doubt a good lawyer-I want them to be fair, and tell this House whether, in their opinion, section 92 of the British North America Act did not contemplate just such legislation as is being proposed in this Bill, if it did not contemplate that this parliament should have the right to create a corporation for the purpose of doing business entirely within the province. Take clause (c) of subsection 10 of section 92, you will find that it especially exempts from the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures such works as, although wholly situated w'ithin the province, are, before or after their execution, declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada, or for the advantage of two or more provinces. Therefore the British parliament, when the British North America Act was being put through, specially contemplated that the federal parliament of Canada should have the right to create corporations for the purposes of carrying on works wholly within the province so long as that work was to the general advantage of Canada. But now the question arises on what principle should this narliament proceed in order to decide when any particular proposition is or is not for the general advantage of Canada? It seems to me that is an important thing for this parliament to consider, that is a thing we have been dis-

cussing in the Railway Committee ever since I have been a member of parliament and it is being discussed more and more every year. I believe with my hon. friend from East Grey that the time has arrived when a clear definition should be made, not of what are our rights, because we have all the rights possible, but when we should exercise our rights, and when we should refrain from exercising them. I think that is a fair proposition.
Now probablv I would go further than the hon. member for Hamilton, I would go so far as to say that a Bill, having for its purpose the incorporation of a railway company to connect with any 'other railwav company operated by steam, should h" incorporated by this parliament and not by the provincial legislature. I put forward that proposition for this reason:	To my
mind the greatest function which the Railway Commission ought to have in Canada is the regulation of rates and the preservation of life and property. Now I make the statement, I know my hon. friend from Hamilton will agree with me, that the Railway Commission has no power to regulate traffic rates over a railway created by a provincial legislature; therefore, in order to give the Railway Commission any control over the rates of a railroad we must have it created by the federal parliament and not by a provincial legislature. My hon. friend can see the difficulty he will be met with the very moment that a railway created by a local legislature attempts to do business with a railway, or make connection with a railway which is of a Dominion character. This petition asks for the right to build a railway from a point on the Transcontinental Railway to other places. It starts from a connection with a Dominion railroad, necessarily, when it is completed, it must come in contact with the Canadian Pacific Railway, with the Canadian Northern of Quebec, and probably with the old Grand Trunk Railway. Now if a man living on the line of this railway wishes to ship goods to any other portion of Canada he has got to get a rate from this road in conjunction with the other roads; or if he wants to bring goods from any portion of Canada into any other portion of Canada, he must get a through rate from the point of shipment to the point of distribution, and that means a rate over the Dominion road as well as over the local road. My hon. friend will agree with me that the Railway Commission has no power to control those rates, if this railroad is incorporated by the province of Quebec.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me for asking him a question? Is the hon. gentleman aware of the fact that the Federal Railway Commission has power to control through rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that a portion Mr. CARVELL.
of that railway running through the United States is under the insterstate law? But the Federal Railway Commission all the same takes into account the rates through that portion of the United States, right through to the coast, and makes a through rate all the same.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly, but that does not affect the proposition I am putting forward! We will suppose that a man wants to ship goods from the city of Montreal to Lake St. John. If he goes by the Canadian Pacific Railway there is no doubt the Railway Commission has a perfect right to say what the Canadian Pacific Railway shall charge from the city of Montreal to the point of intersection with the provincial railroad, but their powers end when they get a provincial charter.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Is it not a fact that the Railway Commission governs freight
rates on the Temiscaming and Northern Ontario Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway? I am a shipper over that road and I know that the schedule is printed and approved for both roads by the Railway Commission.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know. I am not a shipper, but I will tell my hon. friend and he knows it if he knows anything, that if this Railway Commission does control the rates it is by agreement and not by authority. I dare say there will be agreements, and I dare say many of these local companies are anxious to carry out the wishes of ,the Railway Commission. The hon. gentleman must know, if he knows anything of what he is talking about


John Allister Currie: Excuse me; the hon. gentleman asks me to state a fact


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not asking the hon. gentleman anything. I repeat that the Railway Commission has no power to control rates over any railway created by the province of Quebec. For these reasons I think this Bill should pass, and I think there should be a declaration by this House as to what character or class of undertaking we should declare to be for the general advantage of Canada. Personally I believe that such legislation should extend to all railways which intersect any other railways operated by steam.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not merely intersect, but make a junction with them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Make a junction with or have an interchange of traffic. When we get down to street railway, it is a purely local enterprise. It has no necessity of making freight rates or having an interchange of traffic with other roads. Therefore, I think these street railways should be entirely incorporated by the provinces. But in so far as this road is concerned,

and all others of a like nature, I contend that this parliament and this parliament alone ought to govern.


Mr. W. B NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, as I am responsible for the bringing up of this question before the railway committee yesterday, I may be allowed to say a word.
Whatever may have been the mode of procedure followed heretofore, and altogether the words 'work for the general advantage of Canada ' may have been in most cases inserted in Bills of a similar nature, I do not think that the constitution of our country has; been modified in consequence. I, for one, consider that the whole matter turns on the question as to whether we havel the right and authority required for inserting that clause in such Bills.
In turn, I may be allowed to read the article of the constitution just quoted by the hon. gentleman for Carleton (Mr. Car-vell), though I am bound to give it a) different meaning:
Sec. 92, paragraph c., ' Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.'
It will thus be seen that such works should before or after their execution be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. In a charter like this statements of all kinds may be inserted. For instance, I may request authority to build a railway in the city of Ottawa, with power to extend the line into the United States; but my requesting such authority does not in itself, to my mind, suffice to endow the Dominion parliament with the enabling power required. It frequently occurs that people who ask for charters for such undertakings have no great assurance of being in a position to carry them on very far, and the idea seems to be that the inserting of such a clause will give this parliament jurisdiction That is not my belief. To my mind, some evidence of one's intents and means is required. Yesterday, before the committee, no attempt was made to show that this undertaking was for the advantage of Canada. That is where such evidence should have been adduced, as it is known that when such a Bill is referred back to the House, such proof is supposed to have been made. Inserting in the Bill this or that statement does not give parliament jurisdiction. In the present instance, no attempt even has been made to show that this undertaking was for the general interest of Canada.
All these clauses inserted in Bills, as for instance those in Section 13, which empower the company to enter into arrangements with the Grand Trunk, Canadian Pacific Railway and other railway companies, are no evidence at all, and often
have for their sole object to enable the promoters to sell out to other companies. These gentlemen might just as well have asked for a grant of all the franchises mentioned in the revised statutes, so as to be in a position to sell them at some time or other. Very often things are managed just in that fashion.
If such a principle were to be accepted, provincial rights would be utterly destroyed, and there would be no sense in a local legislature granting charters, since the Dominion parliament would have control over everything I understand that when a railway has been created under a provincial charter, and it becomes necessary, on account of its extension, to declare it a work 'for the general advantage of Canada,' the Dominion parliament may so declare it; but I maintain that such a step may be taken only after the undertaking has been carried out. On the other hand, if it should be found desirable to make such a declaration before going on with the undertaking, some evidence as to its truth should be required. This is precisely what was omitted before the committee yesterday.
I protest against the habit of inserting into all such Bills a general clause of this character, without any attempt at all at proving that such works are for the 'general advantage of Canada.'


Mr. SEALEY.: In this connection, I have as much respect for provincial rights as any man in the House. I believe they should be respected but in the matter of railways I do not think there is room for any two opinions as to whether all railways in Canada having an interchange of commerce and traffic should be under the direction, control and influence of the Dominion Railway Commission. We have, in our neighbours to the south of us a striking illustration that we should not follow. There all the great railways endeavour, if possible, in their connecting links, to get a short road that is operated by a State charter, that is beyond the influence of the Interstate Commerce Law, because on these short branches, they are able to collect extortionate tolls on traffic that passes over them. In fact, -the great roads of the United States all have short lines of railway and they invariably, if at all possible, route traffic over these lines, explaining, in many cases where they have parallel or alternative lines, that they have no working arrangement with the lines that they directly control, but that they have working arrangements with the lines which they own and hold by trustees for their own good and welfare. For that reason the Interstate Commerce Commission has no jurisdiction and shippers are charged extortionate rates. Surely, if it is at all possible to prevent it, we should not create a condition of that kind in Canada. As has been said, those

railways which are strictly within the province should be chartered by the province and should be under the control of the province. If they limited their business entirely to the province, and did not come in conjunction with the general railways of the country the objection possibly would not be so great, but there is no railway, long or short, that proposes to do a business at all but has to have arrangements for the interchange of traffic with other railways and when they begin to do that, and they cannot exist without doing it, they should certainly come under 'the direction and control of the Dominion Railway Commission.
The Temiscaming and Northern Ontario railway has been held up as an illustration, but I know ffom my own experience and from correspondence with officials of, that road and of the Grand Trunk Railway that we are unable in many cases to compel them to quote rates because it does not come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. It can, as I understand only be compelled to make traffic arrangements with the other railways by the good will of these other railways. I believe that the Temiscaming and Northern Ontario, good and all as it is in this province, ought by some means or other be brought under the Dominion Railway Commission. The province of Ontario has a provincial railway commission and they can control certain matters, but it is seldom that two commissions with different authority will agree, and so the best results cannot be obtained. Freight originating in the western provinces and shipped to the seaboard or on a through rate to the old country would lose not only the advantage of railway competition but of ocean competition as well, because under the arrangement which the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway have with the ocean liners, the through rates to the old country are' fairly steady and settled. This railway, with perhaps new terminals in Montreal and Quebec that will accommodate tramp steamers and all kinds of carriers which give lower rates for the heavier and coarser traffic, would be in a position to absorb all that difference and notwithstanding that the trunk lines would give as cheap rates from Vancouver and the west through to a junction near Montreal or Quebec, this little junction railway would be outside the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission and in that way they could extort a toll that would leave very little if any advantage for the shipper by reason of this alternate route. There does not seem any sound reason why any strip of railway should be permitted to do interchange of traffic business unless it is brought under the direction of the Dominion Railway Commission. While, in many matters it is perhaps right to stick Mr. SEA LET.
to the provincial rights idea to the letter it is not a consideration at all, to my way of thinking, in the matter of railways doing a general interchange transportation business.
The hour for private bills expired.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 23) respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. McIntyre
(Strathcona).	.	...
Bill (No. 28) respecting the union station and other joint facilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Midland Railway Company of Manitoba at Portage La Prairie.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 38) respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company. Mr. Dubeau.
Bill (No. 41) respecting the Tilsonburg Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. Schell.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in Committee of Supply.
David Henderson: I take very strong objection to the position laid down by the Minister of Agriculture as to the right of a minister to frank mail matter outside of what appertains to the business of his own department during the recess of parliament. When I noticed the large circulation through the mails of this campaign literature in my county, I drew the attention of the people to the manner in which the revenue of the country was being defrauded in the interests of the government candidate in that country, and I naturally argued that the man who would do that sort of thing was not the man to send to parliament. I believe that was a fair and proper argument. The Minister of Agriculture has now argued that he considers that a min-' ister has the right during the recess to frank any mail matter that he sees fit, notwithstanding that it may have no reference whatever to the business of his own department. I raise my protest against the statement of the Minister of Agriculture because I feel that if I allowed it to go unchallenged, the argument I made during the campaign would be unfounded. I believe that the Postmaster General is quite in sympathy with my contention, that no minister of the Crown has the right to frank such campaign literature. On examining the frank on this envelope I believe it to be the frank of a minister of the Crown-I will not mention fris name-who occupies a seat in another house, and I fear it is but a repetition of what occurred years ago. Again I protest against this unfair and illegal use of the franking privilege by a minister. It would be monstrous if a minister of the Crown could, during

the parliamentary interim, frank everything and anything he thought fit, by the ton or the hundred tons, contrary to the regulations, which are explicit and clear that he has the right to frank only matter that has some connection with his department. I have said this in order to justify myself, and not to leave unchallenged the statement that was made this afternoon or to leave my people to suppose that I had raised a point during the election which was not tenable.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This afternoon I asked the hon. Postmaster General a question in regard to the salaries of letter carriers. I may remind him that his superintendent made certain recommendations to the Civil Service Commission in this matter, and in the Civil Service Act of last session I believe the salaries of the class to which letter carriers belong were placed at from $500, as a minimum, to $800, as a maximum. The recommendations of Mr. Ross, I think, put the salaries on a per diem basis instead of a yearly basis, and included some other recommendations, especially one relating to superannuation. I would like the minister to tell us whether he intends to adopt any of these recommendations of Mr. Ross, and if so, when?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I had not forgotten that question. My hon. friend, and indeed all the other members of the House, are very anxious that something should be done not only for the inside service, but also for the outside service. However, it is not a question of sympathy; it is a question of business. Whatever may be the sympathy of the incumbent of the Post Office Department, he has to submit to the wish of the government as a unit. Being myself a son of a poor civil servant, my sympathies, of course, go towards the outside civil servants. I am not at liberty, however, to place an amount in the estimates to give an increase to the letter carriers and the clerks in the pest offices. I am governed by the Post Office Act, which establishes different grades and fixes the salaries of the different classes. Since I have been acting as Postmaster General I have received delegation after delegation, and I can claim a little credit for having myself asked for the appointment of the recent Civil Service Commission. I have read the whole of the report, including the evidence given by each of the very able employees of the department, such as the deputy Postmaster General, the acting Deputy Postmaster General, and the chief superintendent, who are in daily contact with the employees. I have my own views on the subject, and although I cannot take the House into my confidence just now, as to what will be done in the near future, I may say that the acting deputy minister has prepared with myself a report which will be before council very shortly, on this very question of salaries 54
for the outside service in the Post Office Department. All I can say at present is that the matter is engaging the attention of the government.


Mr. LAKE.: The minister this afternoon made the statement that the moment a railway was built, advantage was taken of it to carry the mails by the trains. I do not think that has always been the case. I have just had letters from two small towns in my constituency, Odessa and Davin, which are situated on the Brandon and Regina branch of the Canadian Northern Railway, asking that they should have regular mail service carried by the trains. A train is run each way every day, and yet these places are receiving their mails only once a week, by means of the overland stage route. I imagine it likely that these would not be the only places along the line which are in the same position. If the Postmaster General will go into that question, and take advantage of the daily train service to provide a daily mail for the people, it will be very much in the interest of the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: These two towns are on the main line of the railway, and I see no reason why they should be deprived of the railway mail service. If my hon. friend will make the usual application, the department will certainly look with favour on his request.


Richard Stuart Lake: I heard that they had already applied to the department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: These things take time. There is a little red tape, but we try to avoid delay as far as possible. I see no reason why they should not have a daily mail.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.: I regret the conclusion the Postmaster General has come to with respect to the remuneration of the letter carriers, and I feel that he also regrets the stand that he is obliged to take. It seems to me that no work of the post office is more important than that of those who are delivering the mail, either a letter carrier or railway mail clerks. We ought to pay our officials in that capacity remuneration equivalent to that paid those similarly situated in other countries. For instance, in the United States men engaged in this work are very much better paid than in Canada. The work done by these men is onerous; it calls for men of education, strong men both in mind and body. In addition, the railway mail clerks take their lives in their hands when they engage in their work. The letter carriers perform an excellent service and receive small remuneration and enjoy few privileges. I had thought to raise this question when the Civil Service Bill was under consideration, but this seems a favourable opportunity. I would call the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that the earning power



of his department is very large. Take, for instance, Toronto, which yields a large postal revenue, quite the largest of any city in Canada. It does seem to me that the men who perform there the work of letter carriers should receive something more than $1.25 or $1.50 a day. The statute, it is true, limits the minister's powers in this matter. But there is surely a way to amend Acts of this kind, and it is for the government to take the initiative in relieving the hardships of government employees wherever they exist. No one would oppose the appropriation of a reasonable sum to remunerate these men for services performed. I urge upon the minister very full consideration of this matter. The subject is one upon which the public feel deeply. Unfortunately, we see occasionally accounts of men in the post office service who betray their trust. In all such cases there is a public sentiment for the man who is receiving a mere pittance of $1.25 or $1.50 a day and is tempted to pilfer a letter. These men are trustees of money as well as performers of an important public service. I do hope that the minister's statement that this matter is under consideration is something substantial, that he means that the matter is to be dealt with in a way to give satisfaction to the public. After all, it is public service and the public pay for it. The Post Office yields a large revenue, and I do not think it is expected by the public that the Post Office is to be made a taxing department; we are satisfied if a good postal service is given and the department makes both ends meet. The public wants the best service they can get, and they want to pay fairly for efficiency. I am not one of those who believe that it is wise to ring a bell in the public street and call upon those who will undertake to work at low rates to enter the service. The men who do this work should be treated as the rest of the service are treated. They should not be regarded as being in the outside service; they are in the service of the country, in the service of the King, and they should be given a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. The minister will not hear any cavil on this side if he improves the condition of the men of whom I have been speaking, men whom the public believes to be entitled to more than they are receiving.


Mr. G. V. WHITE.: I desire to say a word especially upon behalf of the railway mail clerks. I agree with what my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. A. C. Macdonell) has said, that these men occupy a very hazardous position-I may say the most hazardous position in the public service. If any men in the public service deserve an increase, they are the railway mail clerks. By way of illustration, I may refer to an accident that happened a short time Mr. MACDONELL.
ago in my own constituency. The local train carrying the mail between Pembroke and Ottawa ran into a light locomotive. On that train were two railway mail clerks, and both these men were injured, not to any great extent, I understand, but one of them so seriously that he has been unable to resume work up to the present time. I should be very glad to see an increase given to these officials.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Is there a minimum salary for country postmasters?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, $35.


Arthur Meighen: Are there any cases in which they are paid a merely nominal sum -less than the minimum?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Arthur Meighen: How long has this minimum been in force?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In 1896,-speaking of the new era-the minimum salary of rural postmasters was $10. This applied to postmasters whose offices yielded almost no revenue. In 1897, or 1898, Sir Wm. Mu-lock increased that minimum to $25, and at the same time he increased the percentage given to the postmasters on postal notes and money orders. This was a good thing for the accounting offices. The small offices that do not sell postal notes or issue money orders are called non-accounting offices. Two years ago, I increased the minimum to $35 a year. I made another scale which I have not under my hand, of percentages for the sale of money orders and postal notes. I also made a larger allowance for rent, fuel, and light. On the whole the increase has been found satisfactory. The scale of increases is fully explained in this circular to postmasters:
Post Office Department, Canada,
Ottawa, September 17, 1907.
Postmasters are informed that the Postmaster General, after careful consideration of representations made by those postmasters whose salaries are based on the revenue of their offices, has decided on the following scale of remuneration.
Salary.
Fifty per cent on the first $1,000 of revenue, 30 per cent on all over $1,000 and up to $10,000, and 20 per cent on all over $10,000 of revenue, the minimum salary to be $35.
Allowance for Night Duty.
An allowance will be paid for night duty when a postmaster is required to he on duty after 9 p.m. or before 7 a.m. The minimum allowance will be $10, and the maximum $100, according to the time employed, and the work done.
Allowance for Forward Duty.
The rate of remuneration will be 12J per cent on the revenue of the offices for which direct or indirect forward duty is performed.

Allowance for Rent, Light and Fuel.
This allowance is to be increased by 35 per cent. Therefore, if a postmaster is now receiving $100 under this head, he will receive $125 under the new scale.
Compensation for the transaction of Money Order, Savings Bank, and Postal Note Business.
Money Order Business.
Four cents for each money order issued, and one cent for each order paid. Formerly postmasters were paid | per cent on the amount of all orders issued, and | per cent on the amount of foreign orders paid. This scale operated unfairly. For instance, while the work involved in the issue of a $100 order is no greater than in the issue of a $5 order, the commission the postmaster received from the $100 order was 25 cents, whilst for the $5 older only If cents. The system of paying so much a piece for the issue and payment of order is fairer in that the remuneration follows the work, and the rates above proposed will give the postmasters a somewhat better commission than they receive at present.
Savings Bank Business.
The rate of remuneration will remain as heretofore.
Postal Note Business.
One cent for each note sold.
The general revision of postmasters' salaries and allowances will be made as soon as possible, but as there are over 12,000 offices to be considered, it will take some time to complete the work. The salaries and rent allowances will be revised first, and each postmaster will be duly notified of any increase that he may be entitled to. The revision of allowances for forward and night duty will follow immediately after that of salaries.
All increases, either in salaries or allowances, will take effect from April 1, 1907.


R. M. COULTER,
[Stage Direction]
Deputy Postmaster General.
I have here a scale of rent allowance to take effect from 1st of April, 1907:
Ontario Manitoba and East, and West.
Revenue.	Allowance. Allowance.
From To
up	bo $	: ioo	. .. 0	0100	to	200	. .. 6	6200	to	300	. .. 13	13300	to	400	. .. 19	19too	to	500	... 25	25500	to	600	. .. 31	31600	to	700	. .. 38	38700	to	800	. .. 44	44800	to	1,200	. .. 50	041,200	to	1,600	. .. 75	1251,600	to	2,000	. .. 100	1562,000	to	2,500	. .. .125	1882,500	to	3.000	. .. 150	2193,000	to	3,500	. .. 175	2503,500	to	4,000	. .. 200	2814,000	to	4,500	. .. 225	3134,500	to	5,000	. .. 250	3445,000	to	5,500	... 275	3755,500	to	6,000	. .. 300	4066.000	to	6,500	. .. 325	4386,500	to	7,000	. .. 350	46954J	r	
Revenue. From
Ontario and East. Allowance.
Manitoba and West. Allowance.
To
7,000 to 7,500	. .. 375	5007,500 to 8,000	. .. 400	5318,000 to 8,500	. .. 425	5638,500 to 9,000	. .. 450	5949,000 to 9,500	. .. 475	6259,500 to 10,000	. .. 500	65610,000 to 10,500	. .. 525	68810,500 to 11,000	... 550	71911,000 to 11,500	. .. 575	75011,500 to 12,000	. .. 600	78112,000 to 12,500	... 625	81312,500 to 13,000	. .. 650	84413,000 to 13,500	. .. 675	87513,500 to 14,000	... 700	90614,000 to 14,500	. .. 725	93814,500 to 15,000	. .. 750	969
Arthur Meighen: I have here a cheque given in payment of the salary of the postmaster at Makaroff in Manitoba. The other information which I have in connection with this case was furnished me by the member for Dauphin, who, unfortunately, is not here to-night. The postmaster there, according to my information and according to a cheque which I have here, receives from the government a very small salary. His duties consist of attending to the arrival of the mail on the train at 11 o'clock at night and 4 in the morning the year round. He also attends to the distribution of the mail. For that he is paid one dollar per annum.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As mail courier probably.


Arthur Meighen: They pay him quarterly in more senses than one, and I have here a cheque of 25 cents in payment of his salary for the quarter ending December, 1905, as postmaster at Makaroff station. He presented this cheque in the usual course, the bank charged him on each cheque 25 cents so the government can figure out what his annual recompense is.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I said a moment ago that the minimum salary paid to postmasters throughout Canada is $35. Sometimes we are asked to establish a temporary post office, perhaps for a club of business men at a summer camp, and to oblige them so that they will not be deprived of their mail, we appoint a postmaster, generally the caretaker, but of course we do not expect to pay him. As to the small payment to mail courriers our policy is to call for tenders and to give the mail contract to the lowest tenderer, but even when the amount is very low, we always find some one ready to offer his services at a lower figure. In the county of Nicolet which I represented for two sessions, there is a place, St. Gr^goire, where the service for years between that point and Nicolet, three or five miles, has been carried at 99 cents a year. The reason

is that the mail carrier also operates a stage and as the people know he must be at the station at certain times to deliver the mail, he gets practically all the patronage of the whole district, and while he receives only 99 cents as courier, he makes $600 or $700 on account of his privilege of carrying His Majesty's mail. This is a very old cheque, January, 1906.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are not your government cheques payable at par at any bank?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: The bank returned it to him. I may explain that Makaroff is a purely country post office on the Canadian Northern road. It could not possibly be for the purpose of business men, because there are very few business men there permanently. I am informed there are 23 farmers, at a minimum, using the post office the year round.


Rodolphe Lemieux: According to the last report of the department the revenue of Makaroff, in the county of Marquette, is $98.88, and we pay a salary of $87.83. We pay the postmaster besides $12 a year for office allowances.


Mr. ROCHE.: Makaroff is in the local constituency of Dauphin.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Since 1906 many of these little villages on the Canadian Northern have grown into towns or cities.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: I would like to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the needs of the people of North Toronto, a large and populous town contiguous to the city, for a letter carrier delivery. Until recently the town of West Toronto, which i3 now a portion of the city, had a letter carrier delivery, so also had the town of East Toronto. These two towns have now gone into the city, and are the district of the hon. member for North Toronto. The people of North Toronto think now that inasmuch as they are contiguous to the city they ought also to have a letter carrier delivery like West Toronto and East Toronto had before. I wish the minister would look into that and see if he cannot give this large town of 4,000 or 6,000 people a letter carrier delivery.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do they elect aldermen?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, it has a regular municipal organization, with a mayor and council. While I am on my feei, I would like to direct the attention of the minister to another matter, and that is a postal service for the new mining camp of Gowganda. The most active centre of business in all Canada to-day is in Elk lake and Gowganda. The minister has been good enough to give a service to Elk lake, and also I believe to South Gowganda. But Gowganda proper, which is now being cre-


Rodolphe Lemieux: ated a town by the legislature of Ontario, has for weeks been trying to get a postal service. The minister says he has taken it up and he is waiting for it to be erected into a town by the legislature of Ontario. But in the meantime it is an immense business centre. There are some days a hundred teams of traffic on the road to Gowganda. There are three banks now, there are hotels and stores being built every day, many capitalists are going up there, a telephone wire is being put in, and the people greatly feel the need of improved postal facilities. It is true it will cost a little more money, perhaps $5 or $10 a day, to establish a first-class courier service from Earlton and Elk lake, but there is so great a business there that it would pay the government to make an extra effort to give them a first-class accommodation. The revenue the customs house is taking in from the consumption of dutiable goods in Gowganda and in that northern country, I fancy, is larger than the revenue derived from cities of 20,000 persons. It is the centre of a great industry, and in view of these facts the government ought to follow the enterprise of those people and give them an excellent postal service. If the minister does that he will gain the approval not only of that portion of Ontario but of the whole country. There are men coming in there now from New York, from Montreal, from Toronto, from the old country, they are driving in there, they are on the trail now, for navigation to open to get in, and there will be a rush there in a short time' That being the case the place is worthy of a good postal service. I understand the minister has delayed action until the Ontario government has established the town site. But there are lots of houses there which would be glad to take care of the post office and give every reasonable accommodation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad my hon. friend has again brought this matter to my attention. As he is aware, we have called for tenders between Earlton and Elk City. Although during the season of bad roads we are paying $25 a day and for the remainder of the year $5 a day to the present service, yet the department has not hesitated for a moment to undertake that expense for the benefit of the people at Gowganda. At another point I have just established a tri-weekly service which is quite sufficient for the present. We are now paying $30 a day for only a few people in that country, but as soon as the tenders are in and the Ontario government have settled where the town site will be, the postal service will be established. But I do not think it would be fair to the Ontario government if we were to locate a post office outside the town site, I think it is only fair that we should wait the action of that government. The Ontario government are doing their utmost to meet our wishes.


William Findlay Maclean: I think the town site was defined yesterday in a Bill in the legislature.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like to say a word with reference to a free mail delivery for the town of Owen Sound. I forwarded a communication to the minister, but he has not yet answered it. The town of Owen Sound, as the minister may have noticed, is about to be incorporated into a city. It has a population at present of about 13,000, and it has lately annexed a portion of the adjoining village of Brooke. According to the last report of the Postmaster General, it had a revenue in 1908 of $23,000; and I think I am safe in saying that after the annexation of the town of Brooke it will have a revenue of $25,000 or $26,000. The number of post office orders issued last year was 3,116.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend need not go any further. If they have that population and revenue they are entitled to free mail delivery within the city.


William Sora Middlebro: Thank you very much. Will the Postmaster General kindly inform me what steps are necessary to secure free mail delivery?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The city clerk sends officially to the department a statement as to the population of the new city of Owen Sound, because, I understand, you have made additions to the city. Then the city must undertake to number the streets in order to facilitate the delivery of letters. When that is done we send our inspector to organize the delivery, we appoint letter carriers and we give notice to that effect to the citizens.


William Sora Middlebro: Will the minister kindly send me a communication to that effect?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Very well.


Mr. SMYTH.: I understand that the hon. the Postmaster General this afternoon made a statement that some of the members on this side of the House had been abusing the franking privilege by sending prospectuses in connection with some enterprise in Gow-ganda through the mails. As a member from that northern part of the country and being engaged in the mining industry to a certain extent I felt that perhaps it was a reflection upon myself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, it is not the hon. gentleman.


William Ross Smyth: I think the hon. gentleman surely then should have been as frank <in his statement as hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were with him, because they named the parties who were doing the franking. I feel that it is a reflection upon myself and I rise to say that I am not guilty of using the franking privilege in that way. But while I am on my feet I might just say
that I know whereof I speak, because, within a very few days of becoming a candidate for the House of Commons, I had the honour to be one of your humble servants in being the postmaster at a town in the district of Algoma, and I was astonished at the quantity of matter that was franked through that office, notwithstanding that it is only a small country office, under the frank of several gentlemen on the other side of the House. It was sent all over the constituency and it was nothing more or less than political literature. I think that some portraits of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) were franked through my post office, and one person had the

I might say-gall to want to take one of these portraits of our honoured leader, and have it posted on my store window to show the good qualities of our worthy Prime Minister. Of course, I objected to that, but I just want to say that there was a great deal of franking done through that small office and judging from the amount of matter that went through that office I am sure it must have been sent through some of the larger offices in thti district by the ton weight.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not have in mind the hon. gentleman this afternoon when I referred to the use which had been made of the franking privilege to spread broadcast circulars concerning Gowganda shares. What I said was that I had received from a firm in Toronto a complaint that a gentleman in the House, a new member probably, was using his frank to send circulars through the country. The firm which complained was in the same business as the member who was using the frank and it was a matter of rivalry between the two firms.


George Gordon: As I have the honour to represent the constituency in which Gowganda is situated, and since the minister has been good enough to clear the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Smyth) of the charge made this afternoon, I would ask him to say that I am not the person referred to either. I have not abused the franking privileges in any way, nor shall I do so as long as I am a member of this House. I thank the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) for impressing upon the Postmaster General the advisability of giving postal facilities to Gowganda just as quickly as he possibly can. I would have said something before this upon the subject, had I not had the assurance of the Postmaster General that he was doing all he could and that he would have a postoffice there within a very few days.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend was not the member mentioned nor intended to be mentioned. Therefore he is not guilty.


James William Maddin: I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Postmaster

General the fact that the city of Sydney, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, has a population, as nearly as it could be enumerated a year ago, by the clergymen of the different denominations, the school teachers in the city, and the assessors under the direction of the city council, of 14,800 plus and that for the last two or three years the question of free mail delivery has been mooted down there. Some three years ago the city numbered the different streets in order to comply with that part of the regulations. I would like to ask the Postmaster General now what further steps are necessary to be taken in order to have the free mail delivery system inaugurated in that city. Whilst I am on my feet there are three other little matters which I desire to mention. I am sorry to be delaying the passing of these estimates, I have no objection to them, I may say, and I feel quite satisfied the Postmaster General is endeavouring to do his very best under the circumstances. I am not criticising the expenditure. There is a new town called Waterford and at this place two coal mines were opened up about 15 months ago. There are residing at that place over 200 families, and as the mine goes deeper and its development and output increase this population wjll grow. A year from the incoming spring they will have anywhere from 500 to 600 men employed at mines Nos. 12 and 14. For the last eight or nine months mail matter directed to that place has been carried to the employees and people living there in the houses erected by the Coal Co. by merchants who truck their goods from Sydney, and the adjoining towns of Glace Bay and Dominion.
A post office was promised to Waterford and several local people were told they would be appointed postmaster, so that the Postmaster General will have no difficulty in selecting somebody for the position. It is absolutely necessary that a post office should be opened there when we consider that there are over 200 families who are dependent on the present altogether inadequate mail service. Then again, there is a stretch of twelve miles of rich farming country along the Myra river extending from Marion bridge to Salmon river, which is without a post office. There is a post office at Marion bridge and another at Salmon river but in the twelve miles between there i3 none, and in view of the fact that the Post Office Department had a surplus last year and that the estimates for this year include an increase of $193,000 for the mail service, I press upon the Postmaster General that he should open a new post office within that twelve miles of country. I would also direct the attention of the Postmaster General to another matter. If the hon. minister was present when the resolution of the hon. member for Guysbor-ough was being discussed early in the Mr. MADDIN.
session, he will remember that I pointed out that it would greatly assist the isolated fishing villages round the coast if they were granted better postal facilities. The constituency I represent has an extensive coast line and so my constituents are greatly interested in this matter. The mail for Bauline is made up at Main-a-Dieu and despatched to Bauline once every week on Friday. Now, the mail for Little Lorraine is also made up at Main-a-Dieu and goes to Little Lorraine three times a week. Little Lorraine and Bauline are equi-distant from Main-a-Dieu where the mail is made up and the mail carrier in going from Main-a-Dieu to Little Lorraine is obliged to pass within a mile or a mile and a half of Bauline, so that the Postmaster General could very easily provide that the people of Bauline should have a mail delivery three times a week. These people are all settled very closely together in a little cove thrust out on the Rocky shores of the Atlantic, and although they are only thirty miles from Sydney, so far as the mail service is concerned they are as far away from that city as if they lived in Vancouver.- These are the only matters in connection with the Post Office estimates which I wish to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General, and I trust he will give them the consideration which I think they deserve. As to free mail delivery in the city of Sydney, the Postmaster General has stated that if there was a population of over 13,000 in a city it was entitled to this privilege.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And a revenue of over $20,000. I am told that the revenue of Sydney is $22,000 so that it comes within the rule.


James William Maddin: Yes. I may take it for granted then that the free mail delivery system will be extended to the town of Sydney.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My answer to the hon. gentleman from North Grey (Mr. Middle-bro) covers the city of Sydney. If there are over 200 families at Waterford I am surprised they have not already applied for a post office. How far are they from the nearest post office?


James William Maddin: The nearest post office is at Lingan, five miles away. The Postmaster at Lingan has a son who runs a store at Waterford and he goes home nearly every day or his brother comes over to Lingan and the mail is handled by them in that way. I know for a fact that a request for a post office at Waterford was submitted to Mr. Johnston who represented this riding in the last parliament and he gave his personal pledge that a post office would be established. In fact this young man Burke, the son of the postmaster at Lingan who does business at the new town

of Waterford was promised the appointment of postmaster and so far as I am personally concerned there would be no objection to his appointment because he is doing his work pretty well now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will look up the papers in these cases.


Mr.   J.@: 1). TAYLOR. We would like very much to have the post office at New Westminster made a city post office. What are the requirements for a city post office?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are three grades, the ordinary post office, the city staff post office, and finally the city post office. The New Westminster post office has not yet reached the dignity of city staff standing. New Westminster is entitled to free delivery and that will lead to the other grade in a few months probably. The other day we wrote to the New Westminster authorities and within five or six weeks we will probably have a free city delivery, but my hon. friend must not be too ambitious to begin with. We are chary about establishing city post offices because they will come under the Civil Service Act and that will entail quite a large expenditure, so that the revenue from such offices must be correspondingly large. It is only the post offices in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, London, Hamilton, Quebec, Halifax and such large cities that are city post offices.


James Davis Taylor: I appreciate very much what the Postmaster General is going to do in giving us free city delivery, but I would impress on him that the business of the New Westminster post office is very congested.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the revenue?


James Davis Taylor: $22,000 according to the last report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are offices yielding a revenue of $60,000 which have not reached the dignity of city post offices, but that will come in time.


James Davis Taylor: What we want in New Westminster is that the government shall take the responsibility of administering the office and provide a sufficient staff to do the work. At present the postmaster controls the office and pays his assistants, and he claims that the revenue does not permit him to engage sufficient men to provide the service to which the city is entitled; because, in addition to attending to the city service, the office is the distributing office for the district. The people of New Westminster will be very much disappointed to know that they are only getting half measure from the department, because they supposed that when they got free delivery, they would get what usually goes with it. I may say that New Westminster has been growing very rapidly of late. Within a few years its population has doubled, and the conditions which were all right a few years ago have become almost intolerable, and it will be a source of great embarrassment to the people if the post office does not keep up with the march of progress made by the city.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that about a month ago I made application for a post office at Hazel Ridge, on the Molson cut-off of the Canadian Pacific Railway, about twenty-five miles east of Winnipeg. There is a station there, so that the expense wouljd be very small. At present people have to travel five miles to get their mail, and sometimes the roads are impassable. I hope the minister will see his way to provide that post office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the petition has been sent, it is probably now in the hands of the inspector, and I am awaiting his report.


George Henry Bradbury: I hope the report will be favourable. If not, I hope the minister will see it is made favourable. I have also sent a letter to the minister in regard to the need of improved mail facilities between Selkirk and Winnipeg.


Mr LEMIEUX.: I received the letter this morning, and the hon. member will get the answer to-morrow.


George Henry Bradbury: The Selkirk people are labouring under great disadvantages at the present time, and I trust that the minister will see his way to giving them the improved facilities they desire.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: I want to say a *word in support of the position taken by my hon. friend from New Westminster. I never could understand why a postmaster in a city office and the men employed under him should not be directly employed and paid by the government. In offices where this is not the case, the tendency is to in crease the salary of the postmaster and get inefficient labour at small salaries to assist him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The policy of the department, since a year or fifteen months ago, has been, wherever we are justified by the revenue of the post office, to fix the salary of the postmaster at a point and pay the officers under him.


Ralph Smith: Is there a fixed revenue ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have adopted the $20,000, but if the revenue is close to that' figure, we do not exact the pound of flesh. At the same time, we give the city the benefit of free delivery.


Ralph Smith: My point is that if you employ a postmaster to supervise
17X1

an office, with a revenue of $20,000, why do you not do the same for an office with a revenue of $15,000? I think the postmaster should be put on salary, and the employees under him should be paid and supervised by the department in both cases.


Mr. HEBRON.: Complaints are made that the accommodation for the post office of the town of Pincher Creek, where I live, are very inadequate. It is a little place six feet by ten to accommodate a town of 1,500 people; that is the exact size, because I measured it, and there is only one wicket for all the business of the office. However I have no complaint to make about the way the business is conducted, including money orders and postal notes. I am sure the Postmaster General himself will admit that this is not the kind of mail service that should be given to the people of a town of that size. About a month ago I put in an application for a post office at Spring Ridge, which is in the direction of the Kootenay river. Has the minister arrived at a decision in regard to it ? I think generally we should have better mail service in that country than we have. I believe we are entitled to tri-weekly mails where now they are only weekly. There are mail routes there that have been established for ten or twelve years, well settled throughout their whole length and yet with only one mail a week. The people are complaining, more particularly in view of the fact that the Postmaster General is able to report a large surplus. One other point : complaints have been made to the Postmaster General, either through myself or direct, of the condition of the post office at' Macleod. I am sure that the Postmaster General will admit that the accommodations there are not sufficient. Macleod is an important centre of commerce. The post office service there is not fit for a place one-fifth the size, and the Postmaster General knows it. There are other complaints that I need not mention here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As to the Macleod post office, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Herron) has already called my attention to the matter outside this House, and it is now engaging the attention of the department. This is the first time my hon. friend has told me of the unsatisfactory accommodation of the post office at Pincher Creek.


John Herron: I was not complaining of the postmaster


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite understand, it is a question of the accommodation. I take a special note of the hon. gentleman's complaint. I suppose he is simply re-echoing the complaint of the public, and we will notify the postmaster to provide the necessary accommodation. As regards the increase in the mail service from weekly to tri-weekly and daily, I may say that we have been making these increases quite Mr. RALPH SMITH.
freely for the last few years. In this year's report of the department, the hon. gentleman will see_ that the number of miles which the mails have been carried by railway, water route and ordinary land route was 1,129,779 miles more than the previous year. Of course, the railway and water routes account for a great deal of this, but still there is a large increase in the land route system also. I do not at all refuse to increase the service when there is the least justification for doing so. I have stated before, when my estimates were before the House, that where there is a population of, say, 25 or 30 people in the Northwest, I never refuse to open a post office. When the distance is not extraordinarily long I usually begin with a tri-weekly service. That is my policy for the west, and when the railways run near by and settlements extend, I increase the mails in many cases for tri-weekly to daily.


John Herron: I have in mind now a route running south from my town through thickly-settled country for twenty miles or more, a route that has been in existence for ten years or more, and still only one mail a week. That is one case, and I believe you can find dozens of others in my own constituency. I do not know whether these people have been making requests for a better service-they have not been making them through me. But the facts are as I have stated. There are three or four hundred families on a route, and they come twelve miles for their mail to the different post offices along the route. I do not think that is a proper service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not, either.


Mr. BARNARD.: Has the minister any recent communications from the letter carriers of Victoria requesting to be placed on the regular Civil Service staff? I had occasion to discuss that question with them at some length when in Victoria, and it seemed to me the argument they made was a very good one indeed. They claimed that the care they are required to take in connection with the registered mail required just as much education, and just as much attention to duty and just as much responsibility as is required of many of the second and third-class clerks in the regular Civil Service. I would bespeak from the minister favourable consideration of this request, and I would ask him to tell me if he has come to any conclusion on the matter or whether it is still under consideration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend (Mr. Barnard) was absent from the House a moment ago when that matter was discussed. I explained my position. Briefly, I stated that a report is being prepared by the acting deputy Postmaster General, Mr. Laschinger, which I am submitting to coun-

cil. In fact, the question is before the government and is engaging the serious attention of my colleagues. More than that I cannot say, except that the letter carriers and the outside service generally know where my sympathies are.


Gerald Verner White: I would like to ask the Postmaster General with regard to a petition I presented to him about a year ago, asking for a post office at Graham station. So far I have not had any word from the department though I have been led to believe that a report was made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will take that up to morrow. I have been away.


Mr. McALISTER.: It is rather late now, and I feel ashamed to retard the passage of these estimates. But with regard to franking I wish to say a word. I may inform hon. gentlemen opposite that nothing of that kind was done in Kings and Albert. Our postage cost us between $500 or $600. I wish, however, to call the attention of the Postmaster General and hon. members on both sides of the House to a little matter . that may or may not be of importance. We have a large number of postmasters in Kings and Albert, and I am safe in saying that three-quarters of them are Conservatives. That is all right-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. McALISTER

so long as they behave themselves. We paid for our postage, and I am sorry to inform the House that in certain localities a considerable quantity of campaign literature was not distributed by the postmasters and never reached its destination. I think the minister in those cases should take some action. I can produce men to whom papers were addressed who never received them, and these postmasters protested because their attention was called to the non-delivery. To hear hon. gentlemen opposite talking to-day one would suppose that everything that went wrong occurred on this side of the House.


John Barr: Hear, hear.


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: I do not think that is the case; I think we are fairly equally divided in that respect.


William James Roche: Has a post office yet been opened in Pope, on the Grand Trunk Pacific? Up to two weeks ago.it had not been opened. The minister informed me that he was waiting for the recommendation of a postmaster. Many people there have to go several miles for their mail although there is a tri-weekly train service through the place, all because the defeated candidate who has the patronage has been careless or apathetic in making a recommendation. The people have petitioned for an office, naming a postmaster. This system of appointment should be amended and after a certain length of time, if the person controlling the patronage does not act the department should act on the petition of the people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will see that the appointment is made as soon as possible. My hon. friend will understand that in matters of this kind we have to act on the recommendation of some one in the constituency, and the candidate is, of course, a respectable man in good standing whose advice is likely to be valuable. I shall have the appointment made as soon as possible.
Mail services, $193,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister explain the system of rural free mail delivery which he has established?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have already explained to the House during the last session the plan I would favour for the Dominion as regards rural mail delivery. I then said that I would not favour the system adopted generally in the United States because it was beyond our means. Without taking too much time to quote the figures of the American postal authorities, I may say there are two systems of delivery in the United States of mail matter addressed to persons residing in rural districts; first the rural free delivery and second the star route system which we have adopted. The former is widely known and need not be described particularly. The latter is incidental to the transportation of the mail over star or stage routes. The contracts for it include an obligation to deliver mail into boxes erected along the lines of such routes. Rural mail delivery as they have it in the United States to-day has been in operation for over 12 years. Starting as an experiment in 1895, on 93 rural routes, the number of routes increased in 1896 to 148, in 1899 to 391, in 1900 to 1,276, and from that on by leaps and bounds until at the close of the fiscal year June 30, 1908, there were 39,277 routes in operation. The expenditure-and this is the future which justified the department in adopting the present very conservative system of rural mail delivery- the expenditure for rural mail delivery in the United States, which in 1897 was only $J4,-840, in 1898 $50,241, in 1899 $150,012, and in 1900 $420,433, had at the close of the fiscal year June 30, 1908, reached the stupendous total of $34,360,463. It is out of the question for Canada, having the same territory with the climate she has-and of course the climate affects the routes-for the small population compared with the population of the United States and with a much smaller postal revenue to adopt the system which cost the United States annually $34,360,463.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the minister think that the United States pretend to furnish the mails in the sparsely settled districts of that country by the free mail delivery system?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Suppose the United States do not deliver the mail free in the sparsely settled districts, then if it costs so much money in the settled districts, what will it cost in our own districts where we have the same territory to cover? Listen to this:
The average annual salary paid to a rural carrier for the year ending June 30, 1893, was something over $178; for the year 1899, over $383; for the year 1901, over $406; for the year 1903, $532; for the year 1905, $650. In 1907 the rural mail carrier in the United States received an average salary of $711 a year, and for the year 1908, $877.88, and the end is not yet in sight.
Say the postal authorities of the United States. So it is out of the question for us to adopt the system of the United States. It would mean the ruin of the Post Office Department; it would mean wiping out of our total revenue. Now, we have adopted a system which is fairly described in this booklet which I intend to distribute to the members of the House. The Post Office Department has decided to undertake the delivery and collection of mail matter to a number of persons residing in rural districts along and contiguous to the line of travel of our existing stage routes, of one mile and upwards in length, upon receipt of a properly signed petition for such services from the residents of each of the rural districts traversed by such routes. Petition forms will be obtained upon application to the post office inspectors, or to the Post Office Department, mail contract branch, Ottawa. Now, who are the persons entitled to the privilege of a rural box? I cannot give a better definition of the system than by reading what the department is spreading through the country.


George Taylor: Perhaps the minister will allow this one item to stand over and pass the other two. I fancy this discussion will take an hour or two, there are several gentlemen who wish to speak on it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would prefer to pass the whole item. Supplementary estimates for this year will be laid on the table shortly, and the whole question can be resumed then. In these estimates which will be laid on the table within five or six days I have a similar item, not so large, under which this same discussion could take place. We need this money in the department. This discussion can take place at any time on the other items; in fact, T will arrange with my hon. friend the whip (Mr. Geo. Taylor) to have the discussion then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that will be satisfactory.
Miscellaneous, $545,500.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: :


George Taylor: My hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) wanted to say something about miscellaneous in the next item.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The very same items will come up in the supplementary estimates, but for lesser amounts, and I will arrange with my hon. friend the whip for a special debate. When these supplementary estimates are before the House all these questions may be brought up then.


Martin Burrell: I was going to ask the minister if he could not hold over this item till next week as I have to go away and may possibly be absent for several days.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will not take up the supplementary items until my hon. friend gets back.


George Taylor: I would suggest that that pamphlet on rural mail delivery be distributed to each member.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Monday. March 1, 1909.