1910-04-22

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply. .
["A note will be taken of what the lion, gentleman said, and ive will look after it.\nAt six o'clock House took recess.\nAfter Recess\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. C. A. MAGRATH (Medicine Hat).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker,
1	have a matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Postmaster General. I went to his office this morning and could not find him. It is connection with the Lethbridge post office situation. I am in receipt of a telegram to the following effect:
Lethbridge, Alta.,
21st April, 1910.


To C.   A.@: Magrath, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Material for street delivery been here for some time. No move to put it in operation. Post office more conjested than ever and citizens getting desperate over situation. Use every effort to have put in operation at once, as business is suffering every day. Am sending duplicate to DeVeber.
(Signed) The Lethbridge Board of Trade.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am only going to address the House for two or three moments m connection with this matter. For over one year I have been triyng to impress upon the Post Office Department of this country the necessity of attending to the requirements of the people of Lethbridge I have appealed to the Postmaster General's Department and to the Minister of Public Works I have put on record in this House the situation there. I have stated openly that I am not looking for a public building in order to get the taxes in that section of he country distributed. I do not endorse the log rolling system of getting rid of our taxes at all, but the people have certain requirements and certain rights in this country and I have laid before the Postmaster General a statement as to the situa-hon m Lethbridge. I repeat I do not ask for a public building in Lethbridge in order to have a share of the taxes distributed there. I have asked the Postmaster General for some returns that were ordered by this House, and I want to draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the tact that the House gave authority to bring down certain papers. The Postmaster General has practically refused to bring down the papers from his department. I have-had papers brought down from the Public Works Department, but there was absolutely nothing from the Post Office Department, and it is an astonishing state of affairs if the Postmaster General has to admit to this House that there is no correspondence m his department in connection with this matter. I know there has been correspondence and I have told him of it. I have-asked him to bring down these papers, and thev have not been brought down so tar as I am aware. If they have been brought down, then I am sorry for making this statement, I want to see what correspondence has been placed before the department- of Public Works by his department, I want to know what steps he *l?s , la5,en to lmPress upon the Public Works Department the necessity of providing proper facilities for the people of Lethbridge. If fie has not taken any steps then it will be a subject for discussion at a later date.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: Mr. Speaker, I know that steDS have been taken to establish a tree letter carrier delivery at Lethbridge I know that the Post Ofiice'Department has done its utmost to impress unon the Public Works Department the necessity of providing a temporary office next to the post office, now established at Lethbridge. I know that Representations have been made verb-
778!

ally to me and to the officers of the department, both by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ma-grath) and Senator DeVeber as to the necessity of having a building. The reason there is no public building yet at Lethbridge is that we do not know what population Lethbridge may have twelve months hence.


Charles Alexander Magrath: May I ask a question? Will the hon. gentleman tell me what the population of this country is going to be two years hence. Are our public buildings to be stopped on account of not knowing what our population is going to be.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is quite obvious there is a difference between the growth of a countrv and the growth of a city like Lethbridge. We all know that cities and towns are growing very fast in the west, and you may provide for a public building in a town which next year will have doubled its population. At all events, there is no ill will whatsoever towards Lethbridge or towards the establishing of postal facilities in the constituency of my hon. friend. On the contrary, I can show my hon. friend here three foolscap pages filled with the names of post offices opened in his own constituency between January 1, 1908, and March 1, 1910. Mv hon. friend, I am sorry to-day, seems to advertise for a grievance. But there is no room for a grievance. We have opened nearly sixty offices since he was elected representative of the constituency.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Wihat has that to do with Lethbridge ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman sems to think that there is some ill-will to Lethbridge or to the constituency.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I said nothing of the kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He said that we refused to lay on the table certain correspondence which might have been exchanged between the post office authorities and some anonymous correspondent. The papers laid on the table contain all the correspondence in this matter. If there Is no correspondence on the file laid on the table dealing with the subject he refers to, it is because there is no such correspondence. There is nothing to conceal in this matter; it is a business proposition. And I do not know what my hon. friend can have in mind in thinking that we would not produce the papers. I simply gave the officers of the department the order of the House-to which order I had raised no objection-to bring down the correspondence. It happens every day, that correspondence on these matters is carried on with the Public Works Department, and, in that case, the Post Office Department would not have the correspondence on file. In the present Mr. LEMIEUX.
instance I can only take the word of the hon. member in the meantime that there must be some correspondence and I will see if I can discover anything to bring before the House. But let not my hon. friend be under any impression that there is any ill-will whatever concerning his constituency. The best proof of that is the list of new post offices to which I have referred.


Mr. SPEOULE.: It did not seem to me that the hon. member (Mr. Magrath) was complaining so much of the absence of correspondence in the file brought down or of ill-will against Lethbridge, but rather of the indifference of the Postmaster General to the needs of the people in an urgent situation. Carelessness or indifference concerning the wants of the people is just as bad as though insufficient postal facilities were due to ill-feeling against the place or to an effort to punish it directed by whatever motive.


Sir WILFEID LAUEIEE.: I am not sure that I understood the complaint of my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath). Did I understand him to say that the postal facilities at Lethbridge were insufficient and that he wanted a new building?


Charles Alexander Magrath: That is the beginning of the difficulty-they have no public building. And, apparently they have no building available in which they can render proper service to the people.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend (Mr. Magrath) will look at the supplementary estimates he will find that we knew all that and have provided for it. There is an appropriation for a public building at Lethbridge.
Mr. MA,GEATH. If the House will permit me: the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) does not know the situation. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley) told me himself that it would take $25,000 to buy a site for a post office in Lethbridge. The appropriation is $20,000. What is the use of $20,000 ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not enough ?
An hon. MEMBEE. No.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the usual complaint-we do not spend enough money. We shall provide for that.



Mr. J. D. TAYLOE (New Westminster).: 
FRANKING AND FREE MAIL MATTER.
[Stage Direction]
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 Canada postage, under such regulations as are from time to time made in that respect by the Governor in Council.
Now when we refer to the Postal Guide we find what these regulations are. We find that the Governor in Council in making the regulations framed under the Act has not attempted in any way to widen the 247
scope of the Act or to give to the officials in the department greater authority than the Act contemplates. On the contrary we find that the order in council on the subject-for I presume the regulations follow7 the order in council-expressly limits the right of the departments to send out matter under frank. The regulation referred to is section 114 and it limits this franking privilege in this way .
All letters and other mail matter sent to the public departments at Ottawa and franked as being of a departmental character.
Now7, Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow that up, and to remind the Postmaster General, because he know7s it much better than I do, what his duty is under the Act in case of continued violation even by one of his colleagues. I read in section 119 of the Act, subsection (e) these words:
Every one who forges, counterfeits or unlawfully imitates, uses or affixes, to or upon any letter or packet, any stamp, signature, initials, or other mark or sign purporting that such letter or packet ought to pass free of postage, or at a lower rate of postage, or that the postage thereon or any part thereof has been pre-paid or ought to be paid or charged to any person or department is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment for life, or for a term not less than five years.
Now, Sir, I do not think that this is a frivolous situation, although I see that the Solicitor General, whose frank is used for this purpose, and also his colleague the Minister of Justice, are much amused at the reading of this section. I can imagine a cause for the gaiety which they exhibit, a cause which has been brought to the notice of the Canadian public on more than one occasion and is now occupying the public mind, that is, that while the Justice Department is the prosecuting department, and the guardian of the administration of the laws of this country, it is also the department which has the power of releasing offenders. Of course, while this Postal Act does say that if any official of that department should be found to have committed this indictable offence and to have rendered himself liable to the punishment prescribed by the Act, yet as an official of the Justice Department he will be very near to the centre of influence over the pardoning power, and therefore it is a matter of pardonable gaiety on the part of the Solicitor General that any member of this House should seriously suggest that he need be in any terror of the law7 in this regard. But. Mr. Speaker, although I am not -an optimist in the matter of impressing this parliament with the seriousness of any offence against law7 or propriety, and I say that with a fresh recollection of recent events in this House, al* though I am not a hopeless optimist in
[Stage Direction]
that respect, I do not think that the hide of parliament is altogether impervious. I do think that parliament has a right to be shocked when we find the Justice Department being used as an agency to beat another department out of the revenue to which it is entitled. That, Mr. Speaker, is my view of the case, and I think it is not a laughing matter on the part of the Minister of Justice or of the Solicitor General.
Now, I would like to emphasize the fact that this matter does not arise casually; it-is not the case of some literary genius connected with the Justice Department writing a pamphlet, writing a circular letter, and for convenience, and in the ordinary course of business, as one might send out his own private correspondence from a department without any violation of the spirit of the law; I wish to point out that this is not a case of that kind at all, that the circular to which I have reference has no proper connection with the Justice Department, that it does not originate in and is not written by any attache of the department, by any employee of the department, it is not printed in the government printing office, it has no place in the machinery of this goverment, in the routine of this government at all, except when it has come in from the outside to the Justice Department with the idea of having the stamp affixed which will enable it to beat its wav-through the Canadian mail. Now, I think it is a particularly aggravated case that a public department such as the Justice Department, which of all others should not lend itself to any infraction of the revenue laws of this country, which should be the most zealous to protect the revenue, should be engaged in a scheme to defraud the revenue. It seems a monstrous thing that this department should lend itself to an object of this kind; and the conviction is forced upon us that it is not an accident that the Justice Department is so used, but that the persons who choose this agency do it because of their belief that they' are better protected from prosecution than they would be if they were dealing by any other department. When this matter was before the House last year what seemed to be a bold challenge was thrown out by the Solicitor General. 'I have done no wrong ' he said; but if I have done wrong, whv does the hon. gentleman not prosecute me5' An easy challenge made with the acclaim of his colleagues in this House that I very well remember.
Mr. BUREAU.: The challenge was not issued to my colleagues, but to the members who were making the charge on the other side of the House.


Mr.   J D. TAYLOR@: Precisely, I think that is what I said. But I am glad that the Solicitor General has repeated now what Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
I think I may desecribe as a raw bluff. The reason I use that term is this, that the Solicitor General is an officer high in the legal service of this country, and he at lea,st is presumed to know the law. The Postal Act prescribes certain procedure in connection with the prosecution of offences under the Act. Section 137 has this provision:
Every pecuniary penalty imposed by this Act, or by any regulation of the Postmaster General made under it, shall be recoverable with costs by the Postmaster General, by civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction, and shall belong to His Majesty for the public uses of Canada, saving always the power of the Governor in Council to allow any part or the whole of such penalty to the officer or person by whose information or intervention the same was recovered.
I have read this Act carefully and I cannot see that any person other than the Postmaster General has any authority to institute _ prosecutions under it. Therefore, I say it is nothing but a raw bluff when the Solicitor General, who must be presumed to know the law, stands up here and distinctly exempts the Postmaster General from the terms of his challenge, when he says, I challenge any person else in this House, except the one authorized to prosecute me, to institute a prosecution. Now it is because the Postmaster General is the one person authorized to act under this section that I propose to call upon him to take such action. I would like, before I offer the resolution so calling upon the Postmaster General, to illumine the House as to the nature of this literature which is being distributed by the Justice Department, to call the attention of the House to one circular sent out which I have here, and which I will offer as a sample of the mendacious character of this literature. This circular announces in flaring head and bold type that: '


LIBERALS ATTEMPT TO STOP RACETRACK GAMBLING.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


James Davis Taylor: Fancy that from the Justice Department.



[Stage Direction]
Obstructed by Tory Race-Track Owners.
Then follows in black type an introductory paragraph intended to give a clue to the reptile press of the country to the contents of the circular. I hope no one will take offence at the term [DOT] reptile press ' because the term was invented bv the Toronto * Globe.'
An hon. MEMBER.: By Sir Richard Cartwright.


James Davis Taylor: Sir Richard Cartwright or the Toronto ' Globe '; they are so close together that one may be pardoned for quoting one for the other. In this introductory paragraph, intended to guide the editors of the reptile press who may not have time to read through to the contents and to let them know just what it means, we read this :


PONDER THESE THINGS.
[Stage Direction]
The Tory press, headed by Toronto ' Mail and Empire/ has been crying loudly for an amendment to the Criminal Code to stop racetrack gambling. The government introduces an amendment
[Stage Direction]
The government, mark you.
[Stage Direction]
introduces an amendment and it is
strenuously opposed by leading Tories.
This is the literature being distributed by the Solicitor General of this country under the frank of the Justice Department as of an official character, or, in the alternative, if the Justice Department asserts that it is not franked as of an official character, that it is not literature of the Justice Department and not endorsed by the Justice Department, then there is no remedy for my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) but that he must place himself at the tender mercies of the Postmaster General and suffer the penalties prescribed by law for affixing the stamp to denote an official character when there is no official character attached to this literature. I will read another paragraph of this precious document which was sent out by the Justice Department and designed to excite the admiration of the people of Canada for the high moral tone pervading this government and the Justice Department particularly. To show how resolute is this determination to put a stop to race-track gambling let me read this paragraph:
The object of the Bill may be defined as to ' utterly, entirely and completely suppress and prevent the business of betting or gambling in connection with or upon race-tracks in any place in Canada/
Then we read further :
What would be the attitude of the ' Mail"' should Liberal members arise in their places and uphold the integrity of race-track gambling? What would the people of Canada, the clean-minded, non-gambling portion of the community think of Liberal members who stated from their seats that gambling on racetracks was an evil.
A question asked by the Department of Justice. I would like to call the attention of the clean-minded non-gambling portion of the community to the contrasting fact that the record of this House will show that the Minister of Justice himself stated from his seat that gambling on race-tracks is not an evil. It seems to me that the advice of the Minister 2474
of Justice was more potent than any other agency in this House in securing the defeat of the Bill which that circular from the Department of Justice represents to the people of Canada as being opposed particularly by the Tory race-track owners, when it was opposed particularly with more authority, with more influence, because of their position in this House by the Minister of Justice, whose department, sends out this mendacious statement, and by his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). I ask what the head of the government thinks of this performance. I ask the Postmaster General what he thinks of this performance, and whether, having regard to the character of the matter which is being distributed under his sanction, because it must be under his sanction as he has known about it for a long time, ot having regard to the mendacious character of it he is still prepared to say that he recognizes it as of an official character. I read again :
The people of Canada will understand that the Liberals are in favour of abolishing race-track gambling.
If the people of Canada understand! that they must wake up to a realization of the fact that the Liberals have lost control of the House of Commons, because if such were tire attitude of the Liberal party it is within our recollection that they very signally failed in carrying it out. However, we have the authority of the Minister of Justice, in a circular franked as 'official' by the Justice Department, and therefore a circular for which the minister has responsibility, the statement that :
The people of Canada will understand that the Liberals are in favour of abolishing ra cotrack gambling and that two leading Conservatives in the House, Messrs. Osier and Barker, both interested in race-tracks, are opposed to the reforms suggested, notwithstanding the attitude of public opinion on the subject.
When I observed that that circular and others like it were being sent out from that department it occurred to me that surely no person in high responsibility there could be cognizant of it. I pictured the righteous indignation of the Minister of Justice when his attention should be called to the subject. I had in my mind the top lofty way in which we would get the reply from him that here was an hon. member of this House tilting perhaps against a messenger or a chief messenger in the department who had affixed this offending stamp. Realizing the way in which the franking privilege was conducted in the department, I took the precaution of putting a question on the order paper to ask what official of the department was responsible for the admin-
[Stage Direction]
istration of the franking privilege, and who is charged with the duty of seeing that no abuse is permitted under it. The answer 1 got precludes the responsibility being shifted by the Minister of Justice upon any messenger or menial of the department. The answer was that the franks of the Justice Department are those of the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and the deputy minister, and that the deputy minister is the person responsible for the administration, to see that no abuses take place under it. I have too much Tespect for the Deputy Minister of Justice to entertain the idea for a moment that this thing is done under his responsibility. While the responsibility is technically his, yet in the Department of Justice the Minister and the Solicitor General outrank the deputy minister, and I think the responsibility must be placed higher up. It is not for me to say whether or not it should be placed with the gentleman whose name appears as the frank upon these documents. It is for the Postmaster General, as I take it, upon the information given to him and which has been for long in; his possession; it is for him to find out who it is who illegally puts that stamp on matter purporting to indicate it is entitled to pass free of postage, when it is not so entitled. The questions asked and answered last year show that this practice had been going on from the 20th April, 1907, to the 27th November of the same year, a period of 30 weeks, and from July 21, 1908, to January 19, 1909, a period of 26 weeks, making 56 weeks thus far, and then there has been a recess during which this practice has continued for 24 weeks, making a total of 80 weeks in all. Another answer said that the circulars sent out averaged from 75 to 100 weekly. We must take it that the department put the best face upon it, and we are entitled to assume that 100 per week i- the average number sent out, so that during that period of 80 weeks there have been 8,000 offences committed against the Postal Act by somebody in the Justice Department. I want to call attention to a clause in the Postal Act which shows that the burden of proof in such a case is not unon any private member of the House or upon any citizen of the country to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that some one in the Justice Depai'tment has incurred a very serious penaltv. The burden on the contrary is placed, by section 138 of the Postal Act, upon the person accused :
In any action or proceeding for the recovery of postage or of any penalty under this Act, the burden of proof that the thing alleged to have been done by the defendant was done in conformity to or without violation of this Act, shall lie upon the defendant.
Therefore, under this Act which is made to grind the public, which is made to make Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
it beyond peradventure that if any citizen of this country is accused of writing a line inside a newspaper and sending that out at newspaper postage and that line is found, he shall be held prima facie guilty of having .written that line and to have committed an offence against the Postal Act. And. under that section of the Act, the citizens of Canada are constantly being haled before Post Office inspectors all over this Dominion and are being fined because there is a prima facie case against them. The department is not bound to establish that they are guilty, but it is up to the accused to establish they are not guilty. Therefore, I say it is up to whoever in the Justice Department affixes this stamp to matter of the nature I have indicated, to prove beyond peradventure that he has the right under the law to do it, or else to be placed in the same position as other private citizens and to suffer the penalty described in this Act. Mr. Speaker, when this matter was before the House last time we permitted it to be disposed of on the promise by the Postmaster General that regulations would be adopted to make it impossible for the offences to be continued. It is because we have had that promise and have had no performance that I think it is my duty to ask the House to make a direction on this occasion. Therefore I move:
That all the words after that be left out and the following inserted instead:-[DOT]
In the opinion of this House the Postmaster General should take action to prevent the continuing violation of the postal law hv the forwarding through the mails of a political printed circular letter free of postage under the frank of the Justice Department: that steps should be taken to recover the loss to the revenue so far as same is ascertainable from the record, and to impose the penalty prescribed by the Postal Act for this series of violations.
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: I would like to say at the outset that while I have the pleasure of some acquaintance with the piece of political news print which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has exhibited in the House and has read to the great delight of his friends who sit about him, I have not seen any copies of that news print for a great many months and I have not at any time sent to anybody any such document or any copy of it. I do not know anything about its history, its origin, or the source from which it may have been supplied to the hon. gentleman who has utilized it this morning. But I want in that connection to say further: It seems to please hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House at times when it suits their purpose, to erect the Minister of Justice or the Department of Justice upon some sort of pedestal or throne, setting up that' department as though it were a sort of guardian or

keeper over the consciences of the other departments, and of the other members of this government. I wish to say, so far as I am concerned, that I think there is no warrant whatever for attempting any such position on the part of hon. gentlemen either in this House or out of this House. I think myself it was a misfortune that in the framing of our constitution 40 years ago the good old title ' Attorney General' was dropped and the continental appellation 'Minister of Justice' substituted for it. The Department of Justice, if I understand its end, is simply the legal department of His Majesty's government in Canada. It is literally the department of the Attorney General; the Minister of Justice to my understanding of that term is simply the general attorney of the people of Canada. And so far as the present incumbent of that office is concerned I want to say further, that lie makes no pretense of being put upon any higher plane than his colleagues in this government or his colleagues who are members of this House. For myself,
I think myself a politician. I am not seeking to put myself upon any higher footing; I am a political partisan.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: If any gentlemen on the other side of the House wish to call each other by some more high sounding appellation; if they Wish to consider each other statesmen and not politicians they are welcome to do so. I. have to say that so far as I am concerned I think it no discredit to be called a politician, to be called a political partisan, and to be prepared to take any share I am able to take in the political warfare of my colleagues and of my party.
Now, with regard to the subject which the hon. gentleman has brought to the attention of the House, so far as I am personally concerned I should be very glad to see the franking privilege in this country abolished. I do not know what merit there is in it. I think it is a system which has been in the past abused, and which it would be better in the public interest should be abolished. But, I found it in force when I took charge of the Post Office Department five years ago. I did not remain in charge of that department long enough to work any startling revolutions in its administration, and I do not know if I had proposed that the franking privilege should be abolished that I would have received much support from any hon. gentleman in this House. But taking the provisions of the law on the subject as they stand, I want to point out what I understand them to be, and to ask each member of the House who is accustomed to exercise his privileges in that respect, conscientiously to inquire of himself whether or not he is in a position to throw any stones in this matter. ^ I had not been long in this House or in the position of Postmaster General of Canada when a member of this House came ^to me one day-a member whom I had 'never seen before and who is not a political friend-and asked me to give him my frank as Postmaster General. I told him I had not any except my hand-writing. He answered that would do, and he asked me to come with him to the parliamentary post office and put my initials as Postmaster General on some mailable matter that the post office authorities would not carry for him upon his own initials. I went with him, hardly understanding what the difficulty could be, but I understood when I found what I was wanted to do. I was wanted to frank through His Majesty mails a bag full of grain.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I did it, and I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) would like to have me and his friends who sit in this House on the same side of it as himself, prosecuted as criminals for that act.


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if I may presume to instruct the Minister of Justice on the larv, I would say to him that there is no limitation on the right of a member of parliament to frank any matter that is at all mailable; he is different from an employee or an official of the department.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am afraid the hon. gentleman's idea would not avail if he went into a court prosecuting in the case I have described. If the hon. gentleman thinks that the law is such that any member of the House is entitled to frank through the mails of this country, free of charge, bags of grain, or his wardrobe, I think he will find himself mistaken.


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order; sit down.


James Davis Taylor: If gentlemen opposite will keep order; I rise, as I have the privilege to rise, and say that the hon. gentleman who has the floor is misstating, perhaps not intentionally, what I have said. I did not say anything of the kind which he attributes to me. I said that any member of this House has the right to frank any matter which is mailable.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I purpose, Mr. Speaker, calling attention to the provisions of the law on the subject in a minute or two, but in reference to the incident to which I have been adverting, I want simply to remind the hon. gentleman who has been interrupting me, that if there

liad been no infraction of the law in what I was being asked as Postmaster General to do, there was no occasion to come to me in the matter, because the hon. gentleman who wanted to nse the mails for the carriage of his bag of grain could have franked it himself. And it was simply because he was transgressing the regulations, and knew he was transgressing the regulations, that he came to me, asking me as Postmaster General to direct my officials to do for me that which they would not do for him. Now, one hears a good deal in the way of rumour around the hafls and the lobbies as to what is going on from day to day during the session on the part of hon. members of this House in the way of sending things through the mails. I do not intend to talk about that; I think in these matters there is not very much involved, and it is just as well that there should be some idea on both sides of the House of applying the ancient principle of noblesse oblige. And there are things in regard to which if there be transgressions of the strict letter of the law, it is very doubtful if it is in the public interest that there should be attention called to them and discussion had of them. I do not understand that the franking privilege of a member of this House during the session is any wider or any different from the like privileges to the departments of the government during the recess. The statute is that which governs. I am not particularly concerned with the Post Office regulations. So far as they are based upon the statute, so far as they are not contradictory to the statute, so far as they are authorized by the statute they are of course the rules upon which the Post Office Department, and the officials of that department, must carry on their business. But, no department of this government, b,y any regulations it may promulgate, not the whole government or His Excellency in Council, have any right to take from a member of this House that which is given him by the statute which preserves the right of a member and the right of a minister in the matter of exercising the franking privilege.
Section 75 of the Post Office Act, limiting it to this particular matter, directs that all mailable matter sent by any department of the government, at the seat of government, shall be free of postage. The corresponding section with regard to members limits their franking privilege to the duration of the session, otherwise it is practically in the same -words. As to members, 'all mailable matter addressed by,' is the expression, 'addressed by any member of either House at the seat of government during the session of parliament is entitled to be carried free.' I think there is a good deal of misconception on this subject. I have heard or seen that hon.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: members have spoken with the idea that ten days after or before the session they are in the same position as during the session. I see no warrant for that idea whatever. Mailable matter may be sent to any member free of charge during ten days before a session, but so far as anything sent out by a member is concerned, his right of franking is limited to the duration of the session and his right of franking is conferred by the law, in almost identical words with the departmental rights of franking mentioned in the other section. It is all mailable matter, in one case sent by any department, in the other, addressed by any member. And you have simply the situation that whatever a member during a session may address, a department at all time of the year may send. Now, with regard to the Department of Justice and its administration, I am, by law, made the official who presides over that department. The Solicitor General is by statute assigned the duty of assisting in the litigation of that department. He is my colleague. I do not consider that he is my subordinate. I certainly would think I was guilty of a piece of impudence if I asked him to submit to me his correspondence or undertook to revise his use of his frank. I have no more right to do it in his case than in the case of any other one of my colleagues, and no more right to do it in the case of the Solicitor General, than he has to do it with regard to my correspond-ehce. So far as the department is concerned, using that word as distinguished from the minister and the Solicitor General at the head of the department, so far as clerks in the department are concerned, and the ordinary departmental work, the frank which is used and used so far as I am aware exclusively, is that of the deputy minister. I think he has a stamp. I have never seen it, but I have no doubt he has; I have seen impressions of one, and I understand that the clerks of the department or the messengers of the department in taking to the post office the mailable matter of the day, affix the stamp of the deputy minister. So far as I am concerned, I have no stamp. I frank by writing with my pen, or my secretary writes with his pen my initials in the corner of the envelope. That system is pursued in regard, to whatever letters I dictate during the day, whether it is session or not session. Some of these letters, I am afraid, are upon political subjects. Some of these letters, it may be, do not concern the business of the Department of Justice. Once in a while I write a letter to my son; possibly I may write to my good old father. It is not upon departmental business, and I do not put postage stamps on such letters. If I am wrong, I am in the judgment of this House, and I hope my friend to whom 1

sent a bagful of oats a few years ago won't be the first man to condemn me.


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Davis Taylor: I think from the pointed manner in which the hon. gentleman threw that bagful of oats I should state that I did not ask him to frank them.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am sorry the hon. gentleman thought it necessary to make that observation. I took good care to tell the House that it was during the few months I was Postmaster General that it occurred, and unless my recollection is very erroneous my hon. friend did not represent New Westminster at that time. It was not the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor). Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the political literature that has been discussed here, I do not suppose it goes out under my initials. It certainly does not go out under my initials to nay knowledge. If my secretary, or his assistant has any part in mailing the kind of document that has been referred to I do not know anything about it. I do not think that is the fact, nor do I think that it is the fact that any official of the department using the departmental stamp of the deputy minister is engaged in sending out literature of the character described, or anything of a political nature. As to what the Solicitor General may do under his own signature, or under his own frank, I do not conceive that I am entitled to inquire, any more than I am entitled to inquire into the mailable correspondence of any member of this House during the session. On the principle on which it is argued that the correspondence of the Solicitor General, or of the Minister of Justice ought to be inspected, it is, I suppose, contended that envelopes are to be opened, and that one ought to see whether or not in the envelope which is sealed up, and is franked with the minister's name, or the name of the Solicitor General, there is something contraband. If that is the principle the hon. gentleman is contending for, if that is what he wants the House to accept by the motion he has made, I hope he will have the frankness to let us know, so that we will not be asked to express ourselves upon this question without understanding whether or not every member of this House is to submit his personal correspondence to some official, or to some minister, or to some authority to see whether or not it contains something which he ought not to send out. Well, Sir, in regard to this whole matter I do not ' care to express any opinion as to the magnitude which it may assume in the minds of hon. gentlemen. Each member of the House will form his own opinion about that. I simply want to put it as I have
tried to do upon tin language ot the law. My position is }hat during the recess every minister in connection with his department, every department, has identically the same franking right that every member has during the session. There is nothing in the statute about departmental business. It is mailable matter, and any mailable matter any minister has the right under the law to frank on any day of the year. Change the law as soon as you please. I am perfectly prepared to support any proposal to strike out every one of those clauses from the statute. They do not have the franking privilege in England. Members of parliament there pay their own postage, and I think members here could do it also. But, as long as the law remains as it is, and as long as members of this House are entitled to put their frank during the session upon any letter they like, whether it concerns private, political, or other business-whether it is their letter, or the letter of some member of their family; whether it is the letter of their own family, or the letter of some friend; whether it is even the member's initials upon the corner of an envelope in blank and handed to a man who asks for it of him on the street exactly as he would ask for a postage stamp-*as long as the law remains in that position it is not-I had almost said not consistent with the dignity of this House-to occupy hours of the time of the House in discussing such a matter as this.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: I think that the Minister of Justice should be the guardian of the dignity of this House. He is the minister to whom we have a right to look for the embodiment of the highest moral tone in our public life. But when a man in such a position will rise in his place in this House and acknowledge himself - to be a political partisan, as he has just done, the dignity of the House needs some other protection. I can only say that we on this side of the House have for many years been of exactly the opinion now expressed by the Minister of Justice. But though we have always regarded that hon. gentleman as a political partisan, 1 never thought that the time would come when one occupying that position would openly acknowledge in his place in this House that this was his character. But the indictment presented by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) was so strong, so conclusive, that there was absolutely no use in longer attempting concealment of the fact that the present Minister of Justice is a political partisan.
Now, it seems to me that the question before the House is a very important matter. It came up in the House last session,

and I took some small part in the discussion. The Postmaster General (Mr. Le-mieux) at that time gave us a very lair promise-and I was delighted on that occasion with the speech he made. For, had he carried out the promises he gave, we should find him to-day voting for the resolution presented by my hon. friend from New Westminster. Let me read briefly from the debate on that occasion. In the course of my address I used these words:
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 not authority to do so.
The Postmaster General said:
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.
And he went on:
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 this country, and I intend for the future to see that the spirit and the letter of the law shall be carried o^t. . . . 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.
Now, I hold in my hand an envelope addressed to the ' Advocate,' a paper published at Balgonie, Sask., in which was contained a copy of the literature part of which was read by my hon. friend from New Westminster. This bears the postmark of Ottawa and upon the envelope the signature ' Jacques Bureau.' It is postmarked March 14, 1910. So when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) contends that he does not know that this is done by any official of his department, we must assume that that is true; but now that we have brought the matter to his attention his plea of ignorance cannot hold. It is shown that this kind of literature-I cannot call it anything but Ananias literature-is being circulated at the public expense. I say that it is a disgrace to this country, and it is a disgrace to the Department of Justice to play the part of a political partisan in sending this literature throughout the country. The statements contained in that literature are so contrary to the facts that I cannot characterize it in words strong enough. We all know that the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) was the very Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
cause of the defeat of the Anti-Race Track Gambling Bill. The idea that notwithstanding this fact, which is known to us all, this literature should contain statements that the government were doing their best to pass the Bill and to further the measures against race-track gambling. Why, before such literature the reputation of Ananias melts like snow before the spring-tide sun. I ask the Postmaster General to tell us whether he has taken any steps to implement the promise he made a year ago to the members of this House upon the faith of which the discussion was ended. We took the hon. gentleman at his word; we supposed that he would make regulations which would prevent-even if the present regulations cannot prevent, which we say they can-the continuation of this abuse. Has he taken steps to prevent a repetition of that which was shown to exist last year, and will he take steps to prevent what has been shown to exist here to-day?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year, when this question was brought up, I made the remark that was quoted by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro). He will remember that I was shown some letters which were supposed to have been franked by some members of the government. Experts on both sides of the House looked at the initials, and not one could say whose initials they were. I then stated that this was certainly an abuse-that, evidently, some signatures had been used illegally, forged in effect, and that I would see to it that such a thing could not occur again. My hon. friend will remember that I handed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) an envelope which was supposed to contain a political pamphlet distributed during the period of the general election in one of the constituencies-Dufferin, I think-and the minister (Mr. Fisher) peremptorily observed that the signature was not his. It was upon that occasion that I declared that if such a thing occurred again I would take prompt measures to stop it. Now, let us be frank.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and let us not frank as some hon. members on the other side frank at the general election. Now, will it be seriously contended for one moment that a member of this House has not the right, during the session of parliament, to send letters to his constituents and others, using for that purpose the franking privilege which he gets under the law-for, under the statute all mailable matter can be franked during the session by a member of the House.


Mr. G. TAYLOR.: That would include a bag of oats?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am sure the hon. gentleman understands the definition of ' mailable matter.' If an hon. gentleman gave his frank on that occasion, I suppose he thought that the bag of oats could pass in His Majesty's mails. Can it be contended for a moment that whilst the members of the House during session are given by law the privilege of sending abroad tons of literature, a member of the government shall not have the privilege of sending letters under his own frank during recess? Now, as was well said by the Minister of Justice, and as every lawyer knows, no regulation can destroy'the effect of a statute passed by this House. Section 75 enacts that:
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.
I am prompted by my hon. friend from New Westminster to quote again section 114 of the regulations, which reads as follows :
All letters and other mailable matter sent by the public departments at Ottawa and franked as being of a departmental character, all , correspondence addressed to the ministers in charge of the said departments or to their private secretaries, or to the deputy heads or secretaries of the same, or to any recognized branch or division of a department.	[DOT]
All these enjoy the franking privilege. Now, I will ask, is there a distinction between letters sent personally by a minister and a letter of a departmental character? Before I do it., I must explain the raison d'etre of these regulations, and I believe every business man in the House will understand it. In order to prevent civil servants from abusing the franking privilege given by law to the departments, we had to frame a regulation that the letters sent from those departments through the mail must be of a departmental character. But as the Minister of Justice well says, we cannot, in the Post Office Department, set aside what has been enacted by this parliament in the Revised Statutes, section 75, which I have read.


Mr. COWAN.: Shall be free under the regulations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, under the regulations. Will my hon. friend, who I know is a lawyer of distinction in his province, contend that under the statute and the regulations I have read, a minister of the Crown is debarred from the privilege of franking his letters during recess? Why,
my hon. friend could not plead such a contention in any court of the land. My hon. friend thinks perhaps that the Solicitor General does not enjoy the franking privilege. Now, although his name is not mentioned in the statute, he is however, as the Minister of Justice stated, considered a member of the government, although he is not a member of the cabinet. But let me tell my hon. friend this, that three years ago, by an order in council passed by this government, the Solicitor General was given the franking privilege. Now, I appeal to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, I appeal to his sense of justice and to his sense of fair play: will he tell me-I have just seen the envelope which was handed to me by my hon. friend the member for Frontenac, bearing the signature. of the Solicitor General-will the leader of the opposition, who is a lawyer of great distinction, and for whom I have the greatest respect, tell me, as -was said a moment ago by the member for New Westminster, that the Solicitor General has been violating the law in the spirit and in the letter, and that he is amenable to the courts under section 119 of the Post Office Act? Can it be for a moment contended that he has, in the words of that section:
Forged, counterfeited, or unlawfully imitated, used or affixed, to or upon any letter or packet, any stamp, signature, initials, or other mark or sign purporting that such letter or package ought to pass free of postage, or at a lower rate of postage, or that the postage thereon or any part thereof has been prepaid or ought to be paid by or charged to any person or department.
It seems to me it is not even necessary to discuss that question. The statute is very clear. During the session of parliament, every member is given by law the franking privilege, he can send letters and parcels of the prescribed size mentioned in the regulations, he can send all mailable matter. Now, during recess, during tire whole year round, the members of the government are given the same privilege.


James Davis Taylor: No. Will the Postmaster General quote the section of the Act giving that privilege?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is given in section 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.
Is not the minister the head of the department, are not his letters letters of the department?


James Davis Taylor: Will the minister read the remainder of the section?


Rodolphe Lemieux: -shall be free of Canadian postage under such regulations as are from time to time made in that respect by the Governor in Council.
Regulations made in order to stop any abuse which might be committed in the size of the mailable matter, or sending such articles as a bag of oats, for instance, or a wardrobe, and many other things that civil servants had been sending for years, in abuse of their privilege, perverting the sense of the Act, and we had to put a stop to it. Now, nobody will contend that any bar has been put to the free exercise of that privilege by members of the House. I remember that, during the session preceding the last general election and during every session preceding a general election since I have had a seat in this House, my hon. friend the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), who had charge of the literature of his political party, jammed for weeks and months, the corridors and lobbies of this House with literature destined to be sent to the independent electors of this country. We did not object and we do not object to-dayi 'We are given the same privilege on this side of the House. Will any one say, with the law as it stands, with the regulations as they exist, the object of which I gave a moment ago, because the Solicitor General sends, under his _ franking privilege at certain intervals during the year and during the recess, the envelopes which weTe shown a moment ago, the Postmaster General should interpose and order those letters to be opened?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That I should do that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would not stay in the government ten minutes if I were to do that.


James Davis Taylor: The hon. member would stay in any other government if he did that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no chance of my hon. friend ever coming at the head of any government with the ideas that he has propounded to-day.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like to asis the Postmaster General, if, in view of the law and knowing that literature of the character which has been referred to in this House has been franked with the frank of the Solicitor General, he approves of the transaction?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mv hon. friend has put a question to me. I am not here to speak for the Solicitor General. He is here and I suppose he will be heard from during this debate.


James Davis Taylor: 


William Sora Middlebro: Will the minister take any steps to prevent that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I certainly say that to my mind there has been no trespass of the law under the circumstances.


Mr. HUGHES.: May I ask the Postmaster General if, having heard the literature read, he thinks it is proper literature to send out?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. STAPLES.: I do not rise to make any argument upon this resolution; I simply rise to make an explanation. I do not wish to have it generally understood that all members of this House are guilty of sending a bag of oats to their constituents, but I simply want to explain the whole circumstances and I will leave to the judgment of the House whether or not I transgressed the law. The Minister of Justice and the Postmaster General can verify the facts which I anj about to state if they wish to go to the trouble. A good Liberal in my constituency, by the name of John Perry, and residing at Treherne, wrote to me and asked if I thought it would be possible to get a couple of bushels of oats in order that he might sow a plot of land and thereby be of some benefit to his fellow farmers by distributing the seed. I took his letter, read it over the 'phone to Dr. Saunders of the Experimental Farm and asked him if he would supply that quantity of oats. He replied that he would be pleased to comply with the request as contained in the letter. I heard nothing more of it until I came up to the building one morning and found a bag of oats in room 6. The other members began laughing, and I said: What shall I do with it? They did not know. I went to the postmaster, Mr. Mills, and I told him that I had this bag of oats. I said that I could comply with the law by breaking it up into small parcels and sending them out, as the Experimental Farm sends out small samples of grain of a certain weight. He said there was another way in which 1 might succeed in getting it through, that if I got the Postmaster General's frank it would go. I met the Postmaster General in the lobby and lie was kind enough, in the interest of agriculture in this country, to walk into the post office with me and attach his frank to the bag, and that is the last I heard of it until it landed in Treherne. I would just like to say that that innocent bag of oats sent out to produce good innocent material for this country is quite different from the letters which have, been read. I have no doubt the government expect these letters that they sent, out to bear fruit, as I expected this bag of oats that I sent out to bear fruit, but I do not believe that all the hon. members

of both sides of this House desire to obtain votes with any such literature as that which has been read here this morning. Misrepresentation of facts, fabrication- nothing could be further from the facts as regards the Gambling Bill than the statements contained in that circular. The Minister of Justice and every other member of this House knows the way that Bill was dealt with. The Minister of Justice and the right hon. First Minister know how that Bill was killed, and they know it was killed by the Minister of Justice, who has been so driven for an argument to defend that literature as to refer to this bag of oats that went through the mails. If he can find any justification for the sending out of that literature under the frank of his department by referring to this b.ag of oats then I hope he will enjoy whatever advantage he may get out of it.


Mr. MILLER.: We have had rather a good natured discussion. Some men appear to have felt their oats, some have made wry faces, others have talked about small potatoes and others have been accused of being dead beats.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Good, good.


Henry Horton Miller: Very good. A particular letter has been referred to and the statements contained in it, it has been said, would have done credit to Annanias. I suppose that that could have been said of a great- deal of the literature sent out by our^ friends on the other side of the House dui'ing the last campaign. I remember some of that literature. I did not intend to commit it to memory, but I remember that it bore a very good picture of the very good looking leader of the opposition and one statement contained in it was that the Conservatives had endeavoured to abolish or reduce to 10 per cent the duty on agricultural implements, but that they had been prevented by members sitting on the Liberal side of the House from doing so. If anything more Ananias-like than that has ever been sent out by any party in the Dominion of Canada within the last century I would like to know about it.


William D. Staples: Was there not a vote on the motion to reduce the duty on agricultural implements?


Henry Horton Miller: Yes, I refhember the vote very well. I remember that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) his then first lieutenant, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and a number of other leading Conservatives voting against him, and I remember that my hon. friend who has just sat down and a few others, representing rural constituencies on the other side of the House, voted for it.


William D. Staples: How did you vote?


Henry Horton Miller: I voted against it because I thought it was a hypocritical resolution


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Henry Horton Miller: -that would not do any credit to any man or to any party, and it did less credit to the party who used it in their campaign literature.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).: I
have in my possession one of these effusions sent out as Liberal campaign literature, and among other things there is a reference in it to myself. It says that the member for Frontenac stated that the French Canadians were disloyal, and I want to say that- to attribute to me such a statement is an absolute falsehood. It ill becomes the position held by the Solicitor General to allow his frank to be used in sending throughout the country an absolute lie such as that is. We have been treated to some surprises this morning, but before referring to them, allow me to *make a brief reference to this lying statement in that pamphlet. I can only conceive two reasons why a statement like that should be sent broadcast through the country. One of these reasons is that it is easier for the Liberal party or those who got up the pamphlet-I am not now accusing the Solicitor General of having prepared it-but it was easier for the Liberal party to attempt to draw a herring across the scent and try to make the people of Quebec believe that I was attacking the masses of the people of that province than it was to defend the Prime Minister and the leaders of the party whom I indicted. Another Teason which occurs to me is that possibly by the circulation of such lies as this they think to provoke me into saying something against the people of the province of Quebec, but in that attempt they wall be just as unsuccessful as in their other attempt.


Mr. TALBOT.: You have said enough already.


John Wesley Edwards: Not the least surprise we have had this morning was that afforded by the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Miller). I would expect if there was one member on the other -side who would have kept his silence on this question it would have been the hon. gentleman. I would like to ask him, he who talks about hypocrisy and hypocritical literature, what trait of his character he is exhibiting in regard to the attitude of the Minister of Justice on his anti-gambling Bill. I would like to ask him if he approves of that statement in that pamphlet in reference to the gambling Bill? Did be prepare these statements himself and send them out? The fact is that it is very apparent to every member of this House that the Minister of Justice

780S
got up in his place and was the means of defeating the Miller anti-gambling Bill, and, notwithstanding that, the member for Grey rises now to add his little quotation in the way of excuse for the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice waxed highly indignant at the very thought that his department should be regarded for one moment as the guardian of the other departments of the government. Well, Sir, we who have had the privilege of one or two short sessions in this House, and have had an opportunity of looking into the doings of this government, would sympathize with the Minister of Justice if such a burden were cast upon him, but I venture to think that after the display of the Minister of Justice this morning there are yet some departments of this government which would pray to be relieved of his guardianship. We have had ample evidence of the partisan disposition of the Minister of Justice, but it remained for himself to rise in his place in the House and to tell us that he, the head of that department which is supposed to be as far removed from political bias as it is possible to get a department, that he is a political partisan, and that he glories in the fact. The Minister of Justice made considerable out of the statement that one of the members of this House asked him to frank a bag of oats through the mail. I would have supposed that the Minister of Justice had refused to break the regulations and the law, but he went on to tell us that he did break the regulations and that he did the very thing, which as head of the Department of Justice, he should not have done. Imagine the head of the Department of Justice taking pride in the fact that he himself broke the law. What a nice Minister of Justice. Now, Sir, it is true, as the Postmaster General has said, that members of parliament and members of the government have the right to use the franking privilege, but the Postmaster General has not dealt fairly with the . question, because after saying that members of the government send their mail matter out under regulations, he did not tell us that the regulations say:	'and
frank as being of an official character.' The Postmaster General slid over that point. What the regulations do say is that this mail matter must be of an official character, and if it is not of an official character and the members of the government send it out under a frank then they stand convicted of violation of the laws they are supposed to maintain.


Mr. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie).: I do not rise to complain of the statement of the Minister of Justice that the Department of Justice of this country at the present time is on no higher plane than any department of the government, Mr. EDWARDS.
nor do I complain of the accuracy of his statement that it is administered under its present head by as violent a political partisan as there is in the government. But, Sir, I had understood until now that one of the functions of the Justice Department was to make clear to this House the real meaning of the law. To-day it has discharged that function by obscuring where-ever it could the plainest possible law, and with the assistance of the Postmaster General endeavouring to befuddle the members of this House as to what the departmental regulations mean. Nothing could be clearer than what the law means; it does not need a lawyer to interpret it. Section 75 says that mail matter of any kind may be sent to or from members of parliament at any time during the session, and it does not matter what that mail matter is. The Minister of Justice tried to obscure the issue by implying that it was a violation of the law for a member of the House to frank a letter to one's father, but, of course, that is not so. There is no violation either of the spirit or the letter of the law in franking such a -letter as that. It is also contained in section 75 that during recess matter may be sent at any time to or from departments of this government under such regulations as the Postmaster General provides. These words mean something or they mean nothing. They are a notification that the Post Office Department has authortiy to make regulations covering the sending of literature to and from the departments of this government, and the Post Office Department has made such regulations. Those regulations either mean something or they mean nothing. The Postmaster General, who I regret to say, departed from his usual custom and did not have the courage in this House to express his own convictions; the Postmaster General endeavoured meekly to reconcile himself with the attitude of the Minister of Justice in arguing that this regulation wras beyond the power of the department. What a position for the Post- , master General to take.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not say it was beyond the power of the Post Office Department to enact regulations. I read the regulation, and I said there was no contradiction between the regulations and the statute. I might explain that the employees are warned not to mix their personal letters with departmental letters. I may add that in every department the letters are collected every afternoon and they are deposited in the ante-room of the deputy minister and only the frank of the deputy minister and the frank of the minister are used on the letters. No other franks are used in the department.


Arthur Meighen: I perhaps did the Postmaster General too much justice in stating
7S09

that he argued practically that this regulation was beyond the powers of his department to enact. But he did not conflict with the statement of the Minister of Justice that no regulation could obviate or get around the provisions of an Act of parliament, and he, therefore, conveyed the impression to this House that in his mind this regulation was ultra vires of his department. I say that the regulation is not ultra vires of his department, and that it is absolutely within the power of his department to make. The regulation says that during recess., mail matter may be sent out by the department if it is of an official character. Now, then, does it make or does it not make it clear that the matter sent out must be of an official character? If it does not mean that the matter sent out must be of an official character, the regulation means nothing whatever, and the Postmaster General knows it. If anything at all can be sent out hv that department and franked by the department as ' official,' then the regulation might be just as well omitted altogether.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, by reading section 1X4 of the regulations in conjunction with clause 75 of the Act, it is made abundantly clear to every one, the regulation being within the power of the department, that to frank mail matter that is not departmental from the department at any time, whether _ during the recess, or during the session, is a violation of the law. It is abundantly clear, - also, that to frank mail matter of any kind, departmental or otherwise, to a member during the session is not a violation of the law. That is just the difference. Now it is either right or it is wrong to send the literature quoted in this House as official matter. If it is departmental matter, it has a right to be franked as such, and it is not a violation of the law. If it is not departmental matter, it is a violation of the law to frank it as such, and send it out. Now from that position the Postmaster General cannot dissent, nor can any other person dissent. It is as clear as any section of law ever written that to frank out matter of that sort as departmental matter either during the session, or during the recess by a department is a violation of the law. IJ can he franked out during the session by a member of parliament, but it cannot be franked out even during a session by a department without violating the law, and it is violating the law with double clearness when it is so franked out during recess at which time it cannot be legally franked either by a member of parliament, or by a department. Consequently the Postmaster General is face to face with this position', that
not a private man, not a mere private citizen, but the Liberal party of this House, and of this country is openly, under his eyes, violating the section that he is sworn to enforce. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the position the Postmaster General is in. But the situation is worse. What is the class of literature that is being so franked, and from whom does it emanate? In the first place the literature sent out in that way is an official leaflet of the Liberal party of Canada. It is the official organ of the Liberal members of parliament of this House. It is literature of which the government itself takes advantage, and seeks to take advantage. It is literature which it is hoped will help to re-elect hon. members opposite at the next election. That is its purpose; it has no other. Now, Mr. Speaker, to call that literature lies, is to award it undue euphony. The Minister of Justice is in his seat. The Postmaster General is in his seat. There are scores of Liberal members of this House in their seats, and there is not one of them who will stand in his place now and say that the references in that leaflet are not lies, deliberate lies. It is not only a lie, but a pernicious despicable lie of the worst character. It is not only deceit, Mr. Speaker, but cowardly deceit, and still the Minister of Justice rises in his place in the House, he knows it has been sent out, and sent out illegally, he knows he is as much the author of it as any other member of the Liberal party in this House, and still in the face of that- he declines to repudiate it or to say one word against it in his speech on this matter. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, I stated in the first place, endeavoured only to befuddle the House as to the law. The law could not be clearer. What did he say in endeavouring to obscure it? He said it was only a lax enforcement of the law that enabled him to write to his father, or to his son. The minister franking a letter to his father or to his son knows he is acting as much within the law as if he franked out an official letter from his department. The Minister of Justice knows it, and yet he added to the demerits of his defence by calling on the member from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) to explain the franking out of some oats some years ago. I can only gather two facts from that incident. The first one is that the hon. member for Macdonald not being a lawyer committed an illegal Act, and did not know he was doing it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: And the second is that the Minister of Justice committed the same illegal act, and knew it was not only wrong, but* illegal.
Arf hon. MEMBER. Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I have it on the information of that hon. member himself (Mr. Staples) that before that bag was so franked, he told the hon. Minister of Justice that he did not want him to frank it if it was in violation of the regulations, and that he did not know until to-day that the franking of that bag of oats was a violation of the regulations. Now, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be truly said that the government of this country are changing their methods in any way. Like others whose principles are against society instead of with society, like the pirate and buccaneer who after long practice of their arts with impunity become reckless in the intoxication of their own success, this government is becoming bolder every hour. Only a short time ago we had the hon. Minister of Finance telling the House that the practice of the patronage system which has done more than anything else to demoralize the political life of this country, was one of the closest things to his own heart, and that the exercise of it was a lasting maxim of his political faith; and to-day when the Minister of Justice is brought face to face with a violation of the law, when he is face to face with a charge that in his own department, under his very eyes, and with his sanction, the law he is sworn to enforce is being violated, when he is further faced with the fact that his department is being prostituted for the basest of party ends, what is the answer he gives to the House? He tells us: I want you to understand that I am at the head of the Justice Department, and I am no statesman, I am a political partisan. Mr. Speaker, if there is one hon. member of this House whose position is less enviable in this matter than any other, it is the hon. member from Grey (Mr. Miller) who introduced the anti-gambling Bill. I supported the anti-gambling Bill. I believed at that time in the hon. gentleman's sincerity. His Bill received, I think, a majority of support from hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member for Grey knows and has stated that his Bill was defeated by the speech of the hon. Minister of Justice, and yet that hon. member sits here and listens to a lying pamphlet, of which he is as much the author as any other member of this House, and which is intended for his advantage, and he declines to repudiate that pamphlet. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but he actually stands in his place in the House and notwithstanding the fact that the majority on this side of the House supported him he condemns them for their attitude in respect of this pamphlet. It will be of interest and importance to friends of what is called moral reform to watch the course of the hon. member from Grey this afternoon, and see if he does not affirmatively defend this pamphlet by his vote.


Arthur Meighen: 


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, allow me to state at the outset that all reproaches or accusations made against the Postmaster General or the Minister of Justice are in my mind not well founded. This letter has been franked, as has been stated, with the frank ' Jacques Bureau.' I have never submitted my correspondence to the Minister of Justice any more than I have submitted it to the Postmaster General. I, and I alone, am responsible for this franking, and, in. justice to both these hon. gentlemen, I assume the responsibility of the whole thing. Now, the charge is that a certain letter written to the newspapers has been franked from the Department of Justice. This letter has been franked, if I am to believe the envelope that stands as convicting evidence against me and which was produced by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and read as evidence by the hon. memher for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), with the name 'Jacques Bureau' in the lower left hand corner. The hon. member for North Grey says that this letter bears the pestmark Ottawa, 10th March, 1910. I think that on that date, Jacques Bureau, as a member of this House, had as much right to frank a letter as his Conservative friends have to frank the weekly letter that they send out. The letter inclosed in the envelope-I did not have time to Tead it carefully-appears to answer some charges made by the ' Mail and Empire.' This letter wTas mailed December 1, 1909, and on December 1, 1909, this House was in session, and I believe that, as a member of this House, I have as much right to frank the letter-as I have already said-as my hon. friends opposite have to frank their political letters.
Now, I admit that I did use my frank outside of the session. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) may call it a ' raw' bluff ' or whatever he pleases. I used my frank outside the session, and, I claim, used it legally. Hon. members are trying to draw some very fine distinctions about the interpretation of section 75 of the Post Office Act. Now', this section is very plain. My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) who is a lawyer, will admit that parliament is supreme and that no Postmaster General can curtail by order in council, any privileges that parliament has given. Now', under what statute do they complain? Under section 75 of the Post Office Act. This is a very old section. Turning to the origin of it, I find that, in 1867, at the time of Confederation, the Post Office Act covered a section having exactly this language the same language as section 75 of the present Act. In 1875, there w'as a consolidation of the Post Office Act. The same language is again used as is used to-day

in tlie consolidated statutes. But, in 1875, the franking privilege of members was enlarged. Up to that time, books sent from the library to members of parliament during the recess, and by members back to the library, had to pay postage, but, in 1875, it was enacted that books transmitted under these conditions should be exempt from postage. I take it that this privilege has been granted to members of parliament because their position necessarily takes them from home and imposes upon them a multiplicity of duties which would not arise in their ordinary calling, thus creating a great deal of correspondence, and, as it is in the interests of the country that this correspondence should be carried on, it was thought wise to exempt members of parliament from the duty of paying postage. I take it also that if a minister of the Crown continues to use his privilege as a member of parliament during the recess under the same conditions as those during session, he ought not to be debarred from that privilege. It has been argued by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) that the regulations restrict the franking power of members of the departments. I say that, as I read the statute-I may be mistaken; it is a question of interpretation of law, and as I have said, I am not here to advise the House of Commons as to the meaning of the words of the statutes; I may have my own ideas about it, but there are only the courts to decide the case, and no man is bound to agree with me in my opinion; it would be useless to argue a question of law before a tribunal that could not decide upon it-I say that the words granting the privileges to the departments are the same as in the case of members of this House, except that in the latter case it is ' addressed to or by' and, in the former ' sent to or by.' Surely, hon. members opposite will not argue that the effect of the statute is to declare that the words mean that a member may send a thousand or a million letters free if he addresses them during the session or parliament with his own hand. The words must be interpreted fairly. And I claim that the Postmaster General, 'by regulation, cannot curtail any of those powers that are given by the statute, and he cannot curtail them any more in the case of members than he can in the case of the department.
Now, let me read the section again, that I may deal with one or two words in it specially.
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.
Now, we may have to come down, and discuss here what constitutes a department. As the Minister of Justice has said, in my position as Solicitor General, I do not consider that I am a deputy minister or a civil servant. I consiuer myself, as I might say, the joint head of the Department of Justice, so far as counsel work is concerned, with the Minister of Justice. It is frankly a partnership in which I join in the counsel work with the attorney general who has more extensive powers granted him by the statute. The Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) says that I have certain specified franking privileges by the order in council. Sir, I do not attach so much importance to that after all. I claim that I have the right to frank my letters, and that the order in council is only notice to the postmaster at Ottawa that he is to accept that frank. Would any hon. member on the other side say that he must have in his possession and ready to show to the conductor of a train the certificate of the clerk of the House of Commons in order that he may exercise his right to travel free on a railway train in Canada?


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


Jacques Bureau: Of course not. The certificate is to facilitate matters; it is evidence to the conductor that the person presenting it is a member of parliament. So, this order in council can only be notice to the postmaster that the name ' Jacques Bureau,' is to be accepted as being the frank of the Solicitor General. This franking privilege, I claim, I get from the words of the statute itself. It is unfair 'to charge the Minister of Justice with breach of duty or anything wrong in this matter. The Minister of Justice stated plainly this morning that he did not know anything about this literature. If there is anything in the letter which I am accused of sending that is not matter proper for the mail, that- is another accusation, and should be the subject of another debate, instead of a debate on the question whether, in my official capacity, I have gone beyond the privileges granted by law. I claim that those privileges cannot be curtailed. When you appeal to the regulations which may be made from time to time by the Postmaster General or the Governor in Council, I understand those regulations to mean that the Postmaster General or Governor in Council may limit the use of the privileges, may make a regulation for instance, that you cannot post a parcel that is beyond a certain size or beyond a certain weight. But I claim that the regulations of the Postmaster General do not limit the franking privilege of a member as long as he keeps within the words ' letters and mailable matter.' Supposing I had written a letter like that every week, and put my frank

on it as Solicitor General, would hon. gentlemen say that I would be acting illegally? If they grant me the privilege of writing to my son or my mother, where are they going to draw the line?


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman argue that regulation 114 in all it3 parts is not within the powers of the Postmaster General?


Jacques Bureau: I argue that the regulations made by the Governor in Council cannot curtail the privileges that are granted to me by section 75, chap. 66, of the statutes.


Arthur Meighen: We all know that, but let the hon. gentleman answer my question. Does he argue that section 114 is beyond the power of the Postmaster General?


Jacques Bureau: I am not discussing the power of the Postmaster General to make regulations, I am arguing from my point of view, and giving my interpretation of section 75, and why I have the right to frank that letter.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman refuse to answer whether, in his opinion, section 114 is ultra vires?


Jacques Bureau: I said before, and I repeat, that I am not here to offer a legal opinion on any regulation or any provision of the statutes. First of all, it would be useless to argue the question with the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: I see the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) applauding; I think it would be useless to give him especially my legal opinion. But let me go on. Whether I said it was beyond the power or the capacity of the Postmaster General, or within his power, would make no difference. The Postmaster General may make whatever regulation he chooses to make, and if he makes any regulation which I believe does not apply to me, I am not obliged to follow it. The Postt-master General may change a section of the statute, then it is all right. If he says all letters of an official character pertaining to the department, well and good, I have nothing more to say, I cannot object under the statute. But as long as the statute says, ' all letters and mailable matter', I contend that I am within that section of the statute. Consider the question on any ordinary reasonable ground. I have explained the reasons which I thought brought about the granting of this franking privilege to members. If, during the- session, I can go to the post office here and, by writing 'Jacques Bureau' on the corner of a letter, I can send it through the mail, why can I not equally Mr. BUREAU.
send it through the mail if I stop a hundred feet beyond the eastern block and put my name on the letter and deposit it in the post office? This letter that is complained of was franked during the session. Now some hon. gentlemen admit that there is no limitation to the franking privilege of a member of parliament.


James Davis Taylor: The motion I offered is not based on matter franked during this session, it is based on a continued series of violations of the law.


Jacques Bureau: I noticed that what was read this morning was franked on the 1st December, 1909; the envelope that was brought forward by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) was dated the 10th March, 1910. Now, this is only quibbling on words. There is no regulation that says you must frank your letters as member of parliament, or by a special frank. It is not enough to put M. P. without your name. Nothing in the statutes or in the resrulations allow that. I ask where is the crime in writing my name in full on these two letters I have franked, and on that envelope the hon. member for North Grey has in his possession? Whether it was mailed from the eastern block or mailed- from the House of Commons, makes absolutely no difference.


William Sora Middlebro: I did not produce that envelope as mailed during the session, but as proof that it bore the frank of the Solicitor General; that is why I produced it. And the same thing has been going on during the recess.


Jacques Bureau: I never denied it. There was a question put- on the Order Paper, ar.d I stated the facts as they were, because I claim I am doing no wrong, I am doing what I have a right to do under the statute. Now, if this statute must be interpreted as the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) interprets it, then the Minister of Justice lias no right to frank a letter to his father or to his son, because it is not of a departmental character.


Arthur Meighen: The regulation does not say that it must be of a departmental character, but it says that if it is franked from a department during recess it must be of a departmental character. But here are letters franked during the recess with the initials of Jacques Bureau on them, and I say they are illegally franked if franked by Jacques Bureau as a member of parliament. They are illegally franked if franked by Jacques Bureau from his department unless they are of an official character.


Jacques Bureau: That is where I take issue with the hon. gentleman. Where is he going to draw the line?


Arthur Meighen: Where the regulations draw it?


Jacques Bureau: Under the regulations, the Minister of Justice has no right to frank a letter to his father or to his son. The hon. member talks about the recess, but I make no distinction. As the Minister of Justice said this morning, according to the hon. gentleman's interpretation of the regulations, he would have no right to frank a letter to his father or to his 3on.


Arthur Meighen: During recess.


Jacques Bureau: 
Samuel Hughes: Sam Ryckman.


Jacques Bureau: He was not a Grit anyway.
Is it the intention of the government to inquire into the said charges and punish the guilty parties if they be true?
The Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock). The government has been informed that election literature of the Conservative party was distributed free of postage through the mails during the recent election. Also that a certain leaflet intituled: ' A Political Review,' advocating the Conservative cause and the merits of the Kootenay Cure was distributed through the mails through the channel of the post office of the House of Commons, franked with the initials, ' S.R., M.P.,' and with initials of other members of the late House of Commons. Nothing has been determined as to what action, if any, may be taken.
That is an indication of the interpretation that has been given to that section of the statute ever since it was enacted in 1867. There was no action taken because It was assumed as a matter of course that it was within the privilege of a member of parliament to do it. My hon. friend the Postmaster General this morning made reference to the fact that at one time complaints were made by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Geo. Taylor) that the mails were not going out fast enough. There were bags and bags and bags of literature piled up in the halls. We could hardly get through. The corridors were full. It was not Liberal literature; it was Conservative literature. It was admitted then as it is admitted to-day that it is the privilege of a member of parliament to do that. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) laid special stress on the character of this literature. I hope he was acting from motives of public morality, and public interest, that he had no personal animosity against me, and that he would not like to see the Postmaster General haul up the Solicitor General under section 138, and have him pay a couple of millions fine, which everybody knows he could not do, and have, as the crowning of his political career as Solicitor General, to send him to the penitentiary for life.


George Taylor: Five years only.


Jacques Bureau: No, that is the minimum.
I suppose I would have to take my chances of the political proclivities of the jury which would try me, and as my opponents are very numerous in my riding I would be afraid of getting the maximum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Justice would commute the sentence in a short time.


Jacques Bureau: I hope he would because he is a man of sense. Well, Mr. Speaker,


IKT1SXD IDITIOS.
[Stage Direction]
coming back to the question, I, as I said before, assume the whole responsibility for the franking of the letter, and it is a matter of evidence jthat a member of parliament has franked that letter. Nevertheless,
I will not deny that I have done it, and it has not all been done during the recess. This is not the first that we have heard of this matter. The hon. member for New Westminster put some questions on the order paper, and they were answered, and answered honestly; only, I am sorry that this debate has given the chance to some members on the other side of the House to jump on the Minister of Justice, and accuse him of being guilty of all the crimes that the Criminal Code contains in its present provisions, and may contain in the future. I desire to declare here again that the Minister of Justice never was consulted by me, and I do not think I have to consult him or any other member of the government whenever I want to send a letter. Until the courts have shown that I am wrong in my interpretation of the statute I shall continue to maintain that view of it which I at present hold, and which I think is the fair and honest interpretation of the law. I did frank tnat letter, and as I said last year in the JTouse I have absolutely no apology to make for it.
Samuel Hughes: Does the Solicitor General assume the responsibility for the substance or composition of the letter that he franked? In other words, was the article prepared in the Justice Department or was it prepared by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller)?


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman is too cute altogether. I assume the responsibility of affixing the frank ' Jacques Bureau,' in the corner of the envelope that carried that literature. I am going to be candid. I will confess that I did not see all of that literature.


Samuel Hughes: I knew the Solicitor General would be candid.


Jacques Bureau: Some of that literature that I did read I consider highly in the public interest and of a high moral character. There is another word I want to add with reference to something that was said this morning. The Minister of Justice said that he was a politician and a political partisan. Some hon. members on the other side seemed to be highly scandalized at that. They were horrified; they thought that was the most vicious statement they had ever heard. I ask, Mr. Speaker, in all candour, if there is an hon. member in this House, except, perhaps, my hon. friend from York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), who can stand up and say that he is not a political partisan. What are we here for? Why are there two sides to this Mr. BUREAU.
House? Why do my hon. friends sit on the left of the Speaker and we on the right if there are no political partisans in this House?


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I will tell my hon. friend somebody who is not a political partisan. If he will look at the parliamentary guide he will find that the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Girard) is stamped there as Independent Conservative and surely no one could classify him as a political partisan.


Jacques Bureau: 
Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member cannot depart from the discussion of a question before the House.


Glenlyon Campbell: I bow to your judgment, of course, Mr. Speaker, and I take it as a compliment that when the hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) referred to any old subject he liked, he was permitted to do so.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is a custom of the House that passing allusion may be made to another subject, but no question can be discussed except that which is before the Chair.


Glenlyon Campbell: Well, I suppose this campaign letter is pertinent, and I want to bring some of its contents to the notice of some of my hon. friends on the other side who stood with me in fighting for decent government on race-tracks.
Liberals' attempt to stop race-track gambling obstructed by Tory race-track owners.
That is the heading, absolutely misleading, absolutely a lie, as hon. gentlemen opposite know. I think it would be only fair of the hon. gentlemen who stood with me and voted against the Miller monstrosity, voted for good legislation, legislation that was for the benefit of honest racing, of horse breeding, of the general morality of the public


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Glenlyon Campbell: The hon. gentlemen seem to object to my speaking of the gen-eial morality of the public. I think it is only fair that hon. gentlemen opposite should voice their opinion with regard to such stuff as this which has been sent out,_ franked by the department of the Minister of Justice. Stones have been thrown at the Minister of Justice with regard to the manly stand he took upon what I have referred to as a monstrosity. For once in my life I approve of what he voiced on that occasion. He was then taking a stand which he does not often take, an absolutely non-partisan stand and a manly stand, because he was not afraid to voice his opinion. When he did that I


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: As I have been especially appealed to by the Postmaster General with regard to the interpretation of the section in question, I deem it. my duty to say a few words. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice seemed inclined to pass some reflection on the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) suggesting at least if he did not distinctly assert, that it was a very small matter to bring a subject of this kind before the House. I do not think that in respect of a question such as this, involving a principle, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) is liable to such an imputation, and I would be inclined to suggest that even if that imputation could be cast on the hon. member for New Westminster, perhaps his action may be favourably compared with that of the Minister of 'Justice in bringing forward that wonderful story of his about the bag of grain. If the imputation of small talk is to be cast on any hon. member, the Minister of Justice might seriously consider which of these hon. gentlemen is the more subject to that imputation.
The Postmaster General and all members *of the government who have spoken on this question have taken a somewhat different ground from what I heard them take before. On previous occasions they were rather apologetic in regard to this matter. The Solicitor General, I remember, once was rather inclined to defend this on the ground that it was an old practice. I am not prepared to dispute that; it may have been an old practice, but the fact that it is an old practice does not necessarily make it a good practice, at Mr. CAMPBELL.
least in the judgment of the Solicitor General. I do not suppose that the conduct and the methods of the Conservative administration before 1896 are the highest ideals to which the Solicitor General aspires, at least I have never so understood up to the present time. However, he has on previous occasions sought to take refuge behind this. The Postmaster General has attempted to do the same thing, but after all it does not seem to me that that suggestion assists us very much in coming to a conclusion upon the resolution proposed by the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. J. D. Taylor).
All the ministers who have spoken upon this question have referred to section 75, which reads:	I
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.
Taking that in connection with section 114 of the regulations, I have no hesitation in expressing my opinion that it was perfectly competent to make regulation _ 114, and that that regulation is wholly intra vires of the authority that made it. The Solicitor General introduced a very unhappy illustration from his standpoint. I am perfectly well aware, and every hon. gentleman who is a member of the bar is well aware, that the power to regulate does not involve the power to destroy. That has been settled by courts of last resort, both in this country and in Great Britain. The power to regulate does not involve the power to destroy, but it means something. Take the very illustration suggested by the Solicitor General. He says that a member of parliament has the right, by statute, to be carried without charge on the railways of this country, and even if he had not in his possession the identification card which is presented to him every year by the clerk of the House he would still have the right so to be carried. I agree with that. But suppose that the statute had provided that every railway in this country is bound to convey members of parliament subject to such regulations as the Governor in Council shall prescribe, and suppose the Governor in Council had prescribed as one of the conditions that every member should have in his possession an identification card signed by the clerk of the House, that would be regulating and would not be destroying. I take the illustration suggested by the Solicitor General, and I say it is the strongest argument that can be urged against the contention he has made. So far as that matter is concerned, section 114 is absolutely intra vires of the authority which made

it, and until to-day I have never heard any contention to the contrary.
Now let us look for a moment at the language of section 75, leaving out the immaterial words. ' All mailable matter,' I take that because it includes everything else, ' all mailable matter sent by any department of the government at the seat of government shall be free of Canada postage under such regulations as are from time to time made in that respect by the Governor in Council.' Well, in the first place what is the regulation? The regulation as I have it in this book issued by the author! ity of the Post Office Department is this:
All letters and other mailable matter sent by the public departments at Ottawa and franked as being of a departmental character, all correspondence addressed to the ministers in charge of the said departments or to their private secretaries, or to the deputy heads or secretaries of the same, or to any recognized branch or division of a department are to be carried free of Canadian postage.
I invite the attention of the House in the first place to the fact that the hon. gentlemen upon the treasury benches with the exception of my hon. friend the Solicitor ' General who alluded to this point, entirely overlooked the exact terms of section 75. Section 75 provides that mailable matter may be sent by the department, and the regulation says it must be franked as departmental matter. Is there any doubt about that? Well, then the question for the consideration of the House is simply this. Were these letters sent by the department and were they franked as departmental matter ? That is all. Is there any question


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is not the minister part of the department?


Robert Laird Borden: The minister is part of the department. He is the head of the department, but he is not the department. But in this case cne minister did not do it, the Solicitor General did not do it. [DOT] They absolved the department absolutely from any responsibilities whatever in connection with it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me. I do not want to interrupt him unduly.


Robert Laird Borden: He can interrupt me as much as he likes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The flank of the Minister of Justice in the case of the Solicitor General, I mean the personal frank of the Minister of Justice, is not needed by the order in council passed two or three years ago. The Solicitor General was given a personal frank as part of the Department of Justice.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not care what frank was given to the Solicitor General or to any other person associated with the Department of Justice. The statute provides simply two things, one that the matter to be franked must De departmental matter, and in the next place it must be sent out by the department. It is impossible to gainsay that position. There are the clear words of the statute and of the regulation for the consideration of my hon. friend the Postmaster General. Is this departmental matter? The Postmaster General, the Minister of Justice, and the Solicitor General have declared upon their responsibility as ministers of the Crown that the department has absolutely nothing to do with this letter, that they do not know what it is, that they have no conception of its contents. They desire to disassociate themselves from it absolutely, and I congratulate them upon their good taste. They say this has nothing to do with the department. I would like to ask the Postmaster General this. Suppose the Solicitor General or any other official connected with the department sent out a pill advertisement, a patent medicine advertisement, by hundreds of thousands under the frank of the Solicitor General or the Postmaster General, does he say that they would be justified under the terms of this statute and regulation?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Robert Laird Borden: He would not. I would like to know on what higher plane he would put this political letter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend can surely draw a distinction between political matter and pill advertisements.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend the Postmaster General point out to me the words of the statute which distinguish between a party political letter and a patent medicine advertisement? I would like to see the language of the statute which makes any such distinction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend will allow me, I stated this morning, and I call to my assistance, if I need any in the present debate, the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. J. Haggart). I stated this morning that the statute was very clear, giving members of the House of Commons, during the session, and ministers of His Majesty at all times, during recess, as well, the privilege of franking their letters. My hon. friend relies upon the regulations of the department. Regulation 114 states that letters and other mailable matter sent out by public departments at Ottawa and franked as being departmental matter, enjoy the franking privilege. I explained, I think, and I call to my assistance the hon. gentleman who was long in the government

before my time, the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), what was the object of that regulation? It was enacted by the Post Office authorities at the time to prevent the civil servants, the officials of- various departments, from abusing the franking privilege, which appertains to the heads of the department and to the department itself. I do not want to take up time, but I stated this morning that it was found that officials were abusing the franking privilege, that they were franking letters for outside parties, and that is why the_ old government, with which my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) was formerly connected, enacted that regulation 114. I may say I had that confirmed by the deputy minister a moment ago.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the plain words of this statute and of this regulation are to be interpreted upon any conjectural remarks of my hon. friend the Postmaster General.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I beg pardon.


Robert Laird Borden: I say I am not
aware that the words of the statute are to be interpreted upon any such conjecture as that offered by my hon. friend the Postmaster General. I take the words of the statute, and I shall repeat them again. The statute 'says that mailable matter may be sent out by the departments, and that matter so sent out by a department if it is to be carried free of postage must be departmental matter. I say so far as this letter is concerned, the department has absolutely denied that it did send it out as a department, and I say that every minister who has spoken on this matter has absolutely denied that this letter is of a departmental character. Then, I say the question falls. There is no more argument about it. There has been a persistent and plain violation of the statute and of the regulation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let me put a question to my hon. friend. I ask him as a very eminent lawyer, would he say, putting his reputation at stake, that I as Postmaster General writing a letter to my son during recess could not frank that letter?


Mr.   I@: I will come to that. I was about to come to that when the Postmaster General asked the question. I say that under the strict terms of the stature and regulation, he has not that power, but in respect to trivial and casual matters of that kind no one in this House would think of raising any question. But it is not of that we are complaining. We are complaining of a system carried on deliberately from day to day and from week to week throughout the year by which the campaign literature of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House has been carried free of postage through the mails in Mr. LEMIEUX.
absolute violation of the law of this country. My hon, friend the Postmaster General, and my hon. friend the Solicitor General, ask if letters are to be opened. What a paltry argument that is. Of course, letters are not to be opened, not letters of a department or of members of parliament. But, when we have the clear and explicit declaration, of my hon. friend the Solicitor General that this practice is carried on systematically, day after day, week after week, and year after year, it does not come to a question of whether we shall open letters, but to a question whether this House shall or shall not pronounce its . condemnation of a systematic violation of the law of this country, concurred in, I am sorry to say, by the Postmaster General
There is really nothing further to say on the question, it seems to me. Where is my hon. friend to draw the line? He says that patent medicine advertisements cannot be sent out. If the Solicitor General were to persist in using his frank for such a purpose, and made a declaration on the floor of this House that he had done so in the past and intended to do so in the future, I presume my hon. friend the Postmaster General would feel compelled to take some steps in the matter. Again, I say, as between that and the literature that has been sent out, I can see absolutely no difference, so far as the interpretation of this statute and of this regulation is concerned. It is impossible to conceive that one can be within the statute and the other without the statute; they are exactly on the same plane. The statute, I again repeat demands that this franking privilege shall only be exercised by the department as such, and in respect of mailable matter of a departmental character, and as to both these characteristics my hon. friend the Postmaster General has admitted that the statute and regulation have not been complied with. I suggest, therefore, to the Postmaster General, with a view to correcting this evil and discharging that duty to the public which he undertook when he assumed the seals of office, that he should accept the resolution of my hon. friend from New Westminster, and put a stop to this practice which has been carried on during the past eight or ten years.


Mr. PATERSON.: I desire to ask the hon. member (Mr. R. L. Borden) a question, not with a view to controversy, but for explanation.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly. .


William Paterson: The discussion is as to what is proper during the recess. The departments receive many letters-and this exemption includes letters sent to, as well as sent by, the department. Letters come addressed to the minister or to the department which may not be on departmen-

tal business at ail-they may be political letters. How are you going to deal with that? Is that ruled out under the section?	i	i


Robert Laird Borden: If they are not really on public business of a departmental character, they cannot properly come under the provisions of the statute. I know that awkward cases may be cited, possibly cases that are inconsistent with the usage established in the past. I am not concerned with that; I am taking the plain words of the statute, and the regulation. The minister (Mr. Paterson) has asked me a fair question and I desire to answer it fairly. Under the words of the statute, it seems to me, unless matter can be described as of a departmental character, and unless it is sent out by the department as such, it cannot go free in the mails. You cannot go further than that. But, as respects trifling and trivial instances, no one would think for a moment of raising any question. It is only when there is a ^regular, organized system of what I hold to be a violation of the Post Office law carried on by a department of the government, that the question is raised in this House. I think that the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) if he were satisfied that there was a violation of the law, would be as anxious as I am to see it brought to an end.


William Paterson: I am not asking questions in a controversial spirit. But letters of all kinds oome to the departments. They might be letters on things which could not be called departmental. Would that be considered a violation of the law?


Robert Laird Borden: As I have said, I think that the terms of the statute do not cover mail matter of that kind. But I say that such trifling instances are not worth talking about in this House. I am talking of the terms of the statute, and the regulations as I find them, and am giving what 1 sincerely believe to be the true interpretation.


Mr. CONGDON.: Clearly, under the terms of the resolution itself, there is nothing before the House to justify the acceptance of the resolution, for it speaks merely of passing through the mail political matter under the frank of the Department of Justice, and there is no evidence of any such political matter having gone through the mail under the frank of the minister or of the department-there is only the trank of the Solicitor General, as admitted by himself. I think it is admitted on all sides that there is no limit to the right of a member to transmit and receive, free of postage, mailable matter during the session of the House, and any regulation made either by the Governor in Council or by the Postmaster General under authority o*f
the Postal Act limiting in any way the right of members to send mailable matter-regardless of whether that matter relates to politics or to anything else-is beyond the power of the Governor or the Post Office Department.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) thinks that ^ny member of the government who cites the practice of a government preceding the accession to office of the present government is endeavouring to take refuge behind something of which, apparently, he does not very much approve. But I think it is very material to this inquiry, and to all other inquiries of this kind to ascertain what has been the practice. I venture to say that it is unquestionably the fact that every minister of the government, from confederation down, has acted as though he, as a member of the government and head of a department, had in this matter, exactly the same right outside the session as a member of parliament has during the session. I say that the words of section 114 of the regulations do not limit that at all, but merely express what shall be accepted by the postal authorities as that which is to be accepted free of postage from the departments. From time immemorial what has come from a department under the frank of the head of the department is a matter in respect of which the Postal Department makes no inquiry, and I say that under this section there is no endeavour to limit that right-and if there were it would be ultra vires of the power of the government. There is nothing clearer than that the power to make regulations must be construed strictly, and that such powers cannot authorize prohibition. There is no power, under any regulation made under the Postal Act either by the Governor in Council or by the Postmaster General, to limit in any way the matter which may be transmitted and received either by a member of this House or Dy a department of the government. The practice has been -and it seems to me a sound and sensible practice-to recognize in the heads of departments the exact rights during recess which are claimed during session by the members of this House. The regulation, I think, can be very well read in that way. One can easily interpret section 114 not as limiting the class of mail matter which can be sent by any of the departments. It comes from the department, and goes through the post office, as a matter of course. I say there is nothing unreasonable in the practice, from confederation down to the present time, of a minister having the right to frank any matter which he chooses the same as a member of this House during the session. It seems to me there is great danger, in the case of certain members of this House, of their goodne3*

growing to plurisy. I do not think any thing can be more inconsistent than an endeavour to draw fine lines in regard to these matters. The Solicitor General referred to an instance of 1896. . It may not be amiss to refer also to something that occurred previous to the election of 1904. In consequence of the mailable matter which had accumulated-matter of a purely campaign character; the corridors of this building, as has been mentioned, having been filled with it-the threat was made that this House should be held up long enough to send that matter out, if the minister would not agree to send it out afterwards. And it was sent out after the House rose, and it took two special trains with mail clerks and a cost of thousands of dollars to send that political matter through the length and breadth of this country. It seems to me that when the mail matter is of one political complexion it meets with no objection from our friends of the opposition, but if it is of another political complexion then they deem it very objectionable to frank. It seems to me reasonable that ministers out of session should have the same right which members have in session, and I do not think that any other practice is possible. If you proceed to limit the character of the mail matter which a member may send out, you would have to hold an investigation into the character of the matter, an investigation which would certainly be most objectionable and undesirable. I think the same objection would apply to limiting ministers, and that is the reason why that interpretation of the Act has been followed since confederation.


Samuel Hughes: Had the character of this communication that has been brought before the House, been at all in the line of decency, I presume there would have been very little said about it. But it is of such a character that every member of the government who has spoken about it has repudiated all knowledge of it, and the Solicitor General has repudiated having anything to do with it.


Jacques Bureau: I never repudiated it.


Samuel Hughes: The Solicitor General said that he knew nothing about the subject matter.


Jacques Bureau: I said I did not read it all.


Samuel Hughes: Did the Solicitor General read this article that he sent out?


Jacques Bureau: No.


Samuel Hughes: Then I am correct in saying that he has repudiated having anything to do with the composition of this article.


Jacques Bureau: Does my hon. friend mean to say that he repudiates everything he does not read?


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: 


Samuel Hughes: I have not sent out anything of this kind. But this is the point that I want to put before the House. A few years ago there was a great deal of campaign literature sent out by the Conservative party, and I sent out my share of it, but not one tithe of that literature ever reached its destination, owing to the refusal of the then Postmaster General to send it forward. That is what I rise to protest against. Not only did these gentlemen hold it up, but they actually robbed the mails, and I maintain that they left themselves open to criminal prosecution. They destroyed it by tons, I was going to say; at any rate, it was not sent forward, perhaps they sold it to raise funds for their own campaign literature. It was deliberately side-tracked, I purposely use the word ' deliberately,' it was side-tracked and destroyed. That was before the time of the present Postmaster General. I was informed that there were tons of that literature stored up in places here in Ottawa for some years after the elections were held. Now, when a person goes to the trouble of sending out respectable campaign literature, I think he has a right to require that it is conveyed to its destination. So far as the literature under discussion is concerned, I will not say anything except that the contents of the letter have been frankly repudiated by every respectable gentleman who has spoken on the matter to-day.


George Taylor: Reference has been made by the Postmaster General, and by the Solicitor General, and the member for Yukon (Mr. Congdon), to the state of affairs previous to the election of 1904; they stated that the corridors of the House were blocked by Conservative literature, and that two special trains had to be made up in order to take it forward. Let me inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Conservative party did prepare campaign literature previous to that election, they got it printed at Montreal, the envelopes were purchased there and addressed there, and each member paid his shaTe of the expense. The literature came up here by express, and the members had the privilege of franking it just as members of the government had. But how was it done by members of the government and their supporters? Every day during the session, in the Department of Agriculture, in the Department of the Interior and in the Department of Justice, there was a staff of civil servants employed in addressing this Liberal campaign literature, and it was going out by the cartload, blocking the mails every day so that we could not get ours off. But there was this difference. Their literature was paid for by the country, the civil servants of this country were engaged in addressing it, and I saw it

going out to the post office to be mailed, and the country paid for all that. But on our side we had to pay out of our own pockets all the expense, and when we tried to mail it we could not do so because the mails were blocked by the literature from the departments, the post office was blocked and was not able to receive our mail from the House of Commons. Those are the facts of the case. I was blamed for franking this literature. I franked a portion of it and sent it into some good Liberal constituencies. It was all moral literature, good religious literature.


Jacques Bureau: I never blamed you.


George Taylor: But reference has been made to it here by other members. The fact is that the blocking of the mails was done by hon. gentlemen opposite in sending out their literature at the expense of the country, when they employed the civil servants to address it, while on our side we paid all the expense ourselves.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: A few words with reference to the clause of the Act which is under consideration by the House, because I think I was Postmaster General when that Act was passed. The Act was passed for the purpose of limiting as far as possible the abuses that were practised by the too free use of the franking privilege. Every civil servant under the government had the franking privilege, and it was decided to limit that privilege, and the limitation is clearly set forth in the law. No minister has a right to frank any document except departmental documents during recess. Why should that not be so? What right has a minister of the Crown to a greater franking privilege than I have? We are alike members of parliament elected by our constituencies, and what right has a minister at any time of the year to send out to the electors campaign literature which I or any other member should not also have? Because I am in opposition am I to be debarred from doing it? That is the gravamen of the offence of which we complain. If we had the right, we would allow these gentlemen to do the same thing. But we have not the right, and we ought to be on a par with them as to our rights in this House. Therefore we insist upon the law being carried out. It is all very well for hon. members to make remarks upon the intention of parliament, but we are dealing with the statute as we find it, and we have no right to judge of the intentions of those who passed the Act. Here is the law, it is applied to us, and we cannot send out literature a day or two after the session is closed; we are debarred from sending it to our constituents. What we complain of is not that they send it out, but that they are taking a privilege which
the law does not give them, and which we are deprived of. Give us the same privilege as you have and we will make no complaints about it. All that we expect as representatives of the people is that we shall have the same right as you have. At present we have no rights during the recess. We insist upon our rights and that you shall not exercise a right which we are deprived of.
House divided on amendment.-Mr. J. D. Taylor.

Messieurs.
Armstrong,	Magrath,
Barnard,	Meighen,
Best,	Middlebro,
Borden (Halifax),	Northrup,
Boyce,	Paquet,
Bradbury,	Per ley,
Burrell,	Roche,
Campbell,	Russell,
Cowan,	Schaffner,
Crosby,	Sexsmith,
Crothers,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Daniel,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Edwards,	Smyth,
Fraser,	Sproule,
Goodeve,	Stanfield,
Haggart (Lanark),	Staples,
Haggart (Winnipeg),	Stewart,
Henderson,	Taylor (Leeds),
Herron,	Taylor (New
Hughes,	Westminster),
Jameson,	Wallace,
Kidd,	White (Renfrew),
Lalor,	Wilson (Lennox &
Lennox,	Addington),
McCall,	Wright.-48.

Messieurs.
Allard,	Low,
Allen,	MacNutt,
Aylesworth,	MeCraney,
Beauparlant,	MoGiverin,
Beland,	McIntyre,
Borden (Sir	McKenzie,
Frederick),	McLean (Huron),
Boyer,	Marcile (Bagot),
Bureau,	Martin (St. Mary's),
Cash,	Martin (Regina),
Champagne,	Martin (Wellington)
Chisholm	Michaud,
(Antigonish),	Molloy,
Clark (Red Deer),	Murphy,
Clarke (Essex),	Neely,
Congdon,	Oliver,
Conmee,	Papineau,
Delisle,	Pardee,.
Demers,	Parent,
Douglas,	Paterson,
Ethier,	Pickup,
Fielding,	Proulx,
Fisher,	Pugsley,
Fortier,	Rankin,
Fowke,	Reid (Restigouohe),
Geoffrion,	Richards,
Graham,	Roy (Dorchester),
Haity,	Roy (Montmagny),

Hunt,	Rutan,
King,	Smith (Middlesex),
Knowles,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Kyte,	Sperry,
Lafortune,	Todd,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Tolmie,
Lapointe,	Turcotte (Nicolet),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Turcotte (Quebec	
Lavergne,	County),
Law,	Turriff,
LeBlane,	Warburton,
Lemieux,	White (Victoria),
Lnggie,	Wilson (Laval).-79.
PAIRS.	
Messieurs.	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Brodeur,	Foster,
Templeman,	Worthington,
Stratton,	Gordon (Nipissing),
Sinclair,	Monk,
Gordon (Kent),	Osier,
Nesbitt,	Wilcox,
Hodgins,	Arthurs, Maddin,
Currie (Prince Edward),	
Rivet,	Doherty,
Carrier,	Lancaster,
Tobin,	Barker,
Macdonald,	Blain,
Brown,	Donnelly,
Seguin,	Nantel,
Meigs,	Currie (Simcoe),
Lovell,	Thornton,
Car veil,	Rhodes,
Savoie,	McCarthy,
Smith (Stormont),	Broder,
Dubeau,	Macdonell,
Biokerdike,	Ames,
Devlin,	Blondin,
German,	Bristol,
Chisholm (Inverness).	, Crocket,
Guthrie,	Chisholm (Huron),
Gervais,	Forget,
Harris,	Bison,
McColl,	Clare,
McLean (Sunbury),	Marshall,
McAllister,	Lake,
Miller,	Lewis,
Sealey,	Lortle,
Schell,	Maclean (York),
Talbot,	Owen,
Prowse,	Reid (Grenville),
McCoig,	Price,
Black,	Thoburn,
McMillan,	Porter.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Suppy.
Medical attendance, Indians, Ontario, $4,893.75.
Mr. U. WILSON.: How many Indians in Ontario?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: The total number of Indians in Ontario is 23,898. The numbers in each band are given in detail in the report of the Indian Department.
Mr. WrRIGHT. What is the total Indian population of Quebec?


John Graham Haggart: 


Frank Oliver: 11,523.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Then why is the vote for Quebec as large as that of Ontario with only half as many Indians?


Frank Oliver: The Ontario Indians are situated on cultivated and cultivatable land, and so do not come under the neqes-sities which cause this vote, whereas in Quebec they are in much larger proportion not settled on such lands and therefore, are subject to the need of relief. The difference in the numbers of the Indians has really no bearing on the case.


William Wright: What is the method of procuring supplies, blankets, &c., for the Indians?


Frank Oliver: The supplies provided for under this relief vote are in all cases purchased by tender after public advertisement.


William Wright: I find many supplies purchased in Ottawa for Indians in British Columbia, and other western provinces. That must involve heavy transportation charges.


Frank Oliver: The tender prices for goods purchased under this vote are. prices delivered at the railway station nearest the point where they will be used.


William Wright: In purchasing flour and such heavy goods, does one tender cover the whole Dominion or is there a separate tender for each separate place?


Frank Oliver: One advertisement is issued calling for the delivery of certain supplies at certain places. The tenders that come in are examined, and the man who tenders lowest for delivery at a certain place gets the contract for delivery at that place. It is not required that a man shall tender for the whole quantity in order to get any of it.


James Davis Taylor: I understood the minister to sav that the same system is pursued as was followed by his predecessors.


Frank Oliver: In this case?


George Taylor: There used to be a thick catalogue setting forth the articles required for the Indians, and copies of the catalogue were sent to the wholesale houses all over the country; is that the system, that is pursued now?


Frank Oliver: That is the same system.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Are all these Indians, treaty Indians? Have they all a claim on the government for supplies?


Frank Oliver: The condition varies in different parts of the country. This amount is to provide for the relief of distress, and 1 there is no distinction under that vote be-

tween the Indian who receives annuity money and the Indian who does not.


William Wright: What is the reason foi giving special grants to those chiefs?


Frank Oliver: These bands have not sufficient funds of their own. Iq administering the affairs of the Indians where there is a property to be disposed of, a lund is created for the benefit of the band, and out of the interest of that fund certain expenses of the band are paid. In the case of those particular bands, their funds are not sufficient to pay the usual allowance, and this vote i3 supplementary.
-'s i 0 ^' 0':l _ 0ntili'io	and	Quebec-Surveys,


David Henderson: The same amount of surveys?


Frank Oliver: We have a survey staff whose time is employed in making surveys of reserves and working generally for the department. The surveys we propose to make with this money are at Fort Hope. Martins Falls, Fort Albany and Moose Factory. These are reserves in New Ontario where we took adhesion of the Indians about three years ago.


Uriah Wilson: How much of the vote did we spend la3t year?


Frank Oliver: We only spent $3,000 last year.


William Wright: This does not seem to be a revote then.


Frank Oliver: It. i3 a new vote.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: How many acres were sold last year of Indian lands?


Frank Oliver: There were no lands sold in Ontario, and if my hon. friend would wait until we come to the western provinces, it would keep the discussion more in order.
Indian Land Management fund and province of Quebec fund, $10,000.


William Wright: What is the purpose of that?


Frank Oliver: Many years ago when the government of Canada took over the administration of Indian affairs it was thought possible that the exclusive management should be carried on out of Indian funds, and for a number of years ait attempt was made to carry on the business in that way. The result was that the cost of management exceeded the yearly accruing revenue from the funds. The capital was being depleted by the cost of management, and if matters had gone on in that way the capital fund would have been exhausted. It was thought that that was not the proper way to carry on the business and at some period it was decided that the bulk of the cost of management should be voted out of the general treasury, and that the money taken from the capital funds of the Indians should be returned to that fund. So every year we have voted a certain amount as the. amount to be returned to that capital fund. I may say that at the rate we have been going the capital fund will soon be up to its original figure, and this charge will disappear.


Uriah Wilson: Are we using the interest that accumulates to pay other expenses?


Frank Oliver: The accruing interest is being used for the purposes of the Indians. We are not deducting from this capital, and not only so, but we are supplementing the interest


Uriah Wilson: I did not make myself clear. I understood that this was not only to replace what had been taken, but also to defray the expenses of management.


Frank Oliver: This vote is simply to replace, year by year, a certain portion of the money that was taken. The interest has been spent from year to year, as it was originally intended it. should be spent, but, instead of taking the shortage out of the capital, we ask parliament now to vote it, and not only so, but to make up the shortage that was created.


Mr. WEIGHT.: There are two votes here: Indians land management and Quebec fund. What is the distinction?


Frank Oliver: The two are of the same nature. There was a special fund provided by the province of Quebec, and there was a fund provided for the management outside of Quebec. Both funds were dealt with in the same way and both suffered similar depletion, and we are making up to these funds in the same way year by [DOT]year.


George Taylor: There has been no change in this for many years?


Frank Oliver: No.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The increase in the Indian population is very slight. But (here are three hundred more officials than there were about fourteen years ago and the expense is greatly increased. A year or two ago the expenditure was $60,000 more than it had been a few years before that. Why should the expenditure increase in this way and the money be so extravagantly used?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend suggests that the expenditure is larger in proportion to the number of Indians than it was ten or twelve years ago. i have no doubt his statement is correct. The only answer

we can make is that we are giving a better service to the Indians than in times gone by. With the development of the country we have been able to take new areas under treaty, and to assume responsibilities in regard to them. We are carrying out those responsibilities, mainly in relation to education-school education, and education in farming and industry-to a greater extent than in former years. In doing that we think we have not only the sanction, but the cordial approval of the public.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not wish to enter upon a controversy now, but I am afraid the minister (Mr. Oliver) is not fully acquainted with the facts. For instance, up to two years ago there had been an increase, only one in tne number of school teachers in twelve years. If I had time I would like to show the condition of the Indian Department. I believe it is the duty of the Minister of the Interior to turn over the Department of Indian Affairs to some other minister who would have time to attend to it. I do not find so much fault with the minister. He has not only this Indian department to look after, but he has charge of immigration, public lands, homestead inspection, fire ranging and many other branches. It is impossible for one man to do alt this. Yet he retains the Indian Department, in the face of the fact that other ministers of the Crown are going around practically looking for something to do. It is no wonder that he has such cases as that of the St. Peter's reserve brought before this House. It is no wonder that charges are brought before this House such as I made two years ago, when I showed tnat out of 620,-0(K) acres of Indian lands, 500,000 acres had been sold at an upset price fixed by the department. That means nothing else than that the price was fixed by the deputy minister. And after the sample of work done by the deputy minister, I think it would be wise for the minister to take into consideration whether he is capable of handling the department, or if it is not time he should look about and get another man in his place. The minister speaks for the good work done for the Indians on educational lines. Does he want me to show the condition of the Indians in the United States and the splendid, uplifting work that is going on among the Indians of that country as compared with what is being done in Canada? The minister tells us that the Indians own $32,000,000 of property. Yet we find that there are 3,167 cases of tuberculous diseases. What is being done for them? And the physicians in charge of 41,000 Indians did not report at all-about half the physicians employed under the present deputy. I could take up hours of the time of this House with instances of this kind.
Mr, OLIVER.


Mr. TOLMIE.: Go on.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tolmie) would like to hear reasons for condemning the work of the Indian Department, I could give him facts to show that the department is carried on in a most careless, indifferent, and I might say, corrupt manner. The minister has had these matters called to his attention time and again. But, instead of taking hold of the department or allowing some other minister to do so, which I claim is his duty, he still continues to attempt the task, which is evidently beyond him, of managing all the affairs placed in his charge. I call the minister's attention to these matters as showing that the money is being recklessly spent.


Mr. CONMEE.: I do not think the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) is warranted in making general assertions that money has been recklessly spent, and that the department is improperly and corruptly managed. These are easy things to say without attempting to bring evidence in support of them. I think I have some knowledge of the management of the Indian Department, at least in my riding. I happen to represent a district comprising nearly one-half the area of the province of Ontario, in which the greater portion of the Indian population of that province reside. And I am prepared to say that, in my judgment, the business of the Indians is well and honestly managed. I am prepared to say that there is a great improvement in the educational facilities afforded the Indians now over what there was even a few years ago. There are new buildings and new equipment, sanitary conditions are improved, and the position of the Indians generally improved. It is a very difficult thing to carry out the work efficiently, as it is there is an improvement upon the conditions of some years ago. Affairs are better managed than they were formerly. I am not finding fault with the past, but I think I have some knowledge of the matter, and my opinion is that there is a vast improvement on these lines.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am satisfied the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) is not acquainted with the matter at all. I went into the facts two years ago, and placed before the House statistics which went to show that out of 620,000 acres of land, tens of thousands of acres had been sold at ten cents and fifteen cents an acre, that dozens of islands had been sold at $1 apiece. Does the hon. minister call that taking care of the Indian lands of the country? I have a return covering every acre of land sold, showing where it was located and to whom it was sold. I could bring that return again and show page after page of records

of lands sold which even the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) would say were not sold at a right price. Why, in 1908, as I showed, there were some 3,000 Indians around James Bay who had not among them a single doctor or government official. There was a territory in Moosonee or Keewatin in which there were 10,000 Indians and not a government official amongst them. These are chlarges that have never been refuted, and that have been made time and again in this parliament.


James Conmee: These were not treaty Indians. They were not taken over by the department, and the government could hardly be held responsible for them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But if the hon. gentleman will investigate Indian affairs, he will find that the department has spent tens of thousands of dollars on non-treaty Indians.


James Conmee: They were not treaty Indians at that time in the sense in which they are to-day. As to the sale of lands, the lands were sold for the market price at the time. All the Indian lands are sold, so far as I know, by public competition after advertisement. The hon. member shakes his head. I am well aware that Indian lands have been sold otherwise, but not of recent years. The hon. gentleman thinks he made very important charges against the Indian Department a couple of years ago. I venture to say that he has rot convinced anybody, in this House or out of it, that the charge was worth the paper it was written on, for the reason that the lands were sold at the market prices. I know of Indian lands settled by a previous administration on similar terms tc those applying to free grant lands in Ontario. I speak of the Manitoulin island. This was an Indian reserve. It was in the public interest that the land should be settled. The Indians to-day are better taken care of than they would have been if they had held it, because they have been furnished with industrial schools and industrial works, have been given an education and taught trades. The result is that they have advanced in intelligence and civilization to a very great extent as compared with ten or fifteen years ago. It is a very easy thing to find fault. I do not pretend to say that this department, or any other department, has not made mistakes, but I do say that it is unfair for the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) to make such strong and sweeping charges as he has made without any evidence to back them up. Those charges are not true so far las Ontario is concerned.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: According to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Conmee's) own argument, he knows only very little of a small portion of this question of the Indians. He has not investigated the Indian report,
I venture to say he has not looked through it, yet he says that everything is going along smoothly. The hon. gentleman is the very man that will stand by this government in every bit of trickery and corruption that is carried on in the parliament of Canada. He stood up no doubt for the St. Peter's reserve. Does he really think that was a straight forward business-like transaction? Does he think that when the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce) brought up that charge last year In regard to Indian lands, does he think that also was a straight forward business-like transaction, and carried through for the benefit of the Indians? Then the sale of 620,000 acres I referred to. The hon. gentleman knows full well that those lands were not put up and disposed of by auction in a proper way, a large portion of those lands was disposed of either by private sale under the Indian agent, or at an upset price fixed by the department, that is to say, fixed by the deputy head.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman is not justified in saying that I have not looked into the Indian reports. I do not profess to have examined all the Indian reports, but I have more or less knowledge of their contents. Now, the hon. gentleman said that the Indian lands referred to by the member for Algoma were sold at an upset price and without advertisement. What lands, and where?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have a list of them, a stack of them several inches high.


James Conmee: Then the hon. gentleman refers to the St. Peter's reserve in the vicinity of Selkirk, and wants to know if I think T was justified in voting on that question as I did. I want to tell him that I do. In my opinion that was a businesslike transaction, carried out in the interest of the public and in the interest of the Indians themselves. I know the local conditions of Selkirk better than my hon. friend does, and I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion that transaction was in the pubilc interest, and will be and is already proving to be in the interest of the Indian themselves. It is better for them to be away from the surroundings in which they were placed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why not then send them away in Ontario?


James Conmee: Well, I think they should be. I think that what the minister has done at Selkirk he should have done on the Rainy river. The condition of the Indians there is even worse, and the party to which my hon. friend belongs is responsible for it, and I will tell him why. In the days when the ownership of the territory was in dispute, when it became known that they were not to have control

7843
of the land, the Conservative government at Ottawa surveyed out a large number of reserves in that section of the country-


George Taylor: What has this to do with the item?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think it is sufficiently relevant to the Indian land management to be allowed.


James Conmee: -which the Indians did not require, and upon which no Indian has yet settled. There is a large block of wild land reserves at the mouth of the. Rainy river, and there has never been a family of Indians on it to this day, and the whole country for nearly a hundred miles is cut up by several other reserves. Does the hon. gentleman say that that is in the public interest or in the interest of the Indians? I listened to the debate on the St. Peter's reserve, and I heard the arguments put up by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I was not convinced that that was not an honestly carried out transaction. It was absolutely necessary for the officials of the department to go there and act as they did act, if there was to be a surrender made. I heard nothing to convince me that there was any undue pressure brought upon the Indians to surrender their reserve. I believe they were left perfectly free to vote as they chose. There is no political object to be served by hon. gentlemen opposite in making these strong assertions. I was going to say ridiculous assertions, of dishonesty, corruption, deceit, wrong-doing, maladministration. It is easy for any one to make these charges, but my hon. friend is not building himself up, he is not advancing the reputation of his party in the country, but he is Tather pulling it down when he makes charges for which there is no foundation. The facilities afforded by this parliament for affording investigation are open to every member, and when he makes la charge of that character he has the means at his disposal of proving it. I think if I were sitting on the opposition side of the House, I would not be content with making assertions and reading a few affidavits extracted from Indians, drunk or sober; I would endeavour to furnish something better than that, I would avail myself of the machinery afforded by parliament to prove my charges or seek investigation otherwise.
Indians-Ontario and Quebec, general legal expenses, $13,500.


William Wright: That seems to be a large sum of money to pay in legal expenses.


Frank Oliver: The amount is large, but it is the same amount as was voted last year. It is much larger than was formerly voted. The ordinary legal expenses which are incurred in the enforcement of law in Mr. CONMEE.
regard to reserves run to $3,000 or $4,000 a year. The reason this vote is so large is because we had to secure the settlement of the long outstanding and very celebrated Oka Indian case, in regard to a reserve on the Ottawa river. It perhaps would not be of advantage at this stage of the session to go into the details of the case, but it is a very celebrated question, and, some years ago, when matters had come to rather an acute stage it seemed to me that the best thing to be done was to get the case before the Privy Council, and get a final decision upon it, because no decision short of that would be final or acceptable to either parties to the dispute. We have, 'therefore, instituted proceedings and will carry the case to the Privy Council, and $10,000 of this amount is. in regard to the Oka Indians case. There has been one decision. The first decision has been handed down by the court at Montreal and proceedings are now being taken to have the case carried to the court of appeal from which it will be carried to the Privy Council, and we hope to get a final settlement of the question.


William Wright: The small band of Indians in the riding I represent are interested in some degree with regard to the Oka Indians. I do not know whether their phase of the dispute comes under the case that will be submitted to the Privy Council, or whether a final settlement has been made as to what their rights are. I think their claim had something to do with timber. I would like to know what is the position of this band in regard to the Oka dispute. Requests have been made to me from time to time to look into the matter, but I have found it difficult to ascertain the exact position. I shall not take up the time of the committee now, but I will make private inquiries in the department.


Frank Oliver: The settlement in my hon. friend's constituency of some of the Oka Indians is the result of an effort which was made to settle this difficulty, and some years ago an arrangement was. entered , into whereby it was hoped that the Indians, who were contesting for the ownership of the reserve at Oka, would take land in the towmship of Gibson. Some of them agreed to do so, but others refused to move, and it is in regard to the settlement of the land rights of those who remained that the aase has been entered. Those who removed to the township of Gibson did so with the understanding that they exchanged their land rights in Oka for the land rights which they secured in Gibson, but their right to a share of the band fund still remains. They are entitled to a share in the fund of the Oka band, and as a matter of fact do now receive their share. They are debit with otherwise the same as other Indians. There may be some other matter in dispute

that they .are not satisfied with, but that is the principle one upon which we are dealing with them.


William Wright: I understand that they are not receiving any money in a general way like the other tribes. I do not know what the minister means when he says that they do receive their money.


Frank Oliver: They are not receiving any cash. The fund of the band is very small, and there are certain expenses which are taken out of that fund for the benefit of the two separated sections of the band- those at Oka, and those at Gibson. They are dealt with, in so far as the funds are concerned, on just the same footing as those of Oka. The Auditor General's Report for 1908-9, at plage 116-1, shows that they have a balance at their credit of $4,835.32. That is their capital, and of course the interest on that is spent from time to time for the necessities that arise. It is a very small amount.
Indians-Nova Scotia-repairs to roads and dyking, $450.


George Taylor: There is an increase.


Frank Oliver: This is for improving roads that .pass through the Indian reserves, and the work is done on the reserves.


George Taylor: Is that work done by the Indians?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Wright: I would like to ask the minister whether in some cases this is taken out of the Indian fund or is always a grant from the government. I suppose that some of these Indian bands are quite wealthy, and that they have plenty of money to make their own roads. Last year a sale was made of the timber upon the reserve on the French river, and the proceeds ran up to somewhere over a million dollars. The average Indian will be much wealthier there than the average white man, and some discrimination should be made under these circumstances with regard to road making. The wealthy Indians should make their own roads while the poor ones should be taken care of to some extent.


Frank Oliver: Where a band has a fund which can be used for this purpose the fund is used, but in this case this band had no fund, or whatever fund it has is so _ very limited that it would be simply using it up. We, therefore, have to give these Indians money for improvements or the improvements cannot be undertaken. It is not considered to be in the public interest that a road, where it passes through
an Indian reserve, should be in an impassable condition.


George Taylor: You allow them to earn the money by doing the work?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: On one side of the Kettlepoint Indian reserve is the village, and on the other side is a farming district, and for the last two or three years the road around the lake in the reserve has been impassible and a long detour has to be made to get to the other side. 'There is a summer resort at the reserve also, and I hope the minister will repair that road.


Frank Oliver: A note will be taken of what the hon. gentleman said, and ive will look after it.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 190) to'incorporate the Gatineau and Ungava Railway Company.-Mr. Devlin.
Bill (No. 201) for the relief of John Green.-Mr. Edwards.
Rill (No. 202) for the relief of James Thornton Brownridge.-Mr. Blain.

[Stage Direction]
Second reading of Bill (No. 215) to incorporate the Buctouche Railway and Transportation Company.-Mr. Carvell.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Indians-salaries-New Brunswick, $1,958.
George Taylor: There is an increase of $500.


Frank Oliver: That provides for an increase in the salaries of the three superintendents in New Brunswick as follows: R. A. Irving, from $500 to $800; James White, from $350 to $450; and G. E. Baxter, from $250 to $350. The explanation is that we do not think that the salaries have been reasonable for the time taken in connection with the work.


William Wright: How many Indians are there in New Brunswick?


Frank Oliver: 1,861.
Indians-salaries, relief aud seed grain,
medical attendance,	-Prince Edward Island, $1,650.


David Henderson: How many Indians are there in Prince Edward Island?


Frank Oliver: 276.	-


David Henderson: Were there Indians down there originally?


Frank Oliver: Yes, their reserve is on an island off the mainland; Lennox island.
Wharf - Lennox island, Prince Edward Island, $2,500.


Frank Oliver: The Indians there have to communicate with the mainland to sell their produce. The old wharf has gone out of value, and thi3 is part payment of the cost of a new wharf, the other part being put up by the Department of Public Works.


George Taylor: Does this complete it?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Wright: Are these Indians farming on their lands?


Frank Oliver: Yes, they farm, but in a small way.


William Wright: Are any efforts being put forth to make good citizens of them, to induce them to take up their lands separately?


Frank Oliver: I do not think so. The effort of the department has been to improve their condition as Indians, that is to say, to induce them to cultivate their land and to become self-supporting.


George Taylor: Are they nearly selfsustaining?	~


Frank Oliver: Yes, these people are.


William Wright: It seems to me that the efforts of the Indian Department ought to be directed along that channel. If we are ever going to assimilate the Indian population, it will have to be done in that way. I do not think the case is hopelesst1 I might cite the case of a band of Oka Indians that went to the Tiding I represent. These Indians have their lands and they farm almost as successfully .as the average white man. They are no burden on the community, and many of them are examples of what might be done with the Indians. I think a great many of the Indians would become good citizens of Canada with a little time and attention.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that it would be profitable to argue out that question just now. It is a very, very broad question. I merely stated what has been the policy of the department. These Indians cultivate in severalty and they own their land in community. As Indians, they have certain privileges. My hon. friend has placed before the House the suggestion that the Indians have less advantages than the_white men. The Indian believes that Mr. OLIVER.
by the terms of the treaty with him he has advantages over the condition of the white citizen, and it would not be merely a matter of getting the Indian to support himself, in which we have been successful, in a large number of cases, but of getting him to give up the special privileges, advantages and exemptions which he has as an Indian and which he would lo3e if he became a citizen.


William Wright: It seems to me that the experiment might well be tried in Prince Edward Island.
Indians - Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories-annuities and commutations, $172,000.


Mr. ROCHE.: There is a decrease hers of $1,200. Is that due to a decrease in the number of Indians?


Frank Oliver: It does not necessarily indicate a decrease in the number. There are commutations, and there are also failures to apply for annuities. We make the calculation that each year on these figures as well as on the number of Indians.
Indians-Manitoba, etc.-Live stock, $6,960.


William Roche: How are these animals purchased?


Frank Oliver: The principal purchasers here are of bulls, which we buy at the thoroughbred sales if enough are offered, and, if not, we have to buy otherwise. The oxen and the other stock we buy locally.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: Do you supply them with this much each year?


Frank Oliver: Yes; the amount is the
same as last year.


William Henry Sharpe: Why is it necessary to continue this annually?


Frank Oliver: It is necessary, of course, constantly to bring in new blood. We are not restocking every reserve every year, but, because of the large number of reserves which must be supplied, we have to continually make purchases of stock.


George Taylor: Was the full amount spent last year?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


David Henderson: What did the Indians do with these males? Did they kili them and eat them?


Frank Oliver: They employed them as other stock raisers do.


David Henderson: They are bought by the government. Do the Indians appropriate them as their own?


Frank Oliver: Yes, subject to government supervision. Of course, the effect is ultimately to make the Indians, as my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Wright)

-suggested, self-supporting. So we furnish them from time to time with stock, and supervise them in the rearing and disposition of these animals.
Indians, Manitoba, Ac.-Supplies for destitute Indians, $121,105.


William Roche: I understood the minister to say before six o'clock that all the supplies for these reserves in western Canada are purchased by tender. I notice the names of a great many firms from eastern Canada sending out supplies to the west, and I was wondering how, if bought by tender, these people in eastern cities could supply the material cheaper than those in the west, considering the high freight rates.


Frank Oliver: The freight has to be paid whether the dealer lives in the west or in the east. Of course, in asking for bids we ask every one, and take the lowest bidder wherever he may live. The price is the priee^ of the goods delivered, so it makes no difference to us whether the dealer is in the west, or in the east.
Indians, Manitoba, Ac.-Hospitals, medical attendance, medicines, Ac., $c2,057.


William D. Staples: The minister may now be able to answer the question I put to him a few moments ago: Who is the medical attendant at Swan Lake?


Mr. OLIVER J. J.@: Cooper.


William D. Staples: How long has he been acting in that capacity, and what remuneration does he get?


Frank Oliver: He has been medical attendant for some time, I cannot say when he was appointed. He gets a retainer of $60 a year, and then he is paid for each trip he makes to the reserve.


William D. Staples: How much did he draw last year?


Frank Oliver: I have not that information for last year. Of course, the Auditor's report contains the amount for the year before last.


William D. Staples: The minister's department lias. no doubt been advised of the poisoning case that took place on that reserve. There was a great deal of correspondence in the press regarding it last summer, and there was a difference of opinion as to how it should have been dealt with. Possibly the- minister or his deputy could tell us about the lines of action the government took with regard to it. I remember there were certain citizens there who thought the government did not do its duty, and I would like to know what effort they made to discover the cause of the poisoning, or whether they attempted to prosecute those who had been giving, I think, some kind of medi-246
cine with an extract of peppermint in it. I know the people in that locality thought the government were very inactive, and should have followed it up a little closer.


Frank Oliver: I think it would be better for my hon. friend to allow the matter to rest, and I will look into it. It is rather a serious question, and I will give him the information at a later date.	-


William D. Staples: In what form will he give it to me?


Frank Oliver: Probably we will not be through with our estimates to-night, and there are moreover some supplementaries coming, and there' will be another occasion when I can give the hon. gentleman the information across the floor, or by laying the papers on the table.


William Roche: There was formerly an
Indian hospital on the reserve near Ross-burn, and I understand that hospital has been closed, or removed to the town of Birtle. I would like the minister to explain on whose recommendation that was removed, or why it was removed from Ros-thern reserve. Is there any local difficulty there?


Frank Oliver: It was thought the hospital at Rossbum was not as conveniently located for administration as it would be at Birtle. Birtle is an important railroad point, with good railway facilities that did not exist at Rossbum. The hospital was removed on the report of the inspector, Mr. Swinford.


William Roche: I notice an item in the Auditor General's Report for preventing the spread of tuberculosis among the Indians. What steps do the government take to prevent the spread of that disease amongst the Indians?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend understands that it is only in recent years that the subject of tuberculosis has been taken up seriously. But the department has taken it up seriously within the last few years, and this vote is for the purpose of affording assistance. Treatment is given to special cases, that is to say, provision is made for the removal of certain cases to places where the patients may get better treatment. We have established tent hospitals at several points, and generally speaking, we are taking cognizance of tuberculosis amongst the Indians with a view of keeping abreast with the advance of medical knowledge.


William Roche: I see you give a grant to the Toronto tuberculosis hospital; has that anything to do with the Indians?


Frank Oliver: There is a grant made to the Toronto hospital by the Indian Department, there are several Indian child-



ren in that hospital now, and it is in connection with these and similar cases that this vote is asked for.
Indians-Man., &c.-Triennial clothing, treaties 4 and 7 and adhesion to treaty 5, $2,700.


William D. Staples: Where are these goods purchased, and how?


Frank Oliver: The clothing is made at the Kingston penitentiary and purchased from the penitentiary authorities.


William Henry Sharpe: Why did the government have to give each one of the Indians so much land on the St. Peter's reserve, when they got them to surrender that reserve?


Frank Oliver: In severalty?


William Henry Sharpe: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The reason was that these Indians, at the time of the transfer from the Hudson Bay Company, were occupants in severalty of their land and were, in law, original settlers of the province of Manitoba. They afterwards decided to become treaty Indians and were given the reserve as treaty Indians. We were anxious to secure the surrender of their reserve and their removal to another reserve, and it was desired, too, at the same time that we were wiping out their rights as Indians in that reserve, to also wipe out such rights as they might have as original settlers of Manitoba at the time of the transfer. For that purpose that provision was embodied in the deed of surrender. When each Indian got his patent the receipt that he signed was a receipt, not only for the land, but it was a receipt which stated that it was in full of his rights as an original settler of the province of Manitoba.


William Henry Sharpe: Is that the only case we have in the west?


Frank Oliver: There is no other case.


William D. Staples: Is the minister lrivirm any success in inducing the Indians to surrender the balance of the Swan lake reserve, and what effort is being made by the government in that direction?


Frank Oliver: We were successful in getting the surrender of a portion of the Swan lake reserve a year or two ago. We have settled with them and disposed of the land, but we did not think it was wise or likely to be successful to go right back immediately for a further surrender. We thought it was better to clean up the arrangement that had been made, and then after that had been done we could go back and see if the Indians would be willing to surrender a further amount, which we are quite prepared to do.


William D. Staples: The minister stated that he thought it was better to make a clean up of that which had already been under-Mr. OLIVER.
taken. It has been cleaned up, I understand, very successfully, not only to the Indians themselves, but to the people of that particular district. I would suggest that the minister now try and get, at least, a large portion of the reserve surrendered and brought under cultivation. While the minister has stated that he had succeeded in getting a portion of it, there is another portion that it would be a great deal more desirable to get the surrender of. I can assure him that the citizens of that section will appreciate it very much if the minister will begin negotiations along careful lines and try to get the balance of that reserve surrendered. It is not necessary that I should go into the reasons why it should be surrendered more than to say that it lies between the town of Swan Lake on the east and the town of Marieopolis on the west. It is the best agricultural land, and it is simply lying idle there. It is a great injury to the development of these towns and the district in general. I hope the minister will begin negotiations right along the same lines as those which proved so successful before. I can assure him that if he succeeds as he did before the people will appreciate it very much.


Frank Oliver: I will be very glad to take up the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.


William Henry Sharpe: How many Indians are there still on the Swan lake reserve?


Frank Oliver: While we were successful in securing the first surrender it does not necessarily follow that we will be successful in making the second attempt. My hon. friend may have heard of the man who was successful in getting away with the mill, but was caught when he came back for the dam.


William D. Staples: I might draw the minister's attention also to the Long Plain reserve, which lies between Portage la Prairie and the Assiniboine. A great many people have asked me to bring it to the attention of the minister in order that he might try to get a surrender of a portion of it, at least, if not all. There was a time when this was not considered valuable land from the fact that it was well wooded, but fires have been doing their work, settlers have been cleaning up the land, and it is now practically clean land. It could be very easily brought under cultivation, and it is adjacent to good settlements- Indian Ford settlement across the river and Portage la Prairie plains to the north- and if the minister would enter upon negotiations, I think this would be a favourable time to secure the surrender.


Frank Oliver: I will be very glad to take a note of it. There are 113 Indians on the Swan lake reserve.

Indians-Man., &c.-Sioux, $4,498.


George Taylor: There is a decrease of half.


Frank Oliver: That is on account of some mill machinery which we furnished last year and which we are not furnishing this year.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: How many Indians are there on the Turtle mountain reserve, and how much land have they?


Frank Oliver: There are 15 at the Turtle mountain reserve, and it is one square mile in area. There has been a surrender taken of part of the reserve.
Indians-Man., Ac.-grist and saw-mills, $4,037.


Frank Oliver: We got the Indians to surrender the reserve west of Battleford and take a reserve north of the river and one of the terms was that we should provide them with milling machinery.
^Indians-Man., Ac.- general expenses, $230,-


Charles Alexander Magrath: Dr. Lafferty is the
medical officer attending Blackfoot reserve and he is certainly a very excellent physician, but he lives at Calgary which is quite a distance from the reserve. Dr. Lafferty draws $600 a year for this service, and 1 would like to know from the minister in what way he is able to attend to his duties on the reserve and earn this money?


Frank Oliver: He makes regular visits once a month and is subject to call in emergency.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Is there any other doctor attached to that reserve?


Frank Oliver: There is Dr. Rose, who is in attendance on the hospital on the reserve.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Dr. Rose lives at Gleichen. If Dr. Lafferty were living near this reserve I would have nothing to say. because he is an excellent doctor. But, Dr. Lafferty lives 55 miles away. The minister says he makes one trip'a month to the reserve and I find he has received $45.60 for railway fares which I presume is between Gleichen and Calgary. That would represent about 20 trips. His salary of $600 a year would therefore be at the rate of about $30 a trip. I do not mind that so much as the fact that it is against my principle to have a doctor residing at such a distance from the scene of his labours. For instance, none of us would have our family physician in the city of Toronto when we could find medical men to attend us in Ottawa. Dr. Rose, and at least one other doctor lives in Gleichen, and in the interest of effective medical service to the Indians we should, I think have their medical attendant living near them.
249*
That is the point I bring to the attention of the minister.


Frank Oliver: Dr. Rose attends the church hospital on the Blackfoot reserve towards the support of which we pay $1,-2^2, so that we think we are doing something towards medical attendance for the Indians. It is true Dr. Lafferty lives at Calgary, and that he is only called upon to make 12 visits a year in addition to emergency calls, and it is true that there could be very much more convenient medical attendance given by Dr. Rose or by one of the medical men living at Gleichen. But there is always a variety of opinion as to the value of the services of medical men, and the old saying is that doctors differ. In administering the affairs of a reserve having about 800 Indians it is not out of place, and not a waste of public money, and not to the disadvantage of the Indians that we should have making monthly visits to that reserve and ready for emergent calls a gentleman of the admittedly high qualifications of Dr. Lafferty. I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Magrath) will admit that he has probably considerably higher qualifications than have the gentlemen who are resident in Gleichen. It is a matter of opinion as to which is the best way to serve the Indians, and up to the present time we have taken the view that the_ interests of the Indians and of the public are best served by securing the somewhat eminent services of Dr. Lafferty in conjunction with the hospital attendance of Dr. Rose.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I agree with the minister that doctors differ. Dr. Lafferty is a very capable physician, and the same may be said of the gentlemen who are practis-, ing in Gleichen. Dr. Lafferty also attends the Stony reserve. I would like to know at what point on the railway west of Calgary he has to go to get to the reserve.


Frank Oliver: The station that people generally go to when they are visiting the Stony reserve is Alorley, 'and I think "it is in the neighbourhood of some 50 miles from Calgary.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I do not entertain the same views as the minister with regard to this matter, and I suppose there is no use my pressing the subject further. I don't mind Dr. Lafferty going to the Blackfoot reserve or to the other reserve either so long as the Indians get proper medical attention. but my view is that the medical men at Gleichen should attend to the Indians who are located on the reserve near by. May I ask the minister what results if any have been obtained in dealing with the blood Indians in respect to releasing a portion of their reserve.


Frank Oliver: There have been a number of attempts made, but without success,

to secure the surrender of a portion of the Blood Reserve. Last fall I visited the reserve to discuss matters with the Indians, and while I did not think it advisable to discuss the question of surrender with the Indians, I found them very strongly against the idea. I would think that the prospect of securing a surrender there is rather remote. Last year we secured a surrender of a portion of the Piegan reserve, and we have some hopes that as a result of that surrender when its terms have been carried out and the Indians realize the benefits that will accrue to them from it, the Bloods will be influenced to follow the example of the Piegans. The Bloods, Piegans, Sarcees and Blackfeet were allied tribes and -whatever interests one tribe interests the other. We thought that having broken the circle and secured the surrender of a part of one reserve, it was better policy to wait until the results of that surrender had made themselves apparent before we approached the other bands definitely with a proposal for a surrender. My hon. friend is aware that strong efforts were made to prevent the Piegan surrender going through; misrepresentations were made in regard to it and the efforts of the department were hampered in a great degree. This being the case we thought it was better that the action taken by the department should speak for itself, and we have hopes that when that has taken place we will have results in the cases of some of the other reserves.


Charles Alexander Magrath: My opinion is that it would be better in the interest of the Indian if we were to take a perpetual lease from him instead of giving a fee simple title, that is that the Indians lands should be sold carrying a perpetual mortgage. For instance, the Canadian Pacific railway irrigated lands carry a perpetual mortgage of 50 cents an acre. If you go to the Indians and say:	We do not want to take
the title from you, and offer him a rental based on 6 per cent interest on say, for the purposes of this- argument, a sale price of $16.66 an acre, it would be equivalent to $1 an acre a year. I think if a proposal of that kind were put before the Indian wherein the land was retained as security for the interest or rent, and that as long as the purchaser or his assignee paid the $1 per acre per year, the occupant would have the use of the land, such a proposal it appears to me would appeal to the Indian. It is possible to sell lands in that way because the Canadian Pacific railway have been very successful in selling their irrigated lands on those terms. As I understand you can sell the land and the Indian can claim 50 per cent of the purchase money. The other 50 per cent the government holds and pay the Indian three per cent on it, whether the rate at which the government Mr. OLIVER.
can borrow money abroad goes up or djvn. That rental method is successful to-day in the disposal of -western lands and it could be applied to these Indian lands.


Frank Oliver: That is a very broad question, and I would not like to bring on a lengthy discussion, but the 50 cents an acre on the Canadian Pacific railway irrigated lands is an insurance guaranteeing a water supply for the crops when water is needed. There is no such insurance in the case of the Indian lands, and while many men would be willing to pay a rental of 50 cents an acre to secure a water supply in a country that may be subject to lack of rainfull they would hesitate to pay a dollar or fifty cents an acre interest when there was no such insurance connected with it. The idea of a tenant proprietorship in the Northwest does not appeal to me. The policy of the government is to have a population on the land who shall be the owners in fee simple of that land, and any proposal, no matter how attractive, that would involve tenancy rather than proprietorship, viewed from the standpoint of the best interests of Canada and the west, would not appeal to my mind.


Charles Alexander Magrath: It is an absolute ownership as long as the rent is paid. I have discussed this with prominent real estate men who are largely engaged in settling the west, and they have said they could sell the whole Blood reserve if they had an opportunity to do so on that basis.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend speaks of real estate men who are settling the west. The business of the real estate man is not the settlement of the west, but the holding up of the settler of the west.


Charles Alexander Magrath: It is another case in which the hon. gentleman and myself differ, and we are too near the end of the session to take up any time discussing it.


Mr. HERRON.: How are things progressing at the Piegan agency with reference to the winding up of that sale? T understand the sale is completed, and I am prepared to admit that the selling of the land is popular with the people of that country, and that there is no complaint in connection with the sale. There was complaint with regard to the consent of the Indians; it was claimed that there was dissatisfaction when the land was sold.


Frank Oliver: The total area of the reserve was 116,096 acres. There was surrendered for sale 22,338 acres. There were actually sold 12,000 acres and the sum realized was $205,692. The amount immediately available for expenditure on behalf of the Indians was $54,564. There were 471 souls in the band. We propose to invest this $54,000, that was immediately available, in machinery and implements for the benefit

of the band to enable them to go on with the work of breaking up their reserve, cultivating it, and making it productive. Among the implements we propose to buy are a 36 horse-power traction steam engine, to cost $4,046; a Oockshutt gang plough, 30 sets double harness, 6 seed drillers; 4 binders, and a number of other implements. There will be five and a half miles of fencing, and an engineer will be employed at a salary of $125 a month to have charge of the land breaking work.


William D. Staples: How many months in the year will he be engaged?


Frank Oliver: I could not say at the moment. I may explain the purpose of the traction engine. Most of my hon. friends are aware that a great deal of the land in southern Alberta is being broken up by the aid of engines instead of by horses, and we have found by our experience on the Blood reserve that it is economical, and advantageous to invest in such an engine for the purpose of breaking up the land.


John Herron: I understand that the franchise was extended to the Indians in this district under certain conditions embodied in the order in council passed last June, by which if they take out patents for a certain portion of land, and put it under cultivation, &c., they will be eligible to vote. I want to know if they are taking advantage of the law.


Frank Oliver: There is a provision in the Indian Act whereby on proclamation being issued in regard to any band, the members of that band are entitled on the fulfilment of certain conditions set forth in the Act to be enfranchised. But the conditions surrounding the enfranchisement are such that they are very seldom taken advantage of in any part of Canada, and so far as we are aware they are not taken advantage of to any degree up to the present time in the west. However, the privilege is there if the Indian wishes to become enfranchised; he may become, to all intents and purposes, a white man if he wants to, but he does not want to.


William D. Staples: This is a new undertaking in regard to these Indian reserves. After listening to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Herron), and to what the minister has said, it seems to me we have a fairly good way of bringing those other reserves under cultivation. For instance take Swan lake. There it would be easy to bring the land under cultivation, and if it were made to produce, the citizens of the towns mentioned a while ago, would get the benefit. I would make a strong plea to have that land brought under cultivation. The gasoline or steam engine has worked for the good of the Indian on the reserve mentioned, and also on that section
of land down in the Indian ford district. If the government is going to undertake a policy of that kind. I would put in a claim to have the lands in the county I represent cultivated as much as the Blood Indian reserve or any other reserve in Alberta. I am not finding any fault with what has been done up there,
I simply want to impress upon the minister the great benefit to these communities I have mentioned, if the land were brought under cultivation.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid my hon. friend has rather a wrong idea in this connection. What was done m regard to the Piegan reserve was done to meet the views of the Indians, and we are prepared to meet those views in that way when those views are expressed. But we cannot compel them to adopt these views.


William D. Staples: It would be a good thing to suggest to them.


Frank Oliver: Yes, but unless the people have the idea themselves, it is very possible that the suggestion would not work out. In the case of the Piegans, they had seen that the Bloods had succeeded in getting a large area of land broken up, and that they were becoming very prosperous and independent by reason of that cultivation. Then they did not have sufficient machinery to break up the land, but they believed that if they could get the land broken up they could work it to advantage. So it was the possibility of securing this machinery to enable them to bring their land under cultivation, that induced them to part with a portion of their reserve. It was not the money they were going to get; it was the fact that they would be enabled to employ their energy to advantage, and profit by bringing under cultivation the soil of the remaining part of the reserve.
Indians-British Columbia-salaries, $28,520.


George Henry Cowan: Has Mr. Vowell resigned?


Frank Oliver: He has resigned, but his resignation takes effect only at the end of the present fiscal year.


George Henry Cowan: Has the department taken steps towards the appointment of his successor?	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: No steps have been taken yet.


George Henry Cowan: Have no applications been made for the office?


Frank Oliver: I could not say that there have or have not been. We have not been considering applications up to this time, as the resignation does not take effect until March 31 next.


George Henry Cowan: Although it does not directly bear on this item, I would like to ask whether or not there has been a sale either effected or in contemplation of the Kapilano reserve, situated within the cjr-poration limits of the city of Vancouver?


Frank Oliver: No sale has been made, nor is any at present in contemplation.


George Henry Cowan: I am very glad to hear it. Is the department likely to consider an offer to purchase that reserve?


Frank Oliver: As my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) is aware, the condition of title in regard to reserves in the province of British	Columbia	is	such,	at the	present time, that it does not seem to us to	be wise	or	good	public	policy for us to enter upon any negotiations for the alienation of title. We do not think that tlie interest of the Indians would be served by an attempt to pass title at the present time when we are not in a position to give a clear title. The subject has been matter for discussion between an officer of the British Columbia government and the Justice Department during the past few days. I am afraid that we may not be able to reach a conclusion in regard to it without a reference to the Privy Council. But, for the present, we do not feel that we would be justified in undertaking to deal with this question of Indian lands when the question of title is in its present condition.


George Henry Cowan: In any event, I suppose, the minister would take the view that this Kapilano reserve, situated as it is within the corporation limits of the city of Vancouver, might better be sold to the public than to a private person. The minister knows the situation of that reserve. I am glad to know that he is not contemplating any sale of it to a private purchaser. I rather think there is a very strong feeling there that, if that reserve is alienated at all, it should be alienated to the city of Vancouver, in the heart of which it lies.


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate the disadvantage of having that and other reserves in the vicinity of Vancouver remain where they are, and I will be very glad to take any steps possible to secure the change of title, that is, to have the Indians removed and make this land available for the expansion of the city's development. And, as soon as the question of title can be settled, if the responsibility remains with us, I can assure my hon. friend, no time will be lost in trying to bring the matter to a point that will enable this land to be used-to bring it under taxation and in process of development. As to the disposing of it specially to the city, I would not like to give any definite pledge on that point. My hon. friend will under-Mr. OLIVER.
stand that, as administering Indian affairs, our business is to secure the best value possible for the Indians. All I can say is that, if it should fall to us to have the administration of that reserve, and to have the right to give a clear title, I would be as glad to sell it to the city as to anybody else, provided the city would pay for it. But, our interest, as administering Indian affairs, would be to get as much as possible for the land.	_


George Taylor: You could cut it up and sell it by auction.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) can rest assured of this-that there will be no private disposition of it.


George Henry Cowan: I am very glad to have that assurance. I think the minister expressed in the fall of 1908, by way of telegram, his feeling as Minister of the Interior, that this government would release to the city of Vancouver its title to the Indian reserve provided the provincial government would do the same, and the Indians were settled with. I think the minister will remember that in October, 1908, a telegram was sent from him to Mr. Mac-Innes, who was then a candidate for Dominion honours. And I would like to be assured that that still is his policy. Let me give the reason why we should still have that assurance. The city of Vancouver has rested with a good deal of faith on the assurance contained in that telegram, in the faith that the reserve will finally become the property of the city, provided, as the minister says, that they deal as generously as anybody else with the Indians, and provided they get whatever reversionary interest the province may have. They have rested upon that. We have rested upon that, and have been pursuing a course with the object of procuring that property, relying upon that telegram the minister sent in October, 1908. I wish to know if the minister still holds the view expressed in that telegram, and whether the city is still justified in holding the hope of procuring the title in the city to that reserve, provided, as the minister says, that the city will settle in a generous way with the Indians.


Frank Oliver: I would not like to bind myself to the wording of the telegram unless I saw it, and I do not just remember now what was in it. But if the position which I stated to the House to-night accords with that of the telegram; I know what I said to-night, and I am willing to stand by that. Our policy is, as I stated at some length the other night, that where the value of the land is worth more to the Indian than the land itself, we exchange the land for the money. In order to do that to the advantage of the

Indian, of course there must be a possibility of giving a clear title, and that being done, then the land goes to the man that will pay the most for it.


George Henry Cowan: In this case I can remind the minister what was in that telegram, and I think he will recall it to his memory. It was a telegram to M*. Me-Innis saying that the Dominion would convey to the city the Kapilano reserve, provided the city made a settlement with the Indian and procured a release of the reversionary interest of the province


Frank Oliver: I think I would have to supplement that by saying that the terms to the Indians would have to be satisfactory to the department as well as to the Indians.


George Henry Cowan: That is what that telegram meant. The minister will note that really he gives the city of Vancouver a refusal of that Indian reserve.


Frank Oliver: No, it gives them an opportunity to bid upon it, but they would have to bid higher than anybody else in order to get it.
Indian education, $480,000.


Frank Oliver: We are building a new school house on the Oneida reserve, $3,000; another on the Caughnawaga reserve, $6,500; and we are building a boarding school in the Yukon for which we are asking $20,000. These are items of increase over last year.


George Taylor: What about the industrial schools at Elkhorn and Regina, have these been abolished?


Frank Oliver: We have had a great deal of discussion with the Teligious- bodies who are conducting boarding and industrial schools, with a view to a readjustment of the burden which some of them are finding rather heavy. There was an understanding, as we thought, by whjcli the Elkhorn school would be closed, but the understanding was not carried out, and that school remains in the position it was in before. The school at Regina, however, has been closed, in accordance with an understanding we arrived at with the Presbyterians who were managing the schooi at Regina. On an understanding with them, we closed the Regina school because it was not well situated for carrying on the work. We put up a boarding school on the File Hills reserve, and increased the amount per head at all the Presbyterian boarding schools in Saskatchewan from $72 to $100. That is the arrangement made with the Presbyterian church, with which they are satisfied.
Indian education-to provide a further amount for buildings and per capita grant for residential schools, $122,010.


Frank Oliver: This is in regard to boarding school. I will give the list.
To increase the per capita grant and the number of pupils at the Fort William orphanage, Fort William, Ontario, $2,000.
This is for the purpose of recognizing the character of the building that has been erected there. It is an absolutely modern building in every particular, and we think it is right and proper that where any church, out of its own resources, provides the capital for a first-class building such as this we should give the maximum grant. This mission was not receiving the maximum grant under the conditions of the old building, but when they got into their new building we considered that they were entitled to the maximum.
To provide an amount for the erection of an addition to File Hills boarding school, $15,000.
This is the proposition that I mentioned a few minutes ago in connection with the Presbyterian church.
To provide for an increase of ten pupils each for the Wabiscow and Whitefish Lake Church of England boarding schools, $1,440.
To provide a per capita grant for ten additional pupils at the Sturgeon Lake Roman Catholic boarding school, $720.
To provide for the erection of a Church of England boarding school on the Blackfoot reserve, $20,000.
The church of England had a boarding school on the Blackfoot reserve. The building had been erected by _ themselves, but it became unsanitary and it was decided to close it up. They were not able to replace it, and we thought that in this case the government would be warranted, in order to provide for the education of the Indians, in providing this sum.
To provide a grant for forty pupils at $72. $2,880.
We are erecting the building, and therefore, we do not give the maximum grant with respect to the pupils.
To provide for the erection of buildings for the Kootenay Indian Industrial school, $60,000.
This is a very large boarding school at St. Eugene in the Kootenay country near Fort Steele. It is an old established school, it has done a great deal of work, but the buildings have become absolutely unsanitary. We think it is right that a good building should be put up.
To erect new building for the Alert Bay Girls1 Home and provide equipment, $20,000.
Making a total of $122,040. This is an increase in the pupilage and per capita

grant in some cases, and it makes provision for new, substantial and sanitary buildings. '
Post office, outside service-salaries and allowances, $3,169,028.50.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) be good enough to tell us why he removed the post office at Dickson, Ontario, from the place where it formerly was, and what reason he has to give in view of the fact that he has received a number of communications, petitions and affidavits urging upon him the necessity of allowing the post office to remain where it is, and would he at the same time tell the committee why it is not possible for him to return that post office to the locality in which it was formerly situated?	_


Rodolphe Lemieux: I inquired as to the facts of this case at the request of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong), and I found that some time ago the postmaster at Dickson in the united counties of Stormont and Cornwall left the province of Ontario to settle in Saskatchewan. After he left there were two applications to locate the post office at two different sites, and the inspector selected a site at a distance of about one mile and a quarter from the former location. He would have selected the place formerly occupied by the ex-postmaster were it not that a station had been opened on the Ottawa and New York railway near which we were obliged to open a new post office, and to equalize the distance we had to locate this one a little further west. Since my attention has been called to the matter I have asked the deputy minister to inform me whether there was enough population at the site of the former post office to justify the erection of a new one there, so as to satisfy the community I expect to have the report shortly, and if there is room for another post office there I will open one with pleasure.


Mr. G. GORDON.: Has a post office inspector been appointed at North Bay ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, Mr. Limoges who is well known to my hon. friend (Mr. Gordon) was appointed two or three months ago, but before entering on his duties we put him under the direction of the post office inspector at Ottawa. I understand that Mr. Limoges, whom I have met, is a very able man and has resided in the district for a great many years. I believe he will prove satisfactory to the department and to the public. I may tell my hon. friend that a few days ago we selected a young man of great ability, who has been in the service for many years, as assistant inspector to Mr. Limoges. I refer to Mr. Ross, son of the general superintendent of'


Frank Oliver: post offices in the Dominion, and who, I believe will give as much satisfaction to the public in that district as his father has given throughout the Dominion.


George Gordon: I thought an inspector had to be in the service of the Post Office Department for a certain period before being appointed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We can appoint an inspector who has not been in the service, but the assistant inspector must have been at least 5 years in the service.


George Gordon: That is a curious way of doing business. It would seem to be common sense that the inspector is the man who should have more knowledge than the assistant inspector.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the law as I found it.


George Gordon: Is that a proper business way of conducting affairs ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the larger cities we appoint as postmasters, men who have been in business and are well known to the general public, and then we give them as assistants the best men we have in the service.


George Gordon: You don't depend much on your inspectors.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On the contrary. The inspector before assuming his duties, has to undergo a period of training. Of course, we select men of tact and ability and men who know the district, and in a short time they can become efficient officers.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am glad that the Postmaster General has promised to further investigate the complaints of the people of Dickson, and I feel satisfied that the fads will justify him in establishing a post office there.


Mr. WALLACE.: I wish to remind the Postmaster General that the town of North Toronto has applied for a free postal delivery. North Toronto has a population of nearly 5,000 ^ at present. Its southern boundary adjoins the northern boundary of the city of Toronto and its streets are in fact a continuation of the streets of the city. North Toronto has 16 miles of good sidewalk, and if the Postmaster General desires to accommodate the greatest number he should start with a town like North Toronto.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The streets of North Toronto are a continuation of the streets of Toronto?


Thomas George Wallace: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may tell my hon friend (Mr. Wallace) that I have taken

note of the vernal representations he made to me the other day. The hon. gentleman from York (Mr. Maclean) has also made representations to me on the subject, and I am having inquiry made. Probably during the summer we will be able to provide for free letter delivery in that section of the city.
Post Office-Miscellaneous, $50,000.


William D. Staples: Where is the post office now in the town of Holland? The office was burned there about two months ago. It was a rented building.


Rodolphe Lemieux: ' We would, of course, rent another post office. If the postmaster was the proprietor, he would probably rebuild.


Mr. LENNOX.: 1 have been asked if a free rural mail delivery route could be established in a portion of the township of Innisfail. There is a thickly settled farming locality and a summer resort which would be served by a loop. There is no post office and no mail route there now, although in the summer a temporary office has been opened at the summer resort. Peninsular park.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend will spend a quarter of an hour with me on Tuesday, we might see what can be done. I remember a request from that township for the establishment of a rural mail delivery. We might overcome the difficulty by establishing a post office at the summer resort.	,


George Gordon: Has the department received a request for a post office at Gow-ganda Junction?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, we have aho an application from a company wishing to undertake the mail service.


George Gordon: A post office will be put there?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.
Miscellaneous-expenses under the Naturalization Act, $5,000.


George Taylor: There is an increase of $1,000 there.
Mr. FIELDING There is no special reason except the general enlargement of business.
Miscellaneous-To assist in the publication of the proceedings of the Royal Society, $5,000.


Mr. FIELDING.: There has been a change of the words in that item.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The amendment is to strike out, 'to assist in the
publication of the proceedings of, .so that the item will read, 'to the Royal Society.'


William Stevens Fielding: It is intended to give them a little more elasticity in the application of the vote.
Miscellaneous-Grant to the Canadian Handicrafts Guild, $1,000.


George Taylor: What institution is that?


Mr. FISHER.: It is an association which is working amongst the people in the country parts to teach them home industries and give them samples to help them in their work.
Miscellaneous-To provide for expenses of Conservation Commission-further amount required, $35,000.


Mr. CROSBY.: Is this the only amount granted for that?


William Stevens Fielding: There was $15,000 in the main estimates.


Adam Brown Crosby: That makes $50,000 altogether?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
Miscellaneous-Ottawa Branch of Royal Mint-further amount for Mint maintenance, $25,000.


George Gordon: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has considered the advisability of coining nickel?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend was not present when we had a good discussion the other day on the subject. There are some reasons in favour of the nickel and quite a number against it. The objection to nickel is that it is a white metal and, many people think, too easily confused with silver. However, the matter has not been determined. For the present we continue our old forms of currency in silver.


George Taylor: Might I suggest, we have done a very good day's work, and as we were up late last night, I think we should adjourn.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the suggestion is reasonable.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business for Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: First, the Combines Bill, and, if that is disposed of, the Insurance Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Monday, April 25, 1910.