1913-05-30

PELAGIC SEALING.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 238, respecting Pelagic Sealing. He said: The purpose of this Bill is to enact the prohibitions necessary to give effect, so far as Canada is concerned, to the Convention of 1911 between the Government of His Britannic Majesty, Russia, Japan and the United States with regard to pelagic sealing in the North Pacific. It enacts for Canada precisely the provisions of the Bill passed by the United Kingdom Parliament last session to enforce and give effect to it in Great Britain. That legislation of the United Kingdom was intended to be made effective for all the dominions. This was done by virtue of an assent on the part of the several dominions, it being considered that the purpose of the legislation was to deal with a general matter and provide for the enforcement as regards all. The Act of the United Kingdom provided that it could be made effective in the Dominions by Order in Council to be made under it. The draft Order in Council making the law applicable in Canada was prepared and submitted for suggestions as to modifications that might be required. By reason of the manner in which the legislation was enacted in the Parliament of the United Kingdom it was difficult to make its provisions applicable in Canada. The reason for this lay in the penalties provided for violations of the prohibitions. The United Kingdom Parliament proceeded by references to other Acts of that parliament. For instance, in the clause which prohibited the importation of the classes of sealskins the pelagic sealing for which was prohibited under the treaties, it was declared that skins of seals of that class should be deemed to be included in the prohibitive clauses of the Customs Consolidated Act of 1876-that is, the Customs Law of the United Kingdom. The effect of that was that in the United Kingdom sealskins imported in violation of the prohibition became liable to confiscation. It was suggested that in the Order in Council making the Act applicable to Canada there should be substituted the Canadian Customs Act for the Customs Consolidated Act of 1876. On looking into the Canadian Customs Act it was found that the effect of doing this would not be to make the law similar to the law as it exists in the United Kingclpm, because our Customs Act contains no prohibition of the introduction of these sealskins. That objection might have been covered by the words providing that these skins should be deemed to be included. But, furthermore, the penalty for the violation of the provisions of our Customs Act consisted not only in confiscation, but in a money penalty
in addition. Under these circumstances it would have been necessary, if the Imperial Act was to be made effective for Canada, to amend our Customs Act in order that the provision on the subject of the importation of these skins should be the same here as in England. It seemed lo us that as there was no existing legislation in Canada to which reference could be made producing the same result as the reference made in the United Kingdom Act to their Customs Act, the most desirable and simplest way to arrive' at the desired end was to enact for Canada the British Act, and that is what is proposed to be done by the Bill which I am now introducing.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK COCHRANE (Minister of Railways and Canals), moved that the House go into Committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide as follows:
1.	That the Governor in Council may grant a subsidy of $3,200 per mile towards the construction of each of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding in any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated) which snail not cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, and towards the construction of each of the said lines of railway, not exceeding the mileage hereinafter stated, which shall cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, a further subsidy beyond the sum of $3,200 per mile of 50 per cent on so much of the average cost of the mileage subsidized as is in excess of $15,000 per mile such subsidy not exceeding in the whole the sum of $6,400 per mile':-
1.	To the Margaree Coal and Railway Company, Limited, for the following lines of railway :-
(a)	from a point on the Intercolonial railway near Orangedale to St. Rose; not exceeding 46 miles.
(b)	from a point on the Intercolonial rail-
% way near McIntyre Lake to Caribou
Cove, Port Malcolm, Richmond county; not exceeding 4 miles;
the said subsidies being granted in lieu of subsidy granted by Chapter 51 of 1910, Section 1, Item 4; not exceeding 50 miles.
2.	To the Northern New Brunswick and Seaboard Railway Company, for a line of railway from the Drummond Mines at Austin Brook, a branch of the Nepisiquit river above Great Falls in the county of Gloucester to a point on the Intercolonial railway where it intersects the branch line from Bathurst Station to Bathurst Harbour, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 48 of 1912, section 2, item 24; not exceeding 16'9 miles.
3.	To the Tobique and Campbellton Railway Company, for a line of railway from Plaster Rock along the Tobique river to Riley Brook, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 51 of 1910, section 1, item 15; not exceeding 28 miles.
4.	To the St. John and Quebec Railway
[Stage Direction]
Company, for a line of railway from Andover to St. John, New Brunswick, exclusive of a railway bridge across the St. John river, at or near Mistake, and a railway bridge across the Kennebecasis river at or near Perry Point; in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 48 of 1912, section 2, item 2; not exceeding 200 miles.
5.	To the Lotbinifere and Megantic Railway Company for a line of railway from a point at or near Lyster in Megantic county to a point at or near Lime Ridge in the township of Dodswell, in the County of Wolfe, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 51 of 1910, section 1, item 23, for a line of railway between the points above mentioned; not exceeding O'O miles.
6.	For a line of railway from a point on the Canadian Pacific railway at or near Scots-town or Megantic to the International boundary, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 40, of 1907, section 1, item 19; not exceeding 35 miles.
7.	To the Little Nation River Railway Company for a line of railway from a point between Thurso and Montebello on the line of the Canadian Pacific railway, northerly, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 51 of 1910, section 1, item 46; not exceeding 30 miles.
8.	To The Erie, London and Tillsonburg Railway Company, for a line of railway from Port Burwell to London, passing through or near Vienna, Calton, Aylmer, Kingsmill and Belmont, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 51 of 1910, section 1, item 37; not exceeding 35 miles.
9.	To the Tillsonhurg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company, for a line of railway from Ingersoll north to a junction with the St. Mary's and Western Ontario Railway at Embro, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 48 of 1912, section 2, item 12; not exceeding 10-38 miles.
10.	To The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for a line of railway from Gimli to a point on the Icelandic Tiver at or near Riverton, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 39, for a line between the points above mentioned; not exceeding 30 miles.
11.	To The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for a line of railway from Moosejaw, in a northwesterly direction, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 40; not exceeding 123 miles.
12.	To The Alberta Central Railway Company, for a line of railway from Red Deer to Rocky Mountain House, in lien of the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 38; not exceeding 70 miles.
13.	To The Kettle Valley Railway Company, for the following lines of railway:-
(a)	from Merritt to Penticton wharf; not
exceeding 145 miles;
(b)	from a point on the line between
Merritt and Penticton wharf, at or near Penticton, to Midway; not exceeding 135 miles.
(c)	from a point on the line between
Merritt and Penticton wharf, about 25 miles south of Merritt, to a point on the Fraser river near Hope Station; not exceeding 55 miles;
the said subsidies being granted in lieu of the subsidies granted by chapter 51 of 1910, section 1, item 42; not exceeding in all 335 miles.
14.	To The Calgary and Fernie Railway Company for a line of railway from Miche'
Mr. COCHRANE.	<
or Sparwood, in a northerly direction via the
headwaters of the Elk river and Kananaskis Pass to a point at or near the city of Calgary, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 48, of 1912, section 2, item 43; not exceeding 100 miles.
2.	That the Governor in Council may grant the subsidy hereinafter mentioned towards the construction and completion of the bridge hereinafter mentioned, that is to say;-*
To. the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company towrards the construction and completion of a bridge over the Second Narrows of Burrard Inlet, as authorized by chapter 74 of 1910, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 48 of 1912, section 3, item 1; not exceeding $350,000.
3.	That, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ' cost ' means the actual necessary and reasonable cost, and shall include the amount expended upon any bridge, up to and not exceeding $25,000, forming part of the line of railway subsidized not otherwise receiving any bonus, but shall not include the cost of equipping the railway nor the cost of terminals nor the cost of right of way of the railway in any city or incorporated town; and such actual, necessary and reasonable cost shall be determined by the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and upon the report of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, certifying that he has made or caused to be made an inspection of the line of railway for which payment of subsidy is asked, and careful inquiry into the cost thereof, and that in his opinion the amount upon which the susbidy is claimed is reasonable, and does not exceed the true, actual and proper cost of the construction of such railway.
4.	That the subsidies hereby authorized toward the construction of any railway or bridge shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and may, un'rss otherwise expressly provided hereby, at the option of tlie Governor in Council on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be paid as follows-.-
(a)	Upon the completion of the work subsidized; or.
(b)	By instalments, on the completion of each ten-mile section of the railway, in the proportion which the cost of such completed section bears to that of the whole work undertaken ; or,
(c)	Upon the progress estimates on the certificate of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals that in his opinion, having regard to the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than thirty thousand dollars; or,
(d)	With respect to (b) and (c), part one way, part the other.
5.	That the subsidies hereinbefore authorized to be granted to companies named shall, if granted by the Governor in Cpuncil, bo granted to such companies respectively; the other subsidies may be granted to such companies as established to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council their ability to construct and complete the said railway and bridges respectively; all the lines and the bridges for the construction of which subsidies are granted, unless they are already commenced, shall

be commenced within two years from the first day of August, 1913, and completed within a reasonable time, Hot to exceed four years from the said first day of August, to be fixed by the Governor in Council, and shall also be constructed according to descriptions, conditions and specifications approved by the Governor in Council on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and specified in each case in a contract between the company and the said Minister, which contract the Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, is hereby empowered to make. The location also of such subsidized lines and bridges shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.
6.	That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the respective companies shall be subject to the condition that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at all times provide and secure to other companies such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights as will afiord to all railways connecting with the railway and bridges so subsidized reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such running power, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways, and the said Board shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to be level and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways and bridges hereby subsidized: Provided always that any decision of the said Board made under this section may be at any time varied, changed or rescinded by the Governor in Council, as he deems just and proper.
_ 7. That every company so receiving a subsidy, its successors and assigns, and any person or company controlling or operating the railway or portion of railway subsidized under this Act, shall each year furnish to the Government of Canada, transportation for men, supplies, materials and mails over the portion of the lines in respect of which it has received such subsidy, and, whenever required, shall furnish mail cars properly equipped for such mail service; and such transportation and service shall be performed at such Tates as are agreed upon between the Minister of the Department of the Government for which such .service is being performed and the company performing it, and, in case of disagreement, then at such Tates as are approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada; and in or towards payment for such charges the Government of Canada shall be credited by the company with a sum equal to three per cent per annum on the amount of the subsidy received by the company under this Act.
8.	That as respects all railways and bridges for which subsidies are so granted, the company at any time pwning or operating any of the railways or bridges, shall, when required, produce and exhibit to the Minister of Railways and Canals, or any person appointed by him, all books, accounts and vouchers showing the cost of constructing the railway or bridge, the cost of operating it, and the earnings thereof.
9.	That the Governor in Council may make it a condition of the grant of the subsidies herein provided that the company shall lay *the railway with new steel rails and fastenings made in Canada and shall purchase all materials and supplies required for the construction
of the railway and bridges, and the rolling stock for the first equipment of the railway, from Canadian producers, if such rails, fastenings, materials, supplies and equipment are procurable in Canada of suitable quality and upon terms as favourable as elsewhere, of which the Minister of Railways and Canals shall be the judge.
10.	That whenever a contract has been duly entered into with a company for the construction of any line of railway hereby subsidized, the Minister of Railways and Canals, at the request of the company, and upon the report of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals and his certificate that he has made careful examination of the surveys, plans and profile of the whole line as contracted for, and has duly considered the physical characteristics of the country to be traversed and the means of transport available for construction, naming the reasonable and probable cost of such construction, may with the authorization of the Governor in Council enter into a supplementary agreement fixing definitely the maximum amount of the subsidy to be paid, based upon the said certificate of the chief engineer and providing that the company shall be entitled to be paid, as the minimum, the ordinai'y subsidy of $3,200 per mile, together with 60 per cent of the difference between the amount so fixed and the said $3,200 per mile, if any; and the balance, forty per cent, shall be paid only on completion of the whole work subsidized, and in so far as the actual co9t, as finally determined by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and upon the report and certificate of the said chief engineer, entitles the company thereto; Provided always:-
(a)	that the estimated cost, as certified, is not less on the average than $18,000 per mile for the whole mileage subsidized ;
(5) that no payment shall be made except upon a certificate of the chief engineer that the work done is up to the standard specified in the company's contract ;
(c)	that in no case shall the subsidy exceed the sum of $6,400 per miie.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Most of these resolutions are simply revotes; therefore I do not expect any information upon them; hut some of them propose certain changes. There must be some correspondence showing why these changes are necessary, and I shall expect my hon. friend to bring down the correspondence before we take the matter up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. COCHRANE moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide as follows:
1. That the Governor in Council may grant a subsidy of six thousand four hundred dollars per mile to the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, towards the construction of a railumy from the city of Toronto, in the province of Ontario, to the city of Ottawa, in the said province, not exceeding two hundred and fifty miles.
[Stage Direction]
2.	That the Governor in Council may grant a subsidy of twelve thousand dollars per mile towards each of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding In any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated) namely:
(1)	To the Canadian Northern Ontario .Railway Company, for a line of railway from the city of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, to the city of Fort Arthur, in the said province; not exceeding 910 miles;
(2)	To the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company, for a line of railway from the city of Edmonton in the province of Alberta to the boundary of the province of British Columbia at or in the Teiiowhead Rass; not exceeding 260 miles.
3.	That the subsidies hereby authorized shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and they may at the option of the Governor in Council, on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be paid as follows:
(a)	Upon completion of the work subsidized; or
(b)	By instalments, on the completion of
each ten-mile section of the railway; in the proportion which the cost of such completed section bears to that of the whole work undertaken; the cost for the purposes of this paragraph to be determined by the Governor in Council; or
(c)	Upon the progress estimates on the certificate of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals that in his opinion, having regard to the whole w-ork undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than thirty thousand dollars; or
(d)	With respect to (b) and (c), part one
way, part the other.
4.	That the lines for the construction of which subsidies are hereby granted shall be completed within a reasonable time not to exceed three years from the first day of August, 1913, to be fixed by the Governor in Council, and shall also be constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council.
5.	That the granting of such subsidies and
the receipt thereof by the respective companies shall be subject to the condition that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at all times provide and secure to other companies such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights as will afford to all railways connecting with the railway so subsidized reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such running power, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways; and the said board shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to 6e levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways hereby subsidized:	Provided always that any decision of the said board made under this section may be at any time varied, changed or rescinded by the Governor in Council as he deems just and proper.
6.	That the companies so receiving sub-
Mr. COCHRANE.
sidies, their successors and assigns, and any person or company controlling or operating the railways or portions of the railways so subsidized, shall each year furnish to the Government of Canada transportation for men, supplies, materials, and mails over the portion of the lines in respect of which it has received such subsidy, and, whenever required, shall furnished mail cars properly equipped for such mail service; and such transportation and service shall be performed at such rates as are agreed upon between the Minister of the Department of the Government for which such service is being performed and the company performing it, and, in case of disagreement, then at such rates as are approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. And in and toward the payment of such charges the Government of Canada shall be credited by the company with a sum equal to three per centum on the amount of the subsidy received by the Company, under section 1 hereof, and on the amount of the subsidy up to $6,400 per mile received by the company under section 2.
7.	That as respects the railways for which subsidies are so granted, the company at any time owning or operating any of the railways shall, when required, produce and exhibit to the Minister of Railways and Canals, or any person appointed by him, all books, accounts and vouchers showing the cost of constructing the railway, the cost of operating it, and the earnings thereof.
8.	That no subsidy shall be so granted unless and until there shall have been issued and transferred upon the books of the Canadian Northern Railway Company to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada, in trust for His Majesty, shares in the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company of the par value of $7,000,000, -which said stock and all rights appurtenant thereto shall be held for the benefit of His Majesty absolutely, and shall be deemed to be fully paid up, non-assessable and not subject to calls:	Provided that the said stock or any
part thereof be disposed of under the authority of the Governor in Council upon such terms and conditions as he may determine and the proceeds of the sale thereof paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
9.	That the Canadian Northern Railway Company is hereby authorized and empowered to issue and transfer to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada in trust as aforesaid from arid out of the authorized capital shares of its common stock of the par value of $7,000,000 fully paid up and non-assessable and not subject to calls as aforesaid upon the consideration of the Governor in Council undertaking to grant to the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company the subsidies referred to in section 2 hereof, upon the terms aforesaid and such stock when so issued and transferred shall be deemed fully paid without further or other consideration.
Wilfrid Laurier: I have to
make the same request in respect of this resolution, namely, that all the correspondence showing the necessity for this legisla-

tion be brought down before we take up the discussion of the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.
Mr. COCHRANE moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide as follows:-
1.	That the Governor in Council may grant to the Government of the province of Ontario, in consideration of its having constructed each .of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding in any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated) a subsidy not exceeding $6,100 per mile:-
(i)	For a line of railway from North Bay on the Canadian Pacific railway to
Cochrane on the Grand Trunk Pacific
railway not exceeding 252-8 miles.
(ii)	For the following branch lines of railway :-
(a)	From Englehart to Charlton; not exceeding 7-8 miles;
(b)	From Cobalt to Kerr lake; not exceeding 3-9 miles;
(c)	From Iroquois Falls to Timmins; not
exceeding 33-2 miles;
(d)	From Earlton to Elk Lake City; not
exceeding 23-5 miles;
(e)	From Iroqnois Falls Station to Iroqnois Falls; not exceeding 7-25
miles.
2.	That the subsidies hereby authorized shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada at the option of the Governor in Council, and may be paid upon the certificate of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals as to the mileage constructed, in such manner and in such amounts and subject to such conditions, if any, as the Govei-nor in Council deems expedient.
Motion agreed to.

Wilfrid Laurier: Would my
right hon. friend inform the House as to what legislation he intends to proceed with during the remainder of the session?


Mr. BORDEN:: Order No. 18*will not be proceeded with this session. No. 19 has been eliminated, because we passed a Bill in substitution for it. With regard to No. 22, the Postmaster General said yesterday that if this was to become a matter of controversy, and to occupy any great length of time, he would not be disposed to proceed with it this session, although he is very anxious that it should be enacted.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I received the Bill last night from my hon. friend the Postmaster General. While I am in favour of the principle of the parcel post system, the Bill is incomplete. It does not state what rates will be established, and the Postmaster General takes all the power to himself and ignores the authority of Parliament. The Bill is therefore controversial.


Robert Laird Borden: I will mention what my hon. friend says to the Postmaster General. I will make an announcement later as to No. 17. The rest of the legislation that is on the Order Paper we would like to pass, unless my right hon. friend has some suggestion to make in regard to it. I do not think any part of it is particularly controversial, or would involve any very long debate.



PENITENTIARY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty, House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Penitentiary Act, and to provide that the salaries payable to officers and employees of penitentiaries shall not exceed the rates in the following schedule, namely:-Warden, with quarters heated and lighted, $2,800; deputy warden, with quarters heated and lighted, $1,800; surgeon, $1,700; superintendent of insane ward, $1,000; accountant, chief clerical officer, $1,600; clerical assistants, $1,200; chaplains, to give exclusive service to the prison, $1,200; chaplains, with permission to take outside work, $900; chief keeper, $1,200; chief watchman, $1,200; steward, $1,200; assistant stewards. $900; hospital nurse, $1,000; assistant hospital nurse, $900; matrons, with quarters heated and lighted, $700; engineer and electrician, $1,300; assistant engineers, $1,000; chief trade instructor, $1,200; industrial guards, to act as instructors, $1,000; watchmen, $900; guards, $800; day firemen, $800; night firemen, without uniform, $900; temporary and jn-obationary officers $100 less than the schedule rate for permanent officers.
Provided, that the above schedule shall not affect prejudicially the existing salary, or the eligibility to gratuity, of any officer in the penitentiary service at the date of its adoption.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. DOHERTY :: The object of this proposed legislation appears on the face of it. It introduces a new schedule of salaries for the officers in the penitentiaries. The general principle of the change is to assimilate the salaries of the officers occupying the same positions in the different penitentiaries, and not to make distinctions as between the institutions.


Mr. WILSON (Laval) :: I am delighted to hear the Minister of Justice make a declaration of the principle contained in this resolution. He says it is to assimilate the salaries of the officers of the different penitentiaries in this Dominion, but I am afraid he has not carried out his intention to the fullest extent. There is a good reason why the salaries of penitentiary officials should be assimilated, because although there are 50 or 100 convicts more or less in one penitentiary than in another the duties of the officers are just as strenuous. Under the I previous regime, as I had an opportunity

to inform the House a few days ago, with the concurrence of other members of this House who had penitentiaries in their ridings, and who took a special interest in the matter, I drafted a bill to which a schedule -was attached. Though I congratulate the Minister of Justice in bringing this resolution down, because it will help the employees of the penitentiaries a good deal, I do not think that the minister has gone far enough. These questions of salary come up at every Parliament. We should legislate for some years in advance. The cost of living has increased quite a lot during the last five or six years. Is it likely to increase more? It may, and it may not, but I think every wise man in this country will come to the conclusion that it will at least remain in the present position for a few years anyway. What I propose is that the warden of each penitentiary should get $3,000 a year. I would remind the Minister of Justice that if we go back to the 70's or 80's we find that the warden at St. Vincent de Paul, in the days when the cost of living was certainly 50 per cent less than it is to-day, had a salary of $2,600, and in addition he was entitled to lodging, heating, and even furniture, from cellar to roof. Now the wardens of the different penitentiaries are obliged to furnish their own homes, and the cost of living has doubled. I would refer my hon. friend to ex-warden Ouimet, for corroboration of what I say. Before 1897 he had $2,800, so that practically the new schedule simply puts them in the position that they were in 17 years ago. I do not see much progress, so far as the salary of the warden is concerned. I would suggest that the salary of the warden be $3,000. The salary of the deputy Warden is raised in this schedule by $300 to $1,800. I would make the salary of the deputy warden $2,000. I do not think it would be too much. The responsibility of the warden is great, there is no doubt about that, but the officer who has the responsibility of maintaining discipline, and who is responsible for the running of' the penitentiary, is the deputy warden. According to our regulations, he is bound to live within the walls of the institution. He is the man who gets up first in the morning, sees that the Staff is in order, and that the machinery of the institution is running as it should run. He is also the officer responsible for the discipline of the guards. His salary should be $2,000. As for the chaplains, I see they remain at the same salary, $1,200. But there is a proviso which is difficult of interpretation, at least so far as the Roman Catholic chaplains are concerned. What is the outside work to which reference is made in the proviso? My hon. friend the Minister of Justice is a Roman Catholic, and knows perfectly what I mean. Suppose there is a grand ceremony at the church in the neighbouring parish, Mr. WILSON (Laval).
and the archbishop or some high dignitary of the church is present. It is the custom for all the clergy around to gather, and sometimes the ceremony has the character of extraordinary grandeur. It may bring some remuneration in some cases. Or suppose there is a high class funeral service, the clergy in the district might wish to take part. I would suggest that the law remain as it is, and that the proviso be striken out. I think we might rely upon our ministers in the performance of their duties.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Seeing my hon. friend is going to deal seriatim with the different points in the resolution, perhaps it would be more convenient to take the resolution item by item. I think it is desirable we should do so, principally that we may avoid overlooking any observations that may be made.


Charles Avila Wilson: I leave it to the
minister's own judgment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as the salaries of the wardens and deputy wardens are concerned, it is quite true that the increases are small over the salaries that prevailed a good many years ago. I have no doubt it is quite true, because the hon. gentleman says it, that these are very small increases over the salaries that obtained a great many years ago; but, on the other hand, they are increases over the salaries that prevail at the present time and which are fixed by the present Penitentiary Act. If these larger salaries prevailed some years ago it must have been that those who, at the time the present. Penitentiary Act was passed, were charged with the responsibility of dealing with the matter, thought that the salaries were too high. But I would like to point out that we are endeavouring to make the salaries of the same officers in all the penitentiaries the same. While it is quite true that $2,800 is not a very great increase at St. Vincent de Paul, though it is an increase of $400 or of one-sixth of the present salary, it is, in the other penitentiaries, a very considerable increase. The operation of getting the salaries of all the officers of all the penitentiaries on an equal footing prevents a consideration of individual cases exclusively from the point of view of the officer occupying a particular position. The same observation applies to the salary of the deputy warden which, although in St. Vincent de Paul it is increased by $300, in some of the other penitentiaries is increased by a considerably larger amount. With regard to the chaplain, if it had not been suggested by the hon. gentleman, it certainly would not have occurred to me that anybody would have thought that any clergyman attending a service in a church other than his own and taking part in the ceremony or service there would, by reason of that fact, not be considered as giving his

exclusive services to the penitentiary. I would have thought that would have been readily understood from the proviso which says that a clergyman receiving a salary oi $1,200 should make his exclusive and particular office that of chaplain of the penitentiary. It will exclude a clergyman from taking some other position of the same kind to which he would devote himself but I think that the hon. member may feel perfectly confident that nobody will undertake to say that such a clergyman shall never hold or take part in a religious service other than the service of the penitentiary. This proviso, as well as the schedule as	a whole,	will	not	affectprejudicially	any officer of	the	penitentiary who is presently in office. The hon. member will notice the clause at the end which makes it plain that the Bill does not involve imposing any new condition on any officer at	present in	office.	This	is therule made to	govern us	in the	future. It
seems to be a desirable rule because while it does seem a fair thing that a salary should be paid to a clergyman who might have a large parish or a large congregation and who would only go occasionally to the penitentiary to give his spiritual services to the convicts, it hardly seems fair that a gentleman in that position should be paid the same salary as a gentleman who becomes the chaplain of a penitentiary and is bound as such to give his services, properly speaking, entirely to the institution. I think we may be trusted, and I have no doubt that any gentleman who may be called upon in the future to deal with the matter may be trusted, not to put such an extreme interpretation upon the words as the hon. gentleman suggests.


Mr. MURPHY:: I would like to ask the minister if there is any existing case which makes necessary the distinction he has been explaining?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot for the moment recall any, but I will inquire and give my hon. friend the information.


Mr. PROULX:: I think there is too great a difference between the salary of the warden and that of the deputy warden. I agree with my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson) when he says that the salary of the deputy shall be $2,000 but I think the salary of the warden should be $2,500. He has his quarters lighted and heated and that is worth $1,000 a year at least.


Charles Avila Wilson: And so has the deputy.


Edmond Proulx: I know. That would make $3,500 for the warden and $3,000 for the deputy. The warden would have the best quarters, I suppose. In many cases the deputy warden does more work and has more responsibility than the warden. It has been the case in the Kingston penitentiary for some years that the penitentiary has been in charge of the deputy warden.
I think it is still the case even since the superannuation of the old warden and the appointment of the new warden, Colonel Irvine. I do not see why Colonel Irvine was transferred from Stony Mountain to Kingston penitentiary. I saw in the newspapers the other day that he was now at a sanitarium and I understand that he is about 75 years of age. I think he was too old to be transferred from one penitentiary to the other. I would suggest to the minister that he make the salary of the warden $2,500 and that of the deputy $2,000. In regard to the chaplain, I agree with the minister; I think the provision is fair.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: I am surprised to see my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx) jump on these officials. He w'ants some of these men reduced and he is ready to have the salaries of others increased. He is ready to give some of them a higher salary than he is prepared to give to the poor member of Parliament who is only getting $2,500.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would like to say a
word in connection with what the hon. member for Prescott has said in regard to the transfer of Colonel Irvine. Speaking in a general way I may say it is the desire of the department in future the warden should perform the duties that belong to the supervision of the entire penitentiary, including the police department as well as the business department. That is what we are looking for in the future. The hon. gentleman has expressed wonderment why Colonel Irvine has 'been transferred, and has referred to his age. He has been transferred to this larger and more important penitentiary, because he is a most highly qualified officer by his experience, his force of character and his capacity for dealing wdth both convicts and guards. Like other people, he is sometimes taken ill, and he has been ill now for a couple of weeks. I understand that he is recovering and that wre may expect him back in a few days. I appointed Colonel Irvine to that position because he was the most efficient person at my disposal.


Edmond Proulx: What I object to is that it is not customary to transfer officials at such an advanced age. It is more customary to superannuate them. I think a youilger man should have been chosen. The responsibility and control of the penitentiary will still devolve upon the deputy warden, while the warden will get the nigher salary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When Colonel Irvine is in charge of a penitentiary, the responsibility and control will rest in him. I put him there because I wanted that to be the case. While there are advantages in having younger men, thera are greater advantages in having better men or the 'best men. When the best men, as unquestionably in

this case, is an old man, I shall not be afraid to transfer an old man even i'f it be not customary. I shall try to adhere to good customs; but, when I find a custom that works badly, I shall not adhere to it.


Edmond Proulx: I heard he was seventy-five years old. Is that a fast?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know bis exact age. He is an old man, probably over seventy, but he is a thoroughly efficient 'warden. If the hon. member has the slightest doubt on that point, I would suggest that-he inform himself of conditions at Stony Mountain penitentiary, where Colonel Irvine has been warden for many years.


Mr. OLIVER:: I wish to ask for some information regarding Edmonton penitentiary. I understood the hon. minister to say that it was the intention to have the salaries equalized throughout Canada. I am not contending against that, but I want to point out that this seems to 'be a rule that does not work both ways. When it is a question of salaries for officers in penitentiaries, officers in western Canada get the same salary as officers in eastern Canada. When it is a matter of railway freight rates or bank interest or express rates or almost anything of that kind, the expenses are higher in the West and the rates must therefore be higher than in the East. I am willing to accept my hon. friend's provision in this resolution, if he will use his influence to remove these other inequalities.
This resolution provides that the salary of a warden shall not be more than $2,800. Does that mean that the salaries Of wardens shall be $2,800, or is it intended that there shall be a variation in the salaries; and, if so, on what basis is that variation arranged?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The inspector tells me that the provision in the Act is that the salaries shall not exceed the amounts men-' tioned. It is intended that the salaries shall be the same throughout Canada. We want to get at a result where a man will not be an officer of a particular penitentiary, but will be an officer of a certain rank and available for transfer from one penitentiary to another.


Edmond Proulx: Will the minister provide for expenses of removal? There is an item in the supplementary estimates for the expenses of removal of Colonel Irvine from Stony Mountain to Kingston. I think that is another useless expense.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The minister will not
transfer anybody except when it is useful to transfer him. When that is the case, it will be useful to pay the expenses of removal.


Frank Oliver: I presume the same condition prevails in regard to all salaries, that Mr. DOHKRTY.
is that the salaries mentioned here will be paid to all officers of these ranks.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the intention.


Frank Oliver: What are {he present salaries of the warden and deputy warden at Edmonton penitentiary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The salary of the warden is $2,200; of the deputy warden, $1,500. They have the usual privilege of heat and light.


Charles Avila Wilson: If this resolution is assented to, these salaries will come into effect immediately?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Charles Avila Wilson: So that the warden who is getting $2,200 now will get $2,800, and so on?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Charles Avila Wilson: The deputy warden at St. Vincent de Paul is getting $1,500. Therefore his increase will be only $300. The deputy warden at another point is getting $1,400. Therefore his increase will be $400. The salary of the warden at Kingston will be increased by only $200, because his present salary is $2,600.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But this is necessary in order to bring them all to the same salary level.


Charles Avila Wilson: If I may be allowed, I
will refer to the surgeon. Here I find a great discrepancy concerning which I would like an explanation from the minister. A surgeon now receiving $1,700, and a superintendent of insane ward $1,000. At present, Dr. Phelan in Kingston, gets $2,400, and I understand, is superintendent of the insane ward. He will hereafter draw both salaries-$1,700 as surgeon, and $1,000 as insane superintendent. Starting with the priniciple enunciated by the minister that the salaries should be equal, I do not see why there should be such a difference between the surgeon in Kingston and the surgeon in St. Vincent de Paul. I see that the surgeon at St. Vincent de Paul is to receive an increase of $100, and I am very glad of it, for, though he is one of my worst opponents in the county, we do not deal with these matters on political grounds. I would suggest, however, that the surgeon at St. Vincent de Paul should receive the same salary as the surgeon in Kingston and the same with similar officers throughout the Dominion. Dr. Phelan receives $2,700, and more than that, I understand, he is exempted from the restriction applied to other surgeons prohibiting them from outside work.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, the Act is the same for all. It provides that the salaries shall be not more than the sums fixed and that the persons to whom they are paid shall give their time exclusively to the service of


Mr. EMMERSON:: The following
amendment was placed by me before the committee and it was bowled out very summarily:
That the said section 91 be amended by adding thereto the following:
' And all payments made by or on behalf of any borrower, whether paid voluntarily or otherwise, and all moneys accepted or retained by or on behalf of any bank under the provisions of this section for interest or discount charges in excess of said rate of seven per cent shall be recoverable by the person, firm, or corporation so making such payment or from whom such interest or discount is exacted or retained, in an action in any court of competent jurisdiction.'
When that was disposed of, I then proposed the amendment as to the monthly statement and that was accepted, but at a la.ter date it was also thrown out. I call attention to the fact that this amendment was offered in the Banking -and Commerce Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 64-bank circulation redemption fund:
Mr. WHITE:: I wish to suggest an amendment to section 64 which is of some importance. Section 64 refers to the circulation redemption fund, and members of the committee are doubtless aware that all the banks have to contribute an amount equal to five per cent of the average mote circulation to that fund, which constitutes a security for the note circulation of the banks. We are providing a gold reserve against which the banks may issue notes in excess of the amount of note circulation which they may now issue against their paid-up capital and against the fifteen per cent of the paid-up capital in reserve in the emergency period. Mr. McLeod, who appeared before the committee, wrote to me about this from London, and I think he is entirely correct in his views. He says that it is mot necessary for the banks to contribute five per cent in respect to the note circulation which is issued against gold. In other words, it is the note circulation, which is issued against paid-up capital, and the so-called emergency circulation that .should be safeguarded by the contributions of the banks. Therefore, in order to give effect to that recommendation and suggestion, which I have said is a very pertinent and good one, I move, that section 64, sub-section 8, be amended by inserting, after deleting the period, after the word ' relates,' the following:
Provided, however, that in determining the average note circulation of a bank under this sub-section the daily average for each month of the amount of the bank's deposit, (if any) in the central gold reserves, which has not 328



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
been withdrawn or deemed to be withdrawn within the meaning of this Act, shall be deducted from the greatest amount of the notes of the bank in circulation at any time during the month.
That means that the banks shall contribute five per cent of the balance. As regards the note circulation secured by gold, that is absolutely secured. That leaves it precisely as it is at present so far as the constitution of the banks is concerned towards a guarantee of the note circulation of the banks. In so far as the note circulation of the banks is safeguarded dollar for dollar by gold deposited under the provisions of the new Act, it is not necessary to contribute for that.
Mr. GRAHAM:: If it had not been for the provisions of the new Act in adding to the gold security, this would not have been necessary.


William Thomas White: Quite so.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 114-annual returns for unpaid dividends and balances:
William Thomas White: The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) made a suggestion that we should insert the words ' certified cheque ' in line 40, page 57 of the reprinted Bill after the word ' balance.' The purpose is to make the term slightly more complete.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Arts, agriculture and statistics-exhibitions, $375,000.
["I wish to make a\nmotion in regard to this Bill. We considered these amendments in the Railway Committee, and it is quite evident that one of them is a mistake on the part of the Senate; in fact, I can say with certainty that it is, and that if we reject it no doubt they will withdraw it. If it were not so, they -would be undoing all the legislation passed by this House for several years, and would he interfering with the standard or model clause giving protection to municipalities. The first amendment made by the Senate is to strike out part of the route of the railway. As to that, the Railway Committee thought that they could not interfere so long as the promoters of the Bill were willing to accept the change. If the promoters of the Bill had insisted that they were entitled to have that part of their route into Montreal, as well as the rest of the route *proposed, I think we would have been inclined to say there is no reason why they should not have the right. But the promoters were willing to accept that amendment, and that being so, the legislative functions of this Parliament are not interfered with. The only result is that the promoters did not get so long a railway as they would otherwise have got. But the second amendment is one in regard to which this Parliament is'bound to protect the people. The Senate inserted in clause 7, the municipal clause of the Bill the word ' under ' in regard to poles and wires for telegraphing upon the highways. The standard municipal clause adopted by this House in regard to these matters gives the municipalities the control of the service, upon, along, or over the highways. They cannot go along or upon the highways without the consent of the municipalities, but of course they must be allowed to go under. If the municipal council will not allow them to do so, they can do so on the order of the Railway Commissioners, after investigation. If the word 'under' is inserted, the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission would be misted, and each municipality would be able to prevent a railway company, because its telegraph line must be part of the railway, from entering that municipality at all, and the Railway Commission would be helpless to interfere, even to allow the wires to go under the streets. So I move:\nThat this House do concur in the amendment made by the Senate to clause 2 of Bill No. 99, and do disagree with the Senate in its amendment made to clause 7, for the reason that the proposed amendment varies the well-considered standard section that ha9 been embodied in many railway Bills this session by both Houses, land would in effect transfer to municipalities the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners to regulate the construction, operation and crossing under highways and public places with lines of wires when municipalities refuse to permit them to be placed upon along or across highways, in which event the powers to permit and regulate the crossing under these highways should, in the opinion of this House, remain in the Board of Railway Commissioners; and that a message he sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith."]
George Perry Graham: Last night we passed this item which we did not discuss at all. The hon. minister said that we could ask any questions concerning it at a future session of the committee. It would perhaps save time and a lot of questions if he would just give us a little idea of these exhibitions; what work he is carrying on; if this vote has anything to do with the vote for the Toronto exhibition; what is included in it; who is in charge of the exhibits; what are the exhibits; what success we	are	having,	and	if	weare getting	any	returns	that	he	can
see directly or if they are indirect. Exhibitions properly conducted are the best advertising we can have foT Canada. What are included in the exhibits-manufactured products or natural products? A few explanations would be acceptable, so that we may know what the money is for.



[Stage Direction]
103S0
Hon. MAETIN BUEEELL (Minister of Agriculture):: This special vote is confined to large internal exhibitions, and is not for exhibitions in Canada itself. There is a vote for exhibitions every year. There is in the main estimates a vote of $50,000 for the Dominion exhibition which goes from province to province in turn. There are occasionally special votes. Last year there was a vote of $100,000 towards the Toronto National Exhibition, to pay for a building to house the exhibits of all the provinces. As I have said this vote has nothing to do with exhibitions of that kind, but it is to be confined to what we may call international exhibitions where Canada exhibits on a very large scale her natural resources and products. The first of these exhibitions was held in Stockholm in 1897. Since that time, fifteen or twenty exhibitions have been held, the last being the Festival of Empire in London. The money of this vote is largely to be for the exhibits at the International Exhibition in Ghent, in Belgium. The same man is in charge who has been in charge for many years, Colonel Hutchison, who is well qualified for the work and has a natural genius for exhibition work. A considerable sum will also be necessary for preliminary expenses in connection with the Panama Exhibition in 1915, for which we shall have to begin to get ready before the end of the present year. The Ghent Exhibition is just opening.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope the names of the two commissioners published are correct, Mr. Lafontaine and Mr. Plante.


Martin Burrell: Nothing has been decided on that point. No assistants have been sent as yet. In regard to that, the only object in sending anybody from this side was not to represent Canada but to strengthen the staff in Belgium of Frenchspeaking people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know what the particular qualifications of Mr. Lafontaine may be, but as regards Mr. Plante, if my hon. friend will appoint him, I am sure he will find in him a man most conversant with the resources of our country and quite a creditable representative of Canada. At the time we had the exhibition at Brus-sells three years ago, Canada was never so well advertised in Europe as by our exhibit there. If my hon. friend could only reproduce what we had at Brussels-and I think he could improve on that-he would confer a great benefit on this country. I must say that in Mr. Hutchinson, and his immediate staff, Mr. Hains, for instance, we have most competent officers. At Brussels, I myself visited the exposition, and it was really a matter of pride for Canadians who were present to see the enormous crowds that were struggling from morning until evening Mr. GRAHAM.
to see the exhibits of Canada. It was practically a farmers' exhibit, a representation of the life on our Canadian farms, an exhibition of our fur-bearing animals, a display of the fruits of Canada and of the products of our forests and of our mines. It was a most extraordinary fact that so many people from that wealthy country came to see what Canada had to exhibit. 1 am quite sure that with the literature which was distributed there, Canada derived great benefit from that exposition. I congratulate the minister on his decision to have our exhibit this year at Ghent, and I hope Mr. Hutchinson will be given a free hand, as he has had a free hand in the past, because he has a real genius for such organization. Might I suggest to the minister _ to be generous-I do not say in salaries, because I know he will pay good salaries to our officers-but to be generous in the printing of pamphlets, booklets, atlases and other literature in French. There is in Belgium, as my hon. friend knows, a large French population, and it is from that country that we expect, more than from France, to receive immigrants. The population of Belgium, in contradistinction to that of France, increases every year. The territory of Belgium is rather limited, and there is no country in the world where the population is so dense. They are well-to-do farmers, they have large families and they emigrate, while the French peasants do not emigrate. Especially will that be the case this year, for the new law which is being enforced in France for service in the army will make immigration more restricted than ever. From Belgium we may expect an excellent class of farmers and gardeners, and I am quite sure that if the statistics are consulted since the exhibition of Brussels, it will be found that there has been quite an increase in the immigration from Belgium into' Canada. If French and Flemish literature is being distributed, it will certainly result in a numerous class of desirable immigrants.


Martin Burrell: The hon. gentleman can rest assured that no pains will be spared to make the exposition at Ghent worthy of Canada. I agree with what he s_ays concerning Belgium. We have a certain population from Belgium in the far West-in my own province especially. These people are most thrifty and their methods of intensive farming are a revelation to us. We could not get a better class of immigrants. We have made provision for a large distribution of suitable literature.


Mr. SINCLAIB:: This item is largely increased this year as compared with last. The minister gave us a general outline of what he intended to do with the ^ money, but it would be interesting to have items of the expenditure of this $200,000, so that

we may know how he intends to expend so large an amount.


Martin Burrell: I can only say, as I have already said, that a large proportion of this money is to he spent in connection with the exposition in Ghent. That exposition will close about October or November. But before the expiry of the fiscal year, we shall have to incur fairly heavy expense in getting ready for the Panama exposition to b.e held at San Francisco in 1915. As my hon. friend knows, if he has seen these expositions, there is enormous expense in sending the exhibits and otherwise. I think he will find that for this expenditure, large as it is, the country will get a very excellent return in final result.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: From an answer given to a question which I asked in the House some time ago, I understood that the Government did not intend to participate in the Panama Exposition.


Martin Burrell: I think my hon. friend is confusing the Panama Exposition with the San Diego Exposition. It was not thought advisable to take part in the latter, as the San Francisco Exposition is probably the more important.


George Perry Graham: Can the minister tell us to what extent Canada intends to take part in the Panama Exposition?


Martin Burrell: I could not give my
hon. friend any definite information, but speaking personally, for it is somewhat early to take the matter up officially, my own feeling is that at the Panama Exposition Canada would be justified in making one of the strongest exhibitions that she has ever made. It is of immense importance that on that occasion we should be worthily represented, and that our great natural resources should be given due prominence.


George Perry Graham: Have representations been made to the Government by the manufacturers of Canada with regard to their being represented at one of these great expositions?


Martin Burrell: I have not any in mind.


George Perry Graham: I see no reason why the manufacturers should not endeavour to exhibit their products at these great fairs so that the people of the world would understand not only that we are a great agricultural country, but also that we have important manufacturing industries as well. I say this to impress on the manufacturers of Canada what I have often said to them privately: that they are missing a great opportunity in not coming to the front and endeavouring to get their products to these great expositions with a view to showing
328}	. i '
the people of the world that we are a manufacturing as well as an agricultural country.
Agricultural development of dairying and fruit industries; improvement in transportation, sale and trade in fruit and other agricultural products, $190,000.	B


Martin Burrell: The items composing this amount are: expenses in connection with headquarters, $15,000; expenses connected with the various dairying branches, $62,000; fruit division, $70,000; markets division, $22,790; cold storage, $18,900; a total of $190,000 and an increase of over last year's estimates of $50,000.


Frank Oliver: What, generally speaking, are the dairying operations of the department?


Martin Burrell: We are taking up vari-ous_ kinds of work. One of the important activities in which we are engaged is the extension of a system of what we call dairy record centres. Under this system we plaoe an expert, who thoroughly understands the use of a Babcock test, in charge of a certain district, and whose duty it is, within a certain radius to test the cows, the products of which are going to the creameries. The results of his tests are made known among the farmers who own the herds, in order that they may be instructed in the best methods of feeding and caring for their animals, and they may be enabled to tell which animals are paying and which are not. We have now nearly twenty of these centres.


John Howard Sinclair: Where are these centres located?


Martin Burrell: There are nine or ten centres in various parts of the province of Ontario, and three or four in Quebec. We are establishing two or three in the maritime provinces; so far we have not gone into the western parts at all, except in one of the smaller districts of British Columbia.


John Howard Sinclair: In what portions of the maritime provinces have these centres been established?


Martin Burrell: In the maritime provinces we have not done very much as yet. There is a station at Clifton, New Brunswick; and we have one in Prince Edward Island, we are establishing a centre in the French Acadian portion of New Brunswick, and propose to extend the system during this, or certainly during, next year.


Mr. MACDONALD:: What about Nova Scotia?


Martin Burrell: We have many of these points under consideration, so far as the expenditure which we propose

to make to enable us to do the work this year.


John Howard Sinclair: Are these officers permanent? Do they remain the whole year in one locality?


Martin Burrell: The officer works the whole year round, and by using the Babcock test he is enabled to tell the farmer the exact amount of butterfat contained in the product of each cow.


William John Macdonald: Does he travel over a certain district, or is he permanently located in one place?


Martin Burrell: He works within a certain radius, sometimes within a circle of twelve, fifteen or twenty miles.


William John Macdonald: If it is the intention to establish a station in Nova Scotia, it would be desirable to have it located in the centre of the province. The hon. member referred to Yarmouth, and, while I have no objection to the establishment of one of these centres in the Yarmouth district, it is at the extreme end of the province.


Martin Burrell: I was speaking only
generally; it is not decided in what particular part of the province the centre will be located, but I know we are making arrangements to establish one in Nova Scotia.


Mt. LOGGIE:: Has any arrangement
been made for the establishment of one of these centres in the porth-eastern part of the province of New Brunswick?


Martin Burrell: We are making arrangements to start work in that part of the country, I think in the county of Kent.


William Stewart Loggie: That district is perhaps the best farming portion of north-eastern New Brunswick.


Martin Burrell: It is not always advisable to start these things in the best sections. It is sometimes advisable to start them in the sections that are not so far advanced, so as to give better education to the people.


Frank Oliver: What are the prospects of an extension of this work in the prairie provinces?


Martin Burrell: I cannot answer my
hon. friend offhand. We have developed the work to a very considerable extent. We started four or five years ago with two centres I think, and we have gradually developed until we have seventeen or eighteen. It is quite obvious that we cannot extend the work to every portion of the country, otherwise we would commit ourselves to an enormous exnenditure. The result of the work has been so satisfactory that whereas one firm which had been Mr. BURRELL.
in the habit of selling fifty Babcock testers three years ago, sold during the past year one thousand for the use of individual farmers because the farmers knew the results of the tests we had been carrying on and knew what would be profitable and *what would not. The work was initiated by my predecessor, and we have tried to develop it, and nothing has done more good to the dairy industry than those cow tests.


John Howard Sinclair: What does it cost?
Mr. BURRELL; We pay the men from $1,000 to $1,200 a year, and there are not very many other expenses connected with it.


Frank Oliver: The minister did not say anything very definite about extending the work in the prairie provinces.


Martin Burrell: I cannot very well say offhand, but if we are justified in extending the work to other portions of the West I shall be glad to give the matter every consideration.


Frank Oliver: Is there any prospect of
extension in the prairie provinces?


Martin Burrell: I would not say this
year, but I do not see why it should no* be done at an early date.


George Perry Graham: I observe that the word [DOT] transportation ' is mentioned. That opens up a big avenue for improvement as well as for profit in the province ot Ontario. I imagine there is no overlapping between the department at Toronto and the department at Ottawa in the matter of improving the quality and increasing the quantity, particularly of cheese. It was stated last night that the province of Quebec produced the greatest amount of butter. I think that is true, but no one will suggest that the province of Quebec, or any other province, equals Ontario in the production of cheese. Both as regards quantity and quality, the cheese that Ontario produces is as good as any to be found in the world. The Ontario provincial work has been very successful. If my memory serves me lightly, they have inspectors who go from factory to factory consulting with the makers, and in addition there are, I think, two dairy schools, one of them at Kingston. An endeavour is being made constantly to raise the standard of production, and it would be unwise for the two departments to clash. There is work for them both to do, and I know that the work of testing has been very beneficial. When I was connected with the press we took great pleasure ;n publishing the results of those tests, and that created an interest. I imagine that the press can help the Department of Agriculture a great deal in that respect. In regard to transportation,

what improvement does the minister propose? The facilities for the transportation of dairy products and of fruit have been greatly improved in recent years, but 1 imagine they are not yet perfect. It is possible to approximate, at least, to the condition that the product will be in as good a condition when it reaches the consumer as when it leaves the producer. That means that the price is enhanced, and any money expended wisely in that direction means money in the pockets of the farmer. It would be very interesting if the minister could state whether he has any particular improvement in mind in the way of increasing the number of refrigerator ears, or of imposing more exacting demands on the railway companies to provide them, or upon steamship companies to provide better cold storage facilities.


Martin Burrell: We are trying all the
time to improve that portion of the service. So far as the transportation and marketing go, we are keeping up a refrigerator car-service, not only for butter but for cheese. It is largely from Quebec .and Ontario points to Montreal and subsequently for export. Up till 1908, there was practically no arrangement for the provision of refrigerator cars or of cool chambers on vessels. The shipments were so few that the vessels would not retain cool chambers. Now the Government guarantees a certain amount of space on. I think, six steamers. These are reserved for fruit, and I may point out that the facilities have been taken advantage of for the shipment of some tender fruits like peaches. Whereas in 1910, 3,000 cases of peaches were shipped in ihose cool chamber?, in 1912, in the guaranteed space in the vessels, nearly 9,000 cases were shipped. In regard to the refrigerator ear service, we guarantee every year a minimum of two-thirds of a full car, and the shipper is allowed to avail himself of the broken carload rate, regardless of the ice storage for which iwe pay. In return for our guarantee, if when the car reaches its destination the ice is gone, we refuse to pay and we are enabled in that way to keep the railways up to the mark. I think we are doing as good work in keeping the companies up to the mark as is probably being done in any other country.


George Perry Graham: In what condition does
our fruit arrive in the West?


Martin Burrell: Very good as a general rule. My hon. friend will be surprised to know that eastern Canada sent 11,000,000 pounds of butter to western points last year, largely to the prairies and a considerable amount to British Columbia.


George Perry Graham: Alberta will stop that
after a bit.


Martin Burrell: In two prairie provinces last year nearly half a million dollars worth of dairy products were put on the market produced by the western dairy farmers.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does the minister say
that he guarantees two thirds of the car load and does that enable the shipper of the food to get carload rates for his goods?


Martin Burrell: No.


John Ewen Sinclair: Suppose a car is sent
out that is only half filled and the Government pay the difference between the half and the two-thirds, what rate does the shipper pay?


Martin Burrell: Each year from about
the middle of May to the middle of October, iced .refrigerator cars are run regularly over certain routes in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec for the carriage of butter. to Toronto and Montreal. These cars are run weekly or fortnightly, according to the requirements of the route, on an advertised schedule so that shippers can deliver their butter to the stations with the least possible exposure to heat. A shipper may forward any quantity, from one package upwards, and pay only the regular less than carload rate without extra charge for the icing. The Government guarantees a revenue each trip equal to two-thirds of the minimum carload earnings from starting point to destination plus $4 per car for icing. This guarantee only holds if the car arrives in good shape with the ice not exhausted. It gives an opportunity to the shipper to get his goods forwarded in refrigerator cars that he would1 not otherwise have.


John Ewen Sinclair: It looks like a good
thing for the .railway company.


Martin Burrell: Although we give this guarantee, we do not pay the freight if the freight in the car pays for itself.


John Ewen Sinclair: You pay if it falls
short?


Martin Burrell: If it falls below twothirds we pay it but if the car pays of itself we do not pay it, and it very often happens that we do not have to pay anything.


Mr. MAECIL:: I would ilke to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture to a section of the country which I am sorry to say he is probably not as familiar with as he ought to be. I was not here the other evening when the matter was taken up concerning experimental farms, but I might say that during the present session I have obtained important documents, one of which I would like to read to the committee as emanating from a former member for the constituency of Bonaventure, Mr. L. J. Eiopel, who represented that constituency

in this House for many years and who wrote a letter on the 26th of March 1912 to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture calling special attention to the conditions existing in the countv of Bonaventure and in the Gaspesian peninsula generally, a matter which was alluded to last night by my hon. colleague from Rimouski (Mr. Boulay). With the permission of the committee I will read this letter which summarises well the position in which the farmers of the country find themselves:
Quebec, March 26th, 1912. G. O'Halloran, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-With further reference to the suggestion which I laid before you in the absence of the Hon. Mr. Burrell, I beg to submit the following remarks in connection with the establishment of an agricultural school at New Carlisle for the benefit of the Gaspe Peninsula.
That section of the province of Quebec, comprising the counties of Bonaventure, Matane and Gaspe has suffered great drawbacks on account of its isolated situation.
Its population, now being nearly 100,000 was originally composed largely, of fishermen and lumberers; although during the past twenty-five years, they have made fair progress^ in agricultural pursuits.
The institution of a model farm would greatly promote the welfare of those people, who as a rule, are lacking experience in that paramount industry.
The soil of the Gaspe Peninsula is generally well adapted to farming and is most suitable for growing all sorts of vegetables.
As I have mentioned to you, sir, the large farm of the late Lieutenant Governor, Hon. Theodore Robitaille, New Carlisle, the Shire-town of the county of Bonaventure, is in every respect suitable for the purpose in view.
It comprises nearly one hundred acres of land all under cultivation, with a frontage of five acres on the Baie des Chaleurs, and is provided with all buildings required for a Government farm of moderate dimensions.
A wood lot of sixteen acres, about three miles distant from the farm would also be secured.	;
The farm is conveniently situated within a few acres of the Newr Carlisle Government wharf, and of the railway station; and it commands a magnificent view of the Paspebiac harbour, and also of the shore of New Brunswick, about twenty miles across the Baie des Chaleurs.
It may be noted here that the counties of Restigouche and Gloucester in New Brunswick could share the advantages of such an undertaking, as it would be easy of access to the people of that shore.
The proposition now submitted to the consideration of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture was suggested to me through the announcement of the policy of the present Government promising to take measures for the encouragement and promotion of Agricultural pursuits.
Seeing that there are only two model farms in the province of Quebec, and those institutions are beyond the reach of the Gaspe population, it is obvious that an Agricultural Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).
school, or model farm would be most beneficial to the inhabitants of that large section of the country.
With the hope that the proposition may be earnestly considered.
I beg to remain,
Dear Sir,
Tours truly,
(Sgd.) L. J. Riopel.
This was followed by an acknowledgement and subsequent correspondence, but up to the 9th day of May last when the papers were laid before Parliament nothing seems to have been done for the purpose of affording to this large population some of the benefits of the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa. Under very trying circumstances, during the last ten years, one of the devoted priests of the constituency, Rev. Jacob Gagne, who is well known to the Department of Agriculture, has at great trouble and inconvenience to himself, established a number of butter and eh eese factories throughout the constituency and has assisted the farmers very materially in that respect. The country is one admirably adapted to the raising of cattle and the production of cheese and butter. But owing to the policy whioh has been pursued in regard to railway communication the butter and cheese output has to he carried many a hundred miles before it reaches the Intercolonial railway at Matapedia. There are a great many drawbacks which must be overcome. The population has been increasing in the three constituencies, but I am sorry to say not as largely as it would have done if better farming and transportation facilities had been given to the people. A large proportion of the population have had to emigrate, many of them to New Brunswick, some to other parts of Quebec and others to the United States. But there is an area 10,000 miles square, an immense field for the activities of a great agricultural population. I hope that, having called his attention to the subject, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture will take it in hand and see that some of the benefits of his administration are extended to the population of that constituency. The letter I have read comes from Mr. Riopel, who for nearly twelve years sat in this House, who occupies a high position in the ranks of the Conservative party and whose word is to be accepted as being quite reliable. I should like to see the minister send some of his best men down to the constituencies of Bonaventure, Rimouski and Gaspe to make an examination and report. Rimouski, of course, being on the Intercolonial railway, is not handicapped as the other constituencies are. The minister should send a good man to investigate the conditions in order that something may be done for these enter-

prising people who are mostly French-Can-adians, although at New Richmond, Port Daniel West and New Carlisle, there are three important English-speaking agricultural parishes. During the past ten years these people have made an effort to give up fishing as 'being unprofitable and go into farming, but they have been handicapped for want of transportation to the markets and lack of experimental stations and agricultural . instruction. The people are energetic, the soil productive, the season short but fruitful, and with ordinary assistance from the department they would be placed in a position to become prosperous and happy. Should an experimental station be erected by the Government no better point could be selected than New Carlisle, which is the shire town of the constituency and is situated about one hundred miles from Matapedia and one hundred miles from Gaspe Basin, being about half way across the peninsula. If facilities were given to these people to pursue the agricultural industry any expenditure in that direction would repay the department and repay the country one hundredfold. There is in that district a field for the minister to do abundant good work.


Martin Burrell: I have had a talk with Mr. Riopel and I have also met a deputation from that district, and I quite appreciate the argument advanced by the hon. member (Mr. Marcil). I have abundant sympathy with the large sections of the country which are not sharing the advantages that other parts receive, but it is difficult to supply facilities for the entire Dominion at once. I do not see why some of the benefits that may be derived by farmers from the new Agricultural Aid Bill recently passed could not be shared by the people of that district. I am sure the influence of my hon. friend from Bonaventure would be considerable and I would advise him to make a strong appeal to the Quebec Government, and if anything can be done to make advances to that district to assist agricultural development through educational means, say the establishment of a school in New Carlisle, I shall be only too glad to look at it sympathetically.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: It is specified in the
item in the estimates that this vote of $190,000 is for the development of the dairying and fruit industries and the improvement in transportation, sale and trade in fruit and other agricultural products. I't seems to me that a vote of $190,000 is very small for the purposes for which this vote is destined. Especially is that the fact when we realize that the dairy products of our country last year were worth over $100,000,000 and that while the production of butter has increased, the production of cheese has
somewhat declined. I am glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture say he intends to establish a great many more dairy record centres. One of the first of them was established in my district and it has done a great deal of good to the farmers in that community. The farmer sends his milk to be tested and has the record sent back to him and at the end of the year he knows what cows are worth keeping. I know a farmer who had his herd tested and he found quite a number of them were only boarders and he discarded them and in three or four years he had practically doubled his production. I strongly advocate the establishment of these dairy record centres in the dairying sections of the Dominion. Then, as to the fruit industry, we had evidence before us last year of the great difficulties the fruit people encountered in getting their fruit to the market, and I would suggest to the minister that probably the best way to help the fruit industry now is to stimulate co-operation in the packing and marketing of fruit. Again I repeat that this vote of $190,000 is small for the objects it is to be devoted to. I hope by the time the minister develops his policy he will be able to come to Parliament and ask Parliament to vote at least half a million dollars to assist *the dairying and fruit industries of the Dominion. I do not want to take the position that the farmers of Canada are asking Parliament to be spoon-fed, but at the same time I do not think the Government could spend money in any better way than in educating the people in the different branches of farming. The provincial governments are doing a great deal, but there is still a wide field of usefulness for the federal Government and it can work in co-operation with the provincial governments to stimulate the most important industry in the country. I trust the minister will next year take the larger vote for this purpose and extend the work.
Agriculture-to enforce the Seed Act, to test seeds for farmers and seed merchants, to encourage the production and use of superior seeds, and to encourage the production of farm and garden crops, $180,000.


Mr. KYTE:: Can the hon. minister say
where these tests are made? Are there particular stations where -seeds are tested, and how are they tested and distributed?


Martin Burrell: The great portion of
the seed testing is done at our central laboratory in Ottawa. In the far West, we have a station at Calgary where we are doing seed testing. I am not sure at present whether we have any other branch or not. We have a staff of inspectors covering the different provinces who are doing what this item says. They are not only enforcing the Seed Act; but they are testing seeds for farmers and merchants; they are keeping

track of merchants who sell seed below the standards set in the Act, that is in the way of germination, quality, impurities, weed seeds and so on. In addition to that, we are giving subventions to the different provinces in respect to seed space, in proportion to the amount of acreage they have under crop. We give $ 1,000 for every million acres under crop, amounting on the whole to $35,000 on that item alone. In addition to that, we are making grants to the seed growers' associations, which are doing good work.


William John Macdonald: I want to call the attention of the hon. minister to a condition of affairs that arose last year in my county. The farmers purchased seed grain from Winnipeg. I do not know what method of seed inspection there is in that part of the country, but an enormous loss was caused to the farmers of my county through having purchased that seed. None of it germinated and a great many farmers lost their whole crops. I would like the minister to explain, if he can, how such a large quantity of seed came through without inspection.


Martin Burrell: I do not think we would have power under the Act to deal with that. This year a good many complaints of that sort were made, especially in Quebec and the eastern provinces, where' the farmers were short of seed and of money to buy it. In many cases we offered to give the assistance of our inspectors to advise the farmers as to the quality of the seeds they were buying. We would certainly be justified in extending that work as far as we can. We dealt with it in another way this year. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior distributed a large amount of seed grain in connection with the unpatented land in the West. We got the minister to co-operate with our department and not to allow any of that seed to go out until it had passed our inspectors.


George William Kyte: My object in asking the
question was to lead up to the very point. Farmers in my own county and other counties in eastern Nova Scotia had the same experience. A very considerable quantity of seed oats arrived in eastern Nova Scotia last spring from the province of Manitoba, and none of it germinated, which caused very great loss to the farmers. I had an idea that the Seed Act provided that no person should advertise seed	of any	kind for sale,
unless he had a certificate of inspection or some guarantee to offer intending purchasers that it was proper grain for seed purposes. Seed inspection ought to be provided for in the different provinces. It is a great disadvantage to farmers to sow seed oats which are not of such a character as should be used for seed. The hon. min-
Mr. BURRELL.
ister might extend the operations of the Seed Act so as to have inspectors placed in different sections of the provinces to guarantee that the proper kind of seed is placed on the market.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The observations that have just been made in regard to impure seed are of such importance to the farmers of Canada that I think we might continue the discussion foT a little longer. There is nothing to prevent a farmer from going to a feed store and purchasing grain, that has been imported, for instance, from western Canada, and using that grain for seed. It may not have been imported for that purpose. How you could lay down any law that would prevent a farmer from purchasing and using that seed is something pretty hard to imagine. The complaints made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and others have been general not only in the maritime provinces, but in the other provinces. Last year many farmers in Ontario suffered through the very same cause. A farmer must realize that he is taking big chances vvhen he purchases from a feed store, grain which has possibly been imported to be used as feed, and uses it for seed. I quite agree that the Department of Agriculture might, with advantage to the farmers, exercise some control over all grains used for seed; but there is a greater danger than the loss suffered through sowing such grain as he has described. The weed nuisance in the country has spread to such an extent that it should cause the very gravest concern. I do not think there is anything else causing the farmers so great a loss as the spread of noxious weeds. We have the Conservation Commission considering ways and means of conserving the resources of our country. The weeds that have spread during the past few years, for instance over Ontario, have caused a greater loss possibly than anything else. Last session a Bill was put through this House with regard to what is known as the Grain Act. It provided for the cleaning of grain at the elevators. At that time I took exception on several occasions to the fact that screenings from the elevators were permitted to be sent out and sold to anyone who would purchase them. As a matter of fact, immense quantities of those screenings have been shipped into every province, and as a consequence weeds have spread all over Canada. Great care is exercised to see that the small seeds, for instance clover and timothy, are cleaned thoroughly and that as small a percentage of weed seeds is left in them as possible. The farmer takes particular pride in purchasing the very best and purest seeds that he can. He may be at

the same time purchasing from the West large quantities of damaged grain which he is grinding up for feed. In a bushel of that mill feed there may be millions of foul weed seeds. I think nrovision ought to be made that the screenings from these elevators should not be sent throughout the country but destroyed at the elevator. The item is not a very large one, and I quite approve of the increase which is about twenty per cent. But I think that if the item were a great deal larger and precautions were taken that weed seeds separated from the grain should be destroyed at the elevator it would be much better. These screenings are sold to a great many people who are not interested very much in agriculture who use them for feed and the weed seeds finally find their way back to the soil. Travelling through some agricultural districts of Ontario at harvest time, one is astonished to think that these valuable lands are being taken up by the weeds. This, I believe is one of the most serious things that confront the people of the rural districts. Some heroic treatment will certainly have to be resorted to in order to overcome this nuisance. There is not a person who is familiar with farming conditions but must realise that there p"- many sections of this country that are absolutely, you might say. useless, for agrbul+nral purposes through the spread of weeds. If anything can be done to overcome this nuisance, it ought to be done. I do not think this item will go a great way towards overcoming this great nuisance.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. member Jor
South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) approves of this increase. I think we would all approve of it if we thought it was going to be put to any useful purpose. But the minister has not shown us that be is doing any good with this money. There are nothing but complaints on both sides as to the results. In my own province nothing has been done, so far as I can learn, to better conditions. If the work of this Government is to be confined to the experimental farm at Ottawa and only the people who send their seeds here are to have them tested, I do not think it will ever amount to very much as a benefit to the farmers of the country. Is not there some system the minister can devise by which dealers will be made responsible for the seeds they sell to farmers? Cannot he license them or provide other means by which they can be controlled and prevented from selling inferior seed? This is a matter of the greatest importance to the farmers, and as my colleagues from Nova Scotia have said, it was a great loss to the farmers of that province last year. And that loss is constantly going on. I see that a part of this money is to be spent to enforce the Seed Act. If I remember rightly that Act contains a provision imposing penalties upon seedsmen who sell useless or injurious seeds to farmers. What has the minister done to enforce the Seed Act?


Martin Burrell: I am sorry I have not the details of a number of prosecutions. But I am surprised to hear the hon. member say that nothing has been done to show value received for this expenditure. As a matter of fact there is a great deal of machinery in connection with the Seed Control Act with which, I suppose, the hon. gentleman is more or less familiar. We have the following inspectors: British Columbia, Alfred Eastham; Alberta, A. D. Campbell; Manitoba and Saskatchewan, F. H. Reid; western Ontario, W. J. Lennox; maritime provinces, S. J. Moore; eastern Quebec, J. A. Sdmard; Eastern Townships of Quebec, Carl Sweet; Prince Edward Island, Garnet LeLacheur. All these men are highly qualified, not only graduating from the agricultural colleges but having taken special work in the seed divisions of those colleges, and subsequently having been trained to some extent in our central laboratory. The hon. member thinks that nothing is being done, but dozens of prosecutions for violation of the Seed Act are going on all the time. I agree with the hon. member for South Oxford that nothing has been done of greater value to_ the farming community than the work of the Seed Control Act, for to that Act is [DOT]due the greater purity of the seed sold to farmers all over the country. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend a list of the prosecutions carried on by the department against dealers for violation of this Act. It is true these have been largely in connection with clover, timothy, alsike and alfalfa and have not extended to cases mentioned bv the hon. members for Richmond and Pictou.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. minister says he had heard that the sale of these inferior Manitoba oats in Nova Scotia had caused great loss to the people. Did he make investigation or prosecution?


Martin Burrell: Speaking offhand I
am not sure that under the Act we have power to deal with this particular case. The Act is confined largely to the grass and clover seeds I mentioned, and besides, there is the provision under the Seed Act that a farmer may sell his own oats whether dirty or clean. The Act is merely confined to the seed bought and sold by merchants and to certain seeds. I shall be glad to go into the matter of amending the Act, though there will probably be difficulties that hon. members of the House do not suspect. I would not like the hon. gentleman to think the

money is not being wisely spent, or that it is not accomplishing great good. This vote, while a fairly' substantial one, must be increased. But in the year before I took hold of the department, this appropriation was $50,000; it has been increased until this year it is $100,000. The vote for dairying in 1910-11 was $100,000 and we have increased that to $190,000, and with the amount in the supplementary estimates about $210,000. If you include all branches of agricultural work, the amount in 1910-11 was $1,143,000, whereas this year it will be $2,633,000. So, though the hon. gentleman contends that we are not going fast enough. I think that he will see that the doubling of the expenditure in two years is considerable. And there is danger in going too fast, because you cannot maintain efficient administration in this line of work if too great haste is made. It is my hope, and I think that of everybody, to see a far more generous expenditure on agriculture than has been made in the past. I believe the country would favour that. We are going fairly fast, but we must avoid the danger of going too fast, and not keeping up the efficiency of our administration.


Mr. WEBSTER:: In many cases where
farmers in certain communities have received poor seed, it is not the fault of the seed merchants or the Government. Supposing some gentleman writes to a friend of his in the West and asks him to ship a carload of oats or wheat for seed, file receives it; it has never been inspected either by the Government of Manitoba or the officials of the experimental farm, and he is able to take advantage of this condition of affairs. He gets the oats for 5, 10, and sometimes 20 cents a, bushel less than he would have to pay for No. 1 seed purchased from the seed merchants. In some cases the seed grain is bought from persons in the West who, although it is not at all the best, represent it to be of first-class quality, with the result that when it is sold it fails to germinate, and the loss must fall upon the purchaser. In that regard, of course, the minister is not to blame; the farmer who buys an inferior article and sows it, not knowing whether or not it has been tested, is entirely responsible for his own loss. A specific case came under my observation on Saturday last. In the Grain Growers' Guide this winter there appeared an advertisement stating that all seed oats or seed grain shipped from Manitoba would be carried by Canadian railways at half price. One of my constituents, seeing that advertisement, ordered a carload of oats for seed. It was billed to him as seed oats, but I saw the oats myself on Saturday last, and I know that as it had been injured by the frost, not more than 30 per cent of it will Mr. BURRELL.
ever germinate. The railway did not forget to charge full freight rates for the grain, and the purchaser naturally felt very much aggrieved, considering that the Government has not taken the interests of the farmer into consideration in this respect. Of course that farmer was to blame for that transaction, not the Government or anybody else.


Mr. ROBB:: The hon. member for Broek-ville (Mr. Webster) has placed his finger on the weak spot in the Seed Act. The hon. minister, as he has said, is powerless under the Act, because the Act permits the farmer to sell this seed grain and not become liable to its penalties. I quite agree with the hon. member for Brockvil.le in his assertion that much of the seed that is sold throughout the country is distributed by irresponsible dealers who have no interest in the producing of a good crop. There is no person more interested in getting a good crop within the district in which the seed is sold than the responsible seed merchant or dealer, because he knows that if the :~eed grows well and produces a good crop, he will have additional sales in the fall. I think the minister should take into consideration, if not this session, then'dur-ing the next, the advisability of amending the Seed Act so that the farmer who sells inferior seed will incur the same penalties as the merchants and dealers.
Agriculture-encouragement of establishment of cold storage warehouse, $200,000.


George William Kyte: Does that include cold storage for fishermen in the maritime
provinces?


Martin Burrell: Some of the cold storage warehouses dealing only with fish are under the control of the Marine and Fisheries Department. Under this Act, we really deal with the encouragement and establishment of cold storage warehouses for the better preservation and handling of all food products. It does include fish to a certain extent, for in some of these warehouses fish is stored. This vote is necessary to pay the instalments, spread over a term of years, towards the maintenance of a number of warehouses that have been established. Altogether the number of warehouses completed is twenty-six, those under construction two; further contracts entered into, two.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the hon. minis/ter
give us the names of the places in Nova Scotia where these warehouses are located?


Martin Burrell: Halifax Cold Storage
Company, Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia; Lockeport Cold Storage Company, Locke-port, Nova Scotia.


Mr. CARVELL:: And in New Brunswick?


Martin Burrell: New Brunswick Cold
Storage Company, St. John, and Cold Storage Limited, Woodstock. These are the only two in New Brunswick; the others are scattered all over the country. We give a bonus or subsidy of thirty per cent on the cost of construction, the terms being that the warehouse shall be constructed according to lines laid down by the department, and that the rates shall be subject to control by the Department of Agriculture.


George William Kyte: Does the department receive any report from these cold storage companies as to the work they are doing?


Martin Burrell: Yes, we receive reports from time to time and take a note of their operations.


George William Kyte: Is there any condition imposed upon these companies as to the class of product they are to store in the warehouses, or are they entitled to the bonus even if the space is entirely devoted to the storage of their own products?


Martin Burrell: One of the conditions is that they are obliged to take such products as are offered by the public, 'because it is a public utility. We would not think for one moment of granting a subsidy to a firm that would simply build a warehouse for its own use.


John Howard Sinclair: Are there any new
warehouses projected under this vote?


Martin Burrell: We have two under consideration, and I think one or two have been applied for. Contracts have been entered into for the payment of subsidies to the Acadia Cold Storage Company, Halifax, the Edmonton Produce Company, Edmonton, the Algoma Produce Company, Sault Ste. Marie, and the Tillsonburg Cold Storage Company, Tillsonburg, Ontario.
Agriculture-development of live stock industry, $200,000.


James Alexander Robb: Will the minister explain
how this money is to be spent?


Martin Burrell: It is spent in a great
variety of ways, chiefly for the encouragement of the live stock industry. We do a great deal in the way of supplying judges for live Stock fairs held throughout Canada, and we also contribute a certain amount 'towards winter fairs and various other exhibitions of live stock held throughout the country. In connection with this we give grants to various poultry and live stock associations. We are now contemplating the purchasing and supplying of stallions, bulls, boars and rams to all districts, especially the newer districts of the West and the East, which are in need of first-class animals for the improvement of the live stock industry under certain conditions laid down by the department, and we are ready
to receive applications for these from any such district through our live stock branch, the stipulation being that we will buy and own the animals, and that the associations which will be formed for the purpose will undertake their proper maintenance, control the amount of the service fee, and so on, we reserving the right to see that the animals are kept in proper shape and are transferred from point to point. A very considerable portion of this vote will go in that direction.


James Alexander Robb: Any particular breed of horses and cattle?


Martin Burrell: We lay down no condition. We simply leave it to the associations to say what breeds they shall prefer, making the condition that they shall not introduce into any one section animals of a breed which is represented by animals of private owners in that particular section.


James Alexander Robb: I notice from the Auditor
General's report that a considerable amount of money has been devoted in the past to the breeders of thoroughbred stock. I cannot find anywhere that the breeding of heavy draught or serviceable horses has been encouraged. It seems to me that considerable encouragement has been given to racing horses. I hope that in the enlargement of this policy the minister is not going to be carried away by the lobby that was put up last Parliament and during this Parliament by certain breeders of racing horses for the encouragement of the breeding of that stock at the expense of the general public. There is a considerable demand for good heavy horses. That is the best class of horse for a farmer to breed. If you start a farmer breeding racing stock, it will 'be absolutely useless on the farm, and it will be bad for the boys starting out in life. I would like the minister to make a statement to-night as to whether the policy of encouraging the breeding of racing stock in this country is to be enlarged.


Mr. SMITH (South Ontario):: When was that policy started?


James Alexander Robb: It was started, unfortunately, under the last Government.


Martin Burrell: I do not know what my hon. friend means when he speaks of the policy being enlarged. I do not think he puts it quite rightly when he says that the idea was to encourage the breeding of purely racing stock. It was felt, and possibly feit rightly, that although the heavy draught horses occupy a very valuable place, after all the lighter hoTse industry was not getting the attention it deserved, especially in regard to the remount question, which, according to the people in his country whose opinions are worth something, is of importance. For that purpose a bonus was given

to the thoroughbreds which met certain requirements laid down by the Veterinary Department. The bonus is $250 a year, certain conditions being imposed as to the service fee, the number of mares served, and so on. I do not think it is well to discontinue that bonus. We are continuing it this year, but my hon. friend may rest assured that under the policy, to which I have just referred, not only an equal, but probably a much greater proportion of help will be given to other types of horses than thoroughbreds. As probably he knows, we have separated our Veterinary Department and placed the live stock branch in charge of Mr. John Bright, a well-known breeder, who knows the heavy horse side well. I think my hon. friend may rest assured that the horses to which he refers will get ample consideration.


John Webster: My hon. friend from Huntingdon made a statement with which I cannot agree. While I am free to admit that heavy draught horses are to-day selling at higher prices than we have ever seen in Canada, possibly it might not pay the individual farmer to breed them. If the individual farmer has a mare that will c-ross well with a standard bred or thoroughbred and that will not cross well with the heavy draught, he must breed to the horse that will mate best with his mare. Last week we saw in Ottawa a pair of horses for which the lady who owned them refused $20,000, and you can buy a lot of heavy draught horses for $20,000. To-day a good carriage horse is worth the price of two heavy draughts, and if the individual farmer has a mare that will produce one of that class, that is the kind he should breed to to get the best results. With regard to the thoroughbred, I agree with my hon. friend from Huntingdon. I am not a lover of the thoroughbred. I do not know what use they are outside of race horses. I know that for getting remounts, the United States Government have practically discarded them for the heavy-weight standard bred. I noticed that the United States Government have bought three stallions in New York within the last year for that purpose, and they were sent to the remount station. If our Minister of Militia gets busy in regard to remounts, he had better drop the thoroughbred and get into the heavy class standard bred; he will get a more adaptable horse for ordinary remount purposes.


James Alexander Robb: I differ from my hon. friend (Mr. Webster). I am an admirer and lover of the thoroughbred. While a lady refused $20,000 for a pair of horses shown here last week, the point is that for one person looking for a $1,000 driving horse, there are fifty people looking for a heavy draught horse. The heavy draught horses Mr. BURRELL
axe the most serviceable for a farmer to raise. The raising of the thoroughbreds is a business. You cannot raise them on the farm, because if you do, the boys are going to make them unsound before they are marketable at four years of age.


Donald Sutherland: I was glad to hear the minister state that the animals which they were purchasing were to be owned and practically controlled by the department. I do not see why any difference should be made between the thoroughbred and the other classes of pure bred stock. This system, as has been remarked by my hon. friend (Mr. Robb), was adopted some years ago. In looking over the Auditor General's report, I find that apparently some people are making a business of taking advantage of the bonus that is now being paid not only to the owners but to the controllers of thoroughbred stallions. It is not even necessary for a man to own one so long as he can get control of him. Horses .worth one hundred dollars, and many of them are not worth one hundred dollars and would not bring fifty dollars, are drawing two hundred and fifty dollars from the Government of Canada. I think that the sooner that system is stopped the better it will he for all concerned. If we are in such desperate straits to breed remounts, we ought to adopt some sane policy. When horses of that class command a superior price, the farmers in this country will go into the breeding of them. For instance, a horse is worth we shall say one hundred dollars, and some one gets control of him and farms him out to a number of farmers. He not only gets two hundred and fifty dollars a year from the Government, but collects a fee of three dollars, I believe, for every mare served. I believe there is in existence not far from this city a group of individuals who have a number of horses and who received thousands of dollars last year for the horses that were sent out through the country. I believe that a great many of these horses would not even pass inspection. If the breeding of thoroughbred horses was put on the same basis that has been adopted with regard to other pure breeds it would be better for the country and all concerned. How many hon. gentlemen present, during their lifetime, have seen a demand in this country for remounts? I can only recollect that once during jny lifetime was there a -demand for army remounts and that was during the South African war. I do not know whether it was very satisfactory or not, but I know that as a matter of fact it was not the farmer who reaped the benefits so much as the middlemen who were purchasing for the Government in this country. Many of them made immense

fortunes out of this business at that time. But I believe that the farmers reaped a great advantage in getting rid of the class of horses they had at that time. It has been remarked by the hon. member for Bjockville (Mr. Webster) that the heavy standardbred horse is a better horse for army purposes and many other purposes than the thoroughbred. I quite agree with him, and yet you may raise as perfect a standardbred horse as it is possible to conceive of and reap no advantage under this Act. But on some freak that has been bred for racing purposes and is registered as a thoroughbred you can receive $250 a year from the Government. It was an Act which was hard to defend when it -was put into effect, and I think the actions of certain parties in reaping the benefit of the Act have shown that it should no longer be continued. If it is desirable to give a bounty for breeding remounts then give it to parties who are raising horses, and not to those who are farming out horses among the people of Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister ought to give some explanation in regard to this item especially after the speech we have heard from the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), who has told us that in his opinion money is being paid by the minister for the support of horses that would not pass inspection. I would be very much surprised to learn that the business is being managed in such a careless way as that, and therefore I think this item is one on which we should have some explanation.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) need not alarm himself very serh ously. I am sorry to say that whilst I must agree with some of the remarks made by my hon. friend from South Oxford, I cannot agree with all. It is perfectly true that, while I am the responsible minister, I did not originate the policy of giving a subsidy for thoroughbred horses, but while something may be said against it, there is a good deal to be said for it. I have a good deal of respect for Dr. Rutherford, who was Live Stock Commissioner and Veterinary Director General when I came into office. We lost his services, but I need not go into that. I must say that I entertained a very strong feeling of regard for Dr. Rutherford's ability and judgment, and he had a fairly strong opinion on this point. I would like to say that the whole of the figures as to the amount that has been expended were put on ' Hansard ' some time ago in response to a question by my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland). My hon. friend from Guysborough can get the figures, but I want to assure him that there are no bonuses paid on those animals that
do not pass inspection, but that, on the contrary, there is a very rigid inspection before those who breed animals cap receive these subsidies. These subsidies are open to the owner of a thoroughbred horse whether he comes from one province or another and they are being paid to gentlemen all over the country. If I had known this subject was coming up I could have brought quite a number of letters from men whose opinions I regard very highly. For instance, Mr. Hubbard, who was secretary of the Department of Agriculture in the province of New Brunswick, and who is now in charge of our new experimental farm there, justifies the good work being done in that connection. I could also quote Mr. Carruthers, of Montreal, a very well known man. I could also bring the testimony of Mr. Clifford Sifton, who is certainly a good judge of things of this kind, who feels very strongly on the question, and who realizes that good work has been done along that line. I do not think that it is quite right to say, as my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) states, that any freak which has figured as a racehorse can receive that subsidy. It should be borne in mind that a great many extraordinarily valuable horses that may have served their uses as racers may render great service in the way of breeders and sires. While I do not want to enter into a disquisition upon horse breeding and racing, I think that any man who knows anything about the horse business will admit that there is a good deal of truth in the statement that a horse that has finished its best racing days may be capable of some splendid service when he comes to be used as a sire. All these animals which are justified in considering as sires are subjected to a rigid examination as to health, conformation and so on before these subsidies can be received. Whatever may be thought best in the future, I must confess that I do not see any reason for discontinuing the subsidies during the present year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Chairman, I would not have entered into this discussion if my hon. friend had not mentioned Mr. Hubbard of New Brunswick as an authority with regard to the value of this class of horses. Mr. Hubbard's evidence, in my judgment, is not very good along that line. I do not mean to say that Mr. Hubbard does not know a good deal about the breeding of horses and agriculture in general, but some three or four years ago the Government of New Brunswick, acting under his instructions, when he was Deputy Minister of Agriculture, made an importation of twenty-five or thirty of these spider-legged horses from Kentucky, brought them to New Brunswick, and auctioned them off to the farmers. The farmers paid a portion down, gave a

note for the balance and in many cases they refused to pay the balance and the Government had to take the horses back. One or two of these horses were absolutely useless. But 1 have no hesitation in saying, and I am speaking not so much from my personal knowledge as from what I have heard from my neighbours and farmers generally, that perhaps nothing ever happened so detrimental to the horse industry in New Brunswick as the importation of these Kentucky race horses. I suppose that a race horse from Kentucky is about the same class of cur as you get from any place else. He is ail right for the man who has lots of money and wants to spend it, such as the Hon. Mr. Sifton. It is ail right for the Hon. Clifford Sifton, if he wants to spend $25,000 or $30,000 a year on race horses; that is his own affair, but that is not the kind of horse that the ordinary farmers should produce if we want to do something to assist the general welfare of the country. I find that the difficulty in reference to the purebred horse is that there is a continual deterioration. The great difficulty seems to be to keep them up to the standard that we would like to have maintained. Take thoroughbred Clydes and PercheTons, cross them with smaller animals and there is a constant deterioration.


William Smith: Surely you do not believe that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do believe it and I
have pretty good reason for believing it too. If you cross iany standard animal, Clyde or Percheron, with these purebreds, there will be a deterioration in value. You may get a good animal out of them once in a while, but as a rule you are getting an article that will not sell for money and after all what the farmer ought to have is something that he can sell for money. I object to* the attempts to cross with these racing horses which are of no benefit to the farmer. If the minister devotes the money towards draught horses he will always get a saleable animal. I think the minister would do well to quit the practice entirely.


William Smith: When we consider the
high price of live stock to-day, it appears to me the position taken by the minister is a sound one to place in certain sections of this country purebred animals, bred in Canada and not imported. I think the minister is taking a forward step to help the breeders and farmers of Canada in doing that. The other policy referred to was started some years ago, not by the present Minister of Agriculture, but by Mr. Sydney Fisher


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We know that all right.
Mr CARVELL.


William Smith: I am telling you again. I understand that the policy was commenced upon the advice of the late veterinary director, Dr. Rutherford. No man in this House or in this country has a warmer admiration for Dr. Rutherford than I have, but I unhesitatingly say that when he gave this advice he made a mistake. I think it "was hardly wise, perhaps, on the part of the present Minister of Agriculture, that that mistake should be continued. I want to place myself on record that in my opinion, at the end of the year 1913, that grant should cease. I cannot for a moment understand how the hon. member for Carleton, as I understood him, should have made the -statement that when you are using a pure-bred sire the animals must deteriorate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say that.


William Smith: What did you say?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I said that in my judgment the stock is continually degenerating, and if you cross your stock with a small animal, such as these racing horses, you are not improving the -stock. I would like to see every farmer use thoroughbred or pure-bred or standard stock, but I object to trying to breed animals that have no size and no value except for fancy racing purposes.	.


William Smith: After some practical knowledge of farm life, I say to the hon. member that he is wrong, and that these animals should be pure-bred and of a certain size and certain character, and having to undergo the inspection these animals have to undergo, the hon._ gentleman is making a statement that is not correct. Whilst I do not agree that any great practical results can come from this, neither do I believe that the ordinary farmer will grow rich from pursuing this course. It is true that some good may have come out of it, but I believe it has gone far enough and the minister will be wise in the time to come to see that these grants are not continued. These animals that have been used, have been inspected bv most reliable men from the department, and so far as I know the animals that have been used have done in some ways good service to the breeders of Canada. I do not believe that the further use of these animals will advance very much the interests of the farmers and in that way I believe it might be wise if the grant should stop. Every breed of animal has a certain place to fill and they are required in different parts of the country for different purposes. We must have these remounts and how they shall be bred it is scarcely for me to say to-night, but I think everyone will agree with me that aA

the bottom there is nothing like a thoroughbred.


James Alexander Robb: While we on this side agree with the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) it is remarkable that the Minister of Agriculture for Canada should officially defend the grant that apparently the majority of the House, as at present composed, is opposed to-


Martin Burrell: There was a special
grant given the last year or two over and above the subsidy, and this special grant last year, I may say frankly, I gave under the advice of the late veterinary director general. This year I have not given a special grant and this particular subsidy is open to everybody all over the country, apart from the firm which was principally in evidence, namely, the Bureau of National Breeding in Montreal. It is open to every man possessing a thoroughbred and I do not see any reason for discontinuing it.


James Alexander Robb: Who are the president and directors of the National Breeding Association in Montreal?


Martin Burrell: I cannot say now but
I will be very glad to get the list.


James Alexander Robb: It is not necessary. My hon. friend beside me has made reference to the Hon. Clifford Sifton, who we all know is raising stock that have won much advertisement for him. The other authority mentioned, my good friend James Carru-thers -of Montreal, is also associated with a racing outfit, and it is quite natural he would approve of that policy, but the point is that the present Minister and the past Minister of Agriculture have been encouraging the breeding of racing stock and bonusing it and inducing farmers to abandon the breeding of stock that is really profitable to the farmer and to the country.


Martin Burrell: I would not like my hon. friend to go so far as to say that. I do not think my hon. friend will accuse me of being a racing man. So far as any encouragement of the thorougbred horse is concerned, any influence that has moved me in the direction of keeping up this subsidy has been entirely in connection with the recommendation of not only Dr. Rutherford but a great many prominent men in this country, who have given sufficient information to justify the little that has been done in that direction, and it has not been very much. It has not been in connection with racing but entirely in connection with the remount question.


John Webster: In reply to the hon.
member for Carleton, I would just say that the trouble lies in the fact that your farmers in that section lack proper brood mares to cross with thoroughbred stallions from
Kentucky. With thoroughbred stallions you must have proper brood mares in order to obtain from them the desired results. You might just as well cross a Jersey bull with a Hereford heifer and expect to get a milch cow.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have got a very poor result.


John Webster: We want in this country to-day drivers or carriage horses just as much as heavy horses. What is the result to-day? If you go to the country and look for a good driver or carriage horse, he is not to be found. Any man who has got one asks two prices for him. It is in the interest of the hon. minister to encourage the breeding of good standard breeds in order to get good horses.


Donald Sutherland: I would not like
anyone to think I had not a very high regard for the thoroughbred horse. I believe it is the finest animal in the animal kingdom. I would not say a word that might cause anyone to think that the thoroughbred horse is not what it really is. What I object to is the system under which this vote of money is being paid. If the same policy were pursued with regard to the thoroughbred that is now being pursued by the hon. minister with regard to other pure breds, it would have a much more satisfactory result. I notice, in the return that was brought down to the House, that in the year 1911, of $8,250 that was paid for this purpose $5,250 was paid to the National Bureau of Breeding. This past year a large proportion went to the same association. We had an exhibition in the city of Ottawa last week that we should all feel particularly proud of, as it showed what a fine class of horses we have in this country. We can realize that the gentlemen who make a business of showing their horses there are very anxious indeed that they should be bred in large numbers throughout the country, so that they will have a larger number to select from. So far as granting a bonus of $250 per annum and a service fee being collected by the owner or controller are concerned, I do not think it is good business, and I do mot think it is going to build up the breed as we would like to see it built up. Let the Government select pure-bred animals of a good type, if they wish to spend money in that direction, and have them placed and owned and controlled as the pure-breds are, and I believe you will have much more satisfaction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-health of animals, $450,000.
Mr. FOSTER (Kings, N.S.):: I did not have an opportunity to speak on item 51. I would like to say a word in regard to the

1C403
health of animals, which is a subject of great, importance to the people of Nova Scotia at this particular time, especially in the county that I have the honour to represent. For the last three or four years in that province, according to investigations recently brought to light, we have had shipped over the province from the Government Experimental Farm at Truro-some six or seven coming into my own county-animals which have been shown conclusively to be tubercular. There is not theslightestdoubt in my mind that tuberculosis has been spread in various sections of the province through that cause. I would like to ask the hon. minister what steps are being taken at the present tome to meet so dire a scourge, emanating directly from the experimental farm, which has been under the eye not only of the local government, but, as it was attempted to be shown, of an official of the Dominion Government. I may not be within my rights in bringing a local matter to the attention of this Government, but I was informed a few days ago that the local authorities had turned the whole matter over to the Dominion Government.
I also wish to draw the attention of this House to a very important matter, that is the appointment of official veterinaries who might be available in the various provinces. I presume you have them in Ontario, Quebec and possibly New Brunswick. We have not one in Nova Scotia, that we can call on a't any time that disease is found to have broken out on any breeding or other animal. It would be a great blessing to the farmers to have such an official at their call, either at the experimental farm at Truro, or at the new experimental station at Kent-ville. I have had letters from farmers complaining in this regard. I trust that the matter will also receive attention.
With regard to the encouragement not only of the health of animals, but of the live stock industry, there is a large section of country in the county of Kings and in the province of Nova Scotia that is admirably suited to the raising of live stock. During the last couple of years we have endeavoured to bring Scotch settlers into that part of the country. The difficulty is that they are not able to get the breed of cattle to which they are used. A certain Scotchman coming in brought with him three Clydesdale horses. He had to pay $320 duty on them on arrival at Halifax.


William Smith: Are you not mistaken in
the amount of duty?


George Eulas Foster: I am absolutely sure, because the amount of duty was afterwards refunded.


William Smith: Were they pure-breds?


George Eulas Foster: I understand that purebreds come in free up to a certain number.
Mr. FOSTER (Kings, N.S.)


Martin Burrell: They all come in free.


George Eulas Foster: The difficulty is thalt in
Scotland there are horses and cattle that are exactly as good to all intents and purposes, so far as marketing or breeding is concerned, as the pure-bred animal. The only difference is that the pedigree has not been kept and registered. This class of animal is debarred. The horses while not coming under the description of pure-breds were in reality as fine animals as pure-breds. This man paid the duty on them, but he was unable to bring in cattle unless absolutely pure-bred, for which he would have to pay a very high price in Scotland, whereas he could get the other kind at a very reasonable figure. I think the customs law should be modified so as to facilitate immigrants into the Maritime provinces and other parts of Canada bringing in as settlers effects such cattle, sheep and horses as will enable them to start business on the farm when they arrive.


Air. WARNOCK:: I notice there is an
increase of $90,000 in this item. Is that to cover the proposed increase of compensation?


Martin Burrell: That is partly to cover
the increase in the compensation, owing to the larger amounts we have had to pay both for hog cholera and for glanders; and it is partly for the extension of the service and increase of salaries. It was brought to our attention that many of our veterinary surgeons in the West were not paid in proportion to the cost of living in the West. We gave an additional amount of $200 to those west of the lakes. A good many officers were finding other employment while others were mixing up their private affairs with their duties as inspectors.


David Warnock: I am glad to hear the minister say he has increased the salaries of these veterinary inspectors. Theirs is very hard and dangerous work, and I think our veterinary inspectors should be as well paid as those in the bureaus of animal industries n the United States-from $1,200 to $1,800 according to qualification and length of service. [DOT]


Martin Burrell: We are doing the same thing now.


David Warnock: I am glad that is being done. I understand that the amount required for compensation during last year was less owing to the decrease of diseases among our animals especially in the West.
, Air. BURRELL:	But there was very
much more in hog cholera.


David Warnock: How about glanders
and dourine?


Martin Burrell: That is slightly less.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly, but with a
proper Bill.


Mr. MACLEAN:: This question has been before Parliament for many years, and it has been continually put off, presumably, as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has said, through the influence of the express and railway companies. If that is so. then let us proceed with it now. Under the existing legislation it is possible to expand the parcel post we now have, as jthe hon. gentleman has himself admitted, by regulation of the Postmaster General. Even if we adopt this Bill, which legalizes parcel post, during the present session, I am quite willing to take it in its present form, and to leave it to the Postmaster General to develop a system under it. Probably you can get a better system without any special definition, and put it on the responsibility of the minister in office to develop and carry out a good parcel post system. There is no doubt that efforts are being made not only by the express companies, who will be injured by the establishment of a parcel post system, but by other interests throughout the country, to head off this proposal. Session after session I have observed the number of efforts which have been made to head off any legislation tending to establish a parcel post system. I have seen bogus petitions presented in this House, supposed to come from storekeepers in the country, which were certainly printed and circulated at the instigation of the express companies. That will be continued from session to session as long as this Parliament will permit it, and as long as measures of this



kind are dealt with towards the end of the session. I have been in this House now for twenty years, and I have observed that a great portion of each session has been taken up with the consideration of trade and constitutional questions, to the neglect of what I would designate as domestic questions. These domestic questions must be settled, but it would seem that we are now entering upon the consideration of another great constitutional question which may be detrimental to the consideration of the domestic questions to which I have referred, and which are of supreme importance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Postmaster General has not yet introduced his Bill, and when it is explained, I will state my position. What I have said has been based on what I have gathered of the Bill as it stands; perhaps I may change my opinion when it is introduced.


William Findlay Maclean: I said I was afraid ot the hon. gentleman's suggestion, because a suggestion of that kind, when the hon. gentleman is speaking on behalf of his party, might persuade the Postmaster General to drop the parcel post measure. I would be quite satisfied with some kind of a measure having the effect of expanding the parcel post system in this country. As I have said, my experience in this House is that the greater portion of the time of Parliament has been taken up with the consideration of constitutional and trade questions, to the neglect of important matters of domestic concern which should be settled. There always seems to be some matter which appeals to the people, and to which politicians resort, and in some way these domestic questions are placed in the background. I know as a matter of fact, that the railways of this country for forty years have delayed the building and enlarging of the canals of this co-untry, and they are to-day seeking to delay the establishment of a parcel post system. I hope the Postmaster General will go on with this measure. It really needs no legislation to expand our present system; even this Bill is not required. Under the existing powers vested in the Postmaster General in the regulations he has authority to make, he can expand the system of parcel delivery in respect of fourth-class matter, and in that way extend our present parcel post system. But this is a non-contentious measure; it simply adopts the principle and leaves to the Postmaster General the establishment of the rates and the regulation of other matters connected with the system. I would like to see these matters, as my hon. friend says, set out in the Bill, but for the present I would be satisfied with the Bill as it stands, and I am sure the Mr. MACLEAN (South York).
people of the country would be satisfied. We have been promised it now, and it has been explicitly promised this session. Almost every newspaper in the country expects it; the business interests and the people expect it, and now, at the tail end of the session, there is a suspicion that we are not going to have it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do you not want to
know the rates?


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to have
them, and I will stay here and try to make them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is what I want.


William Findlay Maclean: If we can get it, so much the better. If we are told that the Postmaster General is not in very good health, I shall be very glad to take this Bill, If the state of the country is such that the time of Parliament has to be taken up largely with major questions, these questions of the constitution, of defense, then I say it would be good policy for Parliament to have two sessions every year and devote one of those sessions absolutely to domestic questions. I think it would be a good thing, if this House must adjourn next week that we should have a fall session to deal absolutely with domestic questions, railway rates, parcel post and other questions which the people have at heart, and in reference to which they expect some kind of redress. Redress for public grievances is very slow in coming in this country. The people want lower express rates but they are getting them from the Railway Commission in only a very partial way. Parcel post will settle express rates the day after it is put in force. It has done that in the United States. It has increased the convenience of the people to ten times what it was when this business was under the control of the express company, it has cut the express rates away down, it has benefited business, it hurts no one and it has made a great monopoly understand that the people rule in the United States. We want them to know that the people rule in Canada and not the railway companies and if we have an organization right at hand, as we have in the post office, with an agent in every town and village, the framework is there for a splendid parcel post delivery that will give the people relief, that will encourage trade and give the railways to understand that they do not control this country. So I hope and trust that the Postmaster General will go on with this Bill and, if it cannot be made more definite this session, I will be quite willing to wait another session to get more details in the Bill. What the people of Canada to-day expect from the Postmaster General, and I learn this from conversations with members here and from reading the press of the country, is the in-

auguration of a parcel post system tomorrow or the next day or right away in order to give to the people of Canada the same convenience in regard to parcel post that the people of the United States and of all other civilized countries of the world have to-day. Why should Canada be so backward? Is it because the railway companies have the influence and the power to delay a reform of this kind? The people will be led to the conclusion that that is the reason. The late Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) ought to join with me in pressing on the minister the necessity of passing this Bill even in this session in order to put it into force. I am quite sure that he has the framework in his office for an enlarged parcel post system, and, with the experience of the United States, it ought to be no trouble to have a parcel post system working within thirty days. The country expects it and will insist on having it and it is the duty of the Government to give it.
In a Winnipeg newspaper of two days ago I read an article saying that the question of freight rates which for one reason or another are being postponed in this House and left to the Railway Commission is becoming ever more important. It says that unless that question is dealt with by Parliament it will become a question greater than the tariff and greater than the Naval Bill to the people of this country. Yet we can hardly get it up in this House, there is such pressure from questions like the Naval Bill and the discussion we had two years ago in regard to trade relations with the United States. We may now be on the eve of a great constitutional question in regard to the powers of the various branches of Parliament. If that is the case, my suggestion is that every year we ought to have two sessions or to divide the session in two and say that one half is devoted into dealing with these domestic questions.
The hon. member for Rouville also referred to wireless telegraphy. I have been investigating that subject to some extent. I am not a very firm believer in the new company with its wireless system being able to give the people cheap cable rates, in fact I was suspicious from the very start that the existing cable companies might be at the bottom of this wireless system. I have some doubts as to the efficiency of that system as it exists, but I have not any 'doubts as to the efficiency of the wire cable under the sea to be a competent means of transmitting messages and I also believe that that system may be made very cheap. There is no doubt that if there were a state-owned cable between the Mother Country and Canada we could have messages all around for six words and probably in a very short time it would be two cents or a penny a word for every message under the sea.
359J


Rodolphe Lemieux: A penny a word is the slogan.


William Findlay Maclean: A penny a word is the slogan, but we would neveT get it by dealing with a private company.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. .


William Findlay Maclean: But when the state undertakes it, and I hope the minister will tell us if he is not going on with this contract that he is in negotiation with the Mother Country to have a system of state-owned cables. All you have to do is to announce that the two governments are in negotiation and the rates will be cut in two in the morning. As in the case of the express companies, the cable companies seem to be all-powerful. They have been all-powerful in England for twenty years. They are now directed by a great monopoly in the United States and that monopoly is more or less allied with the express companies as well as with the Bell Telephone companies. If that is the case, I wish to see a state-owned cable in this country right away.
I wish also to refer to the question of postage on newspapers. I am identified with a newspaper, and I know something about the business. I have heard it stated that there was to be some reform in regard to the postal rates imposed on newspapers. There are daily newspapers in this country that sell their papers for about a dollar a year, and they do not get fifty cents a year net. They send these papers all over this country in competition with publishers who try to get the regular price for their papers, and by reason of this cutting in price they flood the country with their papers. They put upon the Government the cost of carrying them. That is not fair. Newspapers are not entitled to any more consideration than anybody else in this country and if they want to flood cheap papers through the country by the post office they ought to pay the shot and not put it on the public. In order to secure improved postal facilities in this country let everybody have the benefit of the rural mail delivery in connection with newspapers, let the carrying of these newspapers be on a basis fair and just to the public. It should not be a matter of favour or consideration to newspapers that go into that business. I appreciate the fact that the session is growing very short. I am sorry to know that the Postmaster General is not in good health, but I think the House will be glad to co-operate with him, and to treat this proposal of his as a non-contentious one, and so give him an opportunity of bestowing upon the people of this country the benefit and the blessing that they ask for, the parcel post system.	'	[DOT]


Mr. NESBITT:: The hon. member has
urged the Postmaster General very earnestly this afternoon to pass the Parcel Post Bill this session. Now that he has got off his Friday afternoon speech, will he tell the House when he will be back again?


William Findlay Maclean: Let me ask the hon. gentleman where he gets his brief?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: From myself. I stay
here and do work, and do not come here once in two weeks and get off a Friday afternoon speech.


An hon. MEMBER:: To-morrow is payday.


Mr. BOULAY:: I am sorry that in his remarks concerning the post office at Say-abec, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), made the same charges that he made last session. He went over the same old history. He tried to show that the hon. the Postmaster General and the member for Rimouski had cut off the heads of a lot of Liberals in that county. I will relate the facts for his information. In 1896 I was the postmaster at Sayabec, having occupied that position since 1882. I began as a poor farmer, and acted as station agent at the same time. I grew up with the village, and I saw the village grow with me. As I was about the only educated man in the village, there being only a few settlers, I was asked to establish a post office. I did so, and I succeeded. After being postmaster for about 16 years, and having drawn a salary of ten dollars for the first few years, and kept that post office at a sacrifice for a long time, the party to which my hon. friend from Rouville belongs, came into power in 1896, and the second head that was cut off in the county of Rimouski was the head of Mr. H. Boulay. They did not take any time to make an investigation I asked for the reason of my dismissal, because it was something new in our country to have post offices changed with a change of Administration. It was something quite new, for during the Conservative Administration, extending over eighteen years, I knew a lot of Liberals who were postmasters, and the Conservative party never thought of dismissing them on account of their politics. Therefore, I had no idea that the party who came into power in 1896 would be so low as to cut off the heads of poor postmasters. But two or three weeks after they came into power, a post office inspector came to my residence and said: I want your papers. That was the first notice I got, and he handed me a letter to that effect. I asked him if there were any reasons for my dismissal. He said no, I have orders from the Government. We had to comply with these orders, and the Mr. MACLEAN (South York).
post office was removed to a place which we call in French, taudis (a hovel), a place where no decent man would want to go. Still the post office was kept in that place against our wishes for fifteen years, and in spite of many complaints made to the Liberal party. The man appointed by the Liberal party to keep that post office was a man who had sold his political faith, un traitre. He had been a Conservative and had turned Liberal, and because he was a Liberal the Liberal party kept him in that post office in that dirty place for fifteen years. The people had no room in which to stand when waiting for their mail. Sometimes they had to wait for over an hour before they could get their mail. The postmaster was illiterate and could hardly write, and the poor people were obliged to wait at the door often when there were 20 or 30 or 40 degrees of frost. In the post office there was a waiting room, but it could hold only two or three persons. The people complained and sent letters to the Liberal Government, stating that it was no fit place in which to keep a post office, but they could not get justice. We did not get a better place until the present Administration came into power. Our first idea was to restore the post offices to those who had been removed from them by the Liberal party. It was not to dismiss acting postmasters, but to reinstate those who had been so unjustly dismissed in 1896. It was nothing but justice and the Government could not have done otherwise. The Postmaster General di4 not want to dismiss the postmaster at Sayabec without an investigation. He could have done so without an investigation because the man was an active Liberal partisan, and had shown himself to be such during the last election. There was nothing he would not do to try to defeat me; he Hid not even tell the truth. He told all kinds of lies, and did everything he could to prevent my election. Consequently, the Postmaster General had no business to grant an investigation. He could have dismissed the man right away without an investigation, but he wished to do it in that way, and he granted an investigation, which proved that the postmaster had done more than was necessary to justify his dismissal. The hon. member for Rouville is scandalized because I recommended my daughter as postmistress. I did so because there was no other place around the station at Sayabec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. member is
wrong. I never mentioned the name of his daughter.


Herménégilde Boulay: I thought the hon. member was referring to Sayabec station.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was speaking of Miss Helen Joubert.


Herménégilde Boulay: I was not here when
the hon. gentleman commenced to speak, and I did not know which one he had spoken about first. We will leave this case then. Last year the hon. member for Eouville spoke of it, but I do not think that I gave explanation enough.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not remember that my hon. friend explained Helen's case. I would like my hon. friend to explain it.


Herménégilde Boulay: About my daughter
being appointed postmistress, let me say that she was appointed because there was no other person about the station who could be appointed. If there had been any person else, outside of my own place, I would have given him an opportunity of taking the post office, but my neighbours were hotel keepers and therefore could not keep the post office and others who were there did not want it, or there was no other suitable place. It is all right now however. I shall now come to the case of Miss Helen Joubert, who was postmistress at Sayabec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What do you think of an investigation, at two o'clock in the morning?


Herménégilde Boulay: Miss Helen Joubert
was cute enough, and she could read between the lines. She knew very well that a mistake had been made in the notification and that the investigation was to be held at 2 p.m. and not at 2 a.m. If the hon. member for Rouville had a woman like that in Tiis own county he would know what kind of a politician she is. Since Miss Joubert was appointed postmistress in 1908 she has been talking politics daily. She had every opportunity for doing so, she was keeping the store, she was postmistress, and if a Conservative went into the store and the post office he would be attacked by her on account of politics. Conservatives were attacked from morning until night.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did she ever attack my hon. friend?


Herménégilde Boulay: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What did she say about my hon. friend?


Herménégilde Boulay: She said all she could say to blacken my reputation. Miss Helen Joubert was the most active politician of the lot about Sayabec in 1908, and to such a degree that I wrote to the Postmaster General, here in Ottawa, with the result that orders were given in Quebec to send the inspector down to tell her to'shut her mouth. The inspector went and told her
that if she would not leave people alone about politics they would have to remove the post office from her store, and she promised, but she never kept her promise. Next day it was the same thing over again, and I repeat that there was no more active politician in the place than Miss Helen Joubert.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has not stated what she said against the hon. men>
ber for Rimouski. That is why she was dismissed, and it is not clear upon the record why she was dismissed. It is stated that she spoke against the hon. member for Rimouski, and I want to know what she actually said against him.


Herménégilde Boulay: She said all that could be said in a political way. She was receiving such papers as Le Soleil and Le Canada, and she would repeat to the farmers all the lies that could be said against me and the party. It would be taking up too much time of the committee to repeat all she said.


Frank Oliver: Was the lady dismissed, because Le Soleil and Le Canada came to her office to be distributed by her?


Herménégilde Boulay: No.


Frank Oliver: I thought that was what my hon. friend said.


Mr. PELLETIER:: She jjid not receive
the Edmonton Bulletin.


Herménégilde Boulay: Besides that, Miss Joubert wTas given an investigation although the Postmaster General would have been justified in dismissing her without an investigation. The facts were known by everybody in the place, and nobody has complained because of the change that has been made. I have met and talked with lots of people; in fact they would come to my residence and tell me that they could not go to the post office for their mail because they were attacked by the postmistress and some of them told me they had given instructions to have their letters sent to the station because they would not go into the post office and be tackled by the postmistress over polities. There was a merchant living near the post office who could not get one letter there for that very reason. He would not go into this post office for anything at all, and he was not the only one. I repeat that Miss Joubert was dismissed after an investigation. The hon. member for Rouville stated that in this investigation she had not received fair play. I know better than that because I have all the information in regard to the matter. When the inspector went there to hold the investigation, seeing that Miss Joubert did not attend, he sent a man t{>
her to notify her and ask her if she would

be kind enough to come when he was going to hold the investigation, telling her that he had made a mistake in his letter to her by stating the hour as two a.m., instead of two p.m. But she was advised not to come and she did not come, knowing that she had gone too far to make it possible for her to defend herself. The inspector made a thorough investigation. In addition to the matters to which I have referred, there were also complaints that letters, including money letters, had Ibeen opened. These charges were proved; still she did not steal the money, she put the money back in a letter she had opened, although dhe had no business to take the money. There was a letter for another party, she appropriated the money but she returned it afterwards. This in itself was enough to justify her dismissal. Mr. Rioux was appointed in her place. He is a young man who had never meddled with politics, a clerk and a Conservative.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is he married?


Herménégilde Boulay: He is a married man, he has a family and he is a poor man. I may tell the hon. member for Rouville who has had so much to say about the dismissal of Miss Joubert, that the people are well satisfied with the change, even the Liberals. Every time I go to Sayabec they tell me that they are so well satisfied with the change, and that they were so much afraid of Miss Joubert, that they would never sign a petition to put her back. Even the Liberals say that. The hon. member for Rouville seems to have a weakness for heckling me about dismissals in my county. He has put several questions on the Order Paper again this year about dismissals and he has perhaps found out more of the facts than he wanted to. It was shown by the answers which were given to the hon. gentleman's questions that those who were dismissed by the present Administration numbered only twenty-two in the whole county in addition to those who had been dismissed by the former Administration and who were reinstated 'by the present Government. In order to make up the number to twenty-two they had to take one from Bonaventure and one who had been dismissed by the Liberal party 'before they went out of office. That leaves only twenty. The people of the county are so well satisfied with the conduct of the Conservative party and the member for Rimouski that the employees of the Intercolonial railway, through their association, have presented a fine gold ring to the member for Rimouski on account of the manner in which he has discharged his duties.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He ought to give it to Helen.


Herménégilde Boulay: That is proof that my
course has been endorsed by the people of the county of Rimouski.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is hardly necessary for me to add anything to what has been said by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) about the Miss Joubert case. I think the facts put before the House have made it quite clear that the dismissal was for cause. This is a clear case, and we should not be reproached for acting as we did, if the rule laid down by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is to be enforced. Miss Joubert was a regular canvasser ail the year round. Moreover, some evidence has been given in regard to the manner in which the post office has been kept, to which the hon. member for Rimouski has referred. Although I was asked to dismiss her, I considered it only fair that there should be an investigation. An investigation took place, and as a result she was dismissed.
I wish to follow in a very general way the remarks made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). In the first place, I may tell my hon. friend from Rouville that my officers who are here will take from Hansard to-morrow morning the request which he has made for information, and will see that as much information is given as we are in duty bound to give.
In regard to the increase of $1,400,000 in the estimates, this is more apparent than real. The large amount is due to the fact that last year a bill was introduced authorizing increases which came into effect on the 1st of April, 1912; hut no provision was made in the estimates of 1912-13 for payment of increases due to the Bill, and they had to be voted this session as supplementary estimates of 1912-13, the amount being $500,000. This, therefore, should be added to the figures for 1912-13, and would show a corresponding reduction in the increase for 1913-14. In addition to that, $300,000 was paid out of the miscellaneous vote to employees who formerly ranked as labourers, and who were made permanent last year, and the miscellaneous vote is correspondingly decreased this year by, about that amount. This, with the $500,000 mentioned, makes a total of $800,000, which must be deducted from the apparent increase in salaries this year to show what the actual year's operation will amount to. If this is done, it will show that the increase this year is really only $636,187, which is about the normal percentage of increase of other years, and is due to the expansion of the service.
Mr. BOULAY.

Most of the increase is due to the improved conditions which have been provided for by the bill of last year. The increased cost of living for the last few years has made it almost impossible for some of our employees to make both ends meet. In my own business I believe in paying well those who work well, and the same principle should apply to employees of the Government. I think members on both sides of the House will agree with me in this. The increase of last session entailed the sum of over $200,000, and we took care even of the employees appointed by the late Government and made them all permanent. We have bettered their condition. I do not ask the forgiveness of the House for what I have done, because I think I have done something which was needed in the interest of the service. Our best employees, who are really qualified to do good work for us, leave one by one, in order to find better employment at better salaries elsewhere. My policy is to keep our good men in the service. To show that I do not regret having done that, I may say-and this will interest the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), who spoke about it yesterday-that I intend to raise the salaries of the letter carriers. This is a class of men who work hard. I expect to give notice of this Bill to-night, and I trust it will not be controversial. It is on the same lines as the increase given last year. I am going to provide for the railway mail clerks to a certain extent in this Bill. I will try to do something for the other employees later on, and also for the postmasters. The revenue of the department is increasing, and I think our employees should be well paid.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: Has the hon.
minister had his attention called to the minimum salary paid to postmasters over a large portion of western Canada? It is about $35 at present.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is a small sum,
and I think that the country can afford to pay more than that. I have gone into the matter fully'with my deputy minister. We can do that without legislation. We expect that the parcel post will help to a great extent, because the postmasters are paid out of the revenue of their offices a percentage on the stamps which they sell. Perhaps we may also do something to give them better pay.
I wish to refer now to a matter of some importance, in which the newspapers have taken a good deal of interest. It is in regard to the new stamp-vending machine. I am glad to have the opportunity of making this declaration before the House, because this matter is not well understood. I am not responsible for the contract for this
stamp-vending machine. It is a baby which I found at my doorstep.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No advertisements.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend is
quite wrong. I have the contract here. Is my hon. friend going to repudiate his deputy minister? I was very much surprised a moment ago to hear him say that he knew nothing about it. The deputy minister says that he signed the contract with the full knowledge and authority of the hon. member for Rouville.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I had the legislation passed in this House. I never signed or authorized a twenty-year contract.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is a question of some importance that has to be decided as between the hon. member for Rouville and the deputy Postmaster General. I will say this,-that the deputy Postmaster General, in the twenty months that I have been in office, has never taken upon himself to sign any important contract without speaking to me about it. I do not wish to doubt the word of the hon. member for Rouville, but I think I may say that the deputy minister is much surprised to hear that his action in this matter is being repudiated. I shall not go into that now. But I may tell my hon. friend that I have fought hard to get rid of that contract, which in the public interest was not a good contract. That contract was signed on the 20th May, 1911. It was only brought to my notice some time last fall. When I read that contract I was surprised to see the conditions which it contained. Moreover, it is a twenty-year contract, without any Order in Council, without the stroke of a pen, authorizing the signature for it. I asked the Department of Justice for an opinion on it, and if I had received a favourable opinion I would have cancelled the contract. But the answer of that department was to the effect that we could repudiate the contract, but would have to pay the damages; that the contract was a valid one. I have succeeded, after weeks, I may say months, of work, in getting amendments which make the contract less inimical to the public interest.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the hon. gentle man state the terms of the contract ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Under this contract, given when the hon. gentleman was Postmaster General-and whether signed by him or not, he is responsible for it constitutionally-is given a twenty year monopoly for placing wherever she may please throughout this Dominion, pillars for the sale of stamps and for advertising purposes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the hon. gentle man read that clause ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The clause is pretty long; I am giving a general outline of it. I will read the clause which refers to the advertising, as that is the one my hon. friend wants to know about.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I moved for a return as soon as possible after the statement of the Prime Minister was made, and I would like my hon. friend to bring down the papers. I proposed and had passed in Parliament legislation giving the stamp vending machine the status of a post, office. This was done for the reason I gave -that in lumber camps, hotels and many public places where stamps are not otherwise available, at times such as on Sundays, the box would serve the public in this respect. But a twenty-year contract to put pillar boxes everywhere with advertising-I have no hesitation in saying that 1 never saw such a contract.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I think the hon. gentleman would do well to pause before insisting on that. Because he is making a mistake. I do not wish to be ugly about this matter; I do not wish to be unfair. But I would suggest that if my hon. friend would read ' Hansard ' of 1911 and the Bill which he had passed, which is for the purpose of this contract-


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh yes. No use in denying that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I read that in the
House.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, but if my hon. friend will-now, I do not want to go too far; I do not want to be unfair in the debate-


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman
can go as far as he wishes. He will not find anything improper in that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: But, even with the
hon. member for Rouville I will be fair in debate; and I will tell him this, that some two or three weeks ago he quoted a speech made by himself in which he said that he introduced that Bill in 1911 extending the time during which the license for the sale of stamps would be granted, just for the purpose of entering into that contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is quoting from memory.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I admit that, but
when I come to the text-if we have to come to that-my hon. friend will find that my memory is pretty good. I do not suppose my hon. friend will exact that the regular course be followed and that we go to the Secretary of State for copies, but I have here an extra copy of the contract and the amendments which I have suc-Mr. LEMIEUX.	>
ceeded in having made, which I have brought to lay on the table, so that my hon. friend may read it. The clause referred to is as follows:
All other parts or compartments of the automatic machine, including any other vending or any advertising mechanism or compartments, shall be under the sole control of and for the sole use and benefit and profit of the licensee or any sub-lessee, or licensee or assignee of the whole or any part of the rights of the licensee hereunder.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What clause is that?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Clause 10. I have seen in the newspapers the statement that the Postmaster General was doing a wrong thing, and I want the newspapers to know that I found the contract in the department and tried to have it amended as much as I could, and have succeeded in many respects; but about the advertising part, they would not make a change, because they say that is where they are going to make their profit.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What do you mean by
that?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This is a box or pillar to receive letters, and having as part of its make-Tip an automatic stamp-vending machine. And at the top is a revolving drum, which, at night is lit by electricity and on which advertisements will be displayed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Where are these pillars to
be placed?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Under this contract,
Miss Fawns has the right to place one at the door of my hon. friend's home. I have succeeded at least in having one good amendment to the effect that these people should not have the right to place one of these pillars at the door of a church or any place else merely at their own volition. This contract agrees that this licensee shall have the right in the name of His Majesty to place these pillars wherever she pleases. I have succeeded in securing an amendment to the effect that the places where these pillars are to be erected must be approved by the Postmaster General.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there any censorship over these advertisements?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No.


Edmond Proulx: Have not the municipal
authorities full control of their streets and highways?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Postmaster General, in His Majesty's name, has the right to put pillar boxes wherever he likes. That power has been transferred to this ladv, and she is entitled to choose the location for these boxes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do you pay anything
tor the machines?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, they are the property of the lady in question.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do they work properly?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, as a piece of
mechanism, it is a first-class invention. It is in operation in France, England and Australia. I am sure my hon. friend will now recognize his contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I recognize the legislation I put on the statute book, but this contract is not my contract.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I can only say that
if a deputy minister signed such a contract without my authorization, he would not retain my confidence for five minutes. I am sure that the Deputy Postmaster General has enjoyed the confidence of every Postmaster General under whom he has served. Surely this is a contract which no deputy minister would dare to sign without first submitting it to his chief. There was in the contract a clause by virtue of which, during this twenty-year period, and even after the expiration of the life of the patient, the department had no right to use any other similar machines. This constitutes an absolute monopoly for twenty years, and I have succeeded in amending the contract so as to provide that we shall have the right to use a better machine if we desire to do so. There was. another most extraordinary clause in that contract. This lady had the right to transfer the contract to whomsoever she pleased, and the Postmaster General had to be satisfied with the assignee. Under this clause we were subject to the possibility of being brought face to face with insolvents and blackmailers. We have succeeded in amending the contract to the effect that no transfer shall be made without the consent of the Postmaster General. In answer to the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), I may say that this lady will get two per cent on the sale of the stamps. Miss Fawns has transferred her contract to another company, and we have to deal with it as best we can.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend
know the name of the company?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Speaking from memory I think there is a Mr. Osier connected with it, 'a Mr. Pierce, and Mr. Aemelius Jarvis of Toronto.


Mr. BURNHAM:: What does the department get out of it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The department does
not get much out of it. There is no doubt, however, that these stamp-vending machines accelerate the circulation of postage
stamps to a great extent. There is in them a compartment in which there are booklets of twelve 2-cent stamps. As my hon. friend knows, many of these stamps, like electric car tickets and things of a like nature, are lost or destroyed, and there is no doubt that there is a profit for the department in that regard. I am bound to admit that the use of this invention places the postage stamps at the disposal of the public in a very convenient manner. With regard to this contract, what I find fault with was that it was made for such a length of time. The contract says that if after the expiration of ten years the contract has been substantially-mark the word

fulfilled, it will run automatically for another ten years, so that it is a twenty-year contract. Hon. gentlemen of the legal profession will realize how elastic the word substantial is.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Clause 1 of the contract reads:
The Postmaster General hereby grants to the licensee a general license to sell postage stamps, post cards, stamped envelopes and such post office supplies as may from time to time be specified by the Postmaster General, by means of automatic machines, such license to be for a period of ten years from the date hereof, and if this contract has been substantially fulfilled then for a further period of ten years without further agreement, and upon the termination of the 6aid periods above the license shall be renewed for further periods of ten years each successively, unless and until either party shall during the six months preceding the expiry date of any such period give to the, other party notice of intention to terminate this agreement.
So this is a contract for ten years, and if six months before the expiration of the ten-year period the Postmaster or the Deputy Postmaster General gives notice of termination, there will be no further ten-year period. You cannot call it a twenty-year contract.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I was of that opinion when I first glanced over the contract, but if you read it carefully you will find that the six months' notice applies to the subsequent period after the two first ten years. You will see that it is very clear:
Such license to he for a period of ten years from the date hereof.
There is ten years clear.
And if this contract has been substantially fulfilled, then for a further period of ten years without further agreement.
That is twenty years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, you must read the whole clause.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And upon the termination of the said periods-[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Every ten years by giving notice of six months.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Wait and you will sea. The clause provides for the first period of ten years, and then another clause provides for a further period of ten [DOT] years.
And upon the termination of the said
periods-


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the opinion of the Deputy Postmaster General? Does he think it is an agreement for ten years or for twenty years?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Deputy Postmaster General is not responsible to this House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You might ask him.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The head of the department at the time is responsible to the House for the contract and nobody should try and turn to the employees of the civil service and try to make them stand responsible for what the political head of the department must be responsible for.
And upon the termination, of the sail periods above, the license shall be renewed for further periods of ten years each successively unless and until either party shall during the six months preceding the expiry date of any such period give to the other party notice of intention to terminate this agreement.
The fact that ' periods ' is plural clearly gives the right to give the notice only after twenty years.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: Did the minister get the opinion of the Justice Department on that point?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will you read it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is pretty long, but
here it is:
Ottawa, March 6, 190.3.
Dear 'Mr. Pelletier:
The Minister of Justice has asked me to reply to your letter to him of the IDth ultimo, with reference to the contract between your department and Miss Fawns. It is rather a difficult matter to advise you upon, as I find considerable difficulty in ascertaining what is the meaning and intention of the contract, and it is necessary to form some opinion about this before considering the question of the validity of the contract.
Having given it the best consideration I can, I am unable to find any clear ground on which the contract could be repudiated, although there are certainly particular points on which I do not think it could be supported. I will instance the provision in clause 11 that the Postmaster General is to be bound to issue a stamp-vending license to any person designated by the license. This seems to be clearly an - improper provision Mr. PELLETIER
where a government department is concerned, and one which must be against the public interest. Hooking .at the matter as a whole, I think in the opinion of tthe Government the contract is not a desirable one for your department to carry out; the most advisable course would be for you to give notice to the licensee that you do not intend to proceed further with the contract and leave her to take such action as she may be advised. I doubt whether any great harm can result from such a course of action. It .seems to^ me that if the licensee were to take proceedings for breach of contract she would ihave great difficulty in establishing serious damages. A considerable portion of the anticipated profit from these machines would seem to depend upon their capabilities for advertising and the sale of fancy notions, and I confess I can not see any apology for mixing up the business of the post office with such irrelevant projects.
Of course there are various defences of more or less questionable validity, which in case of necessity we could raise, to any action on the contract, but I do not think it is necessary to trouble you by going into these at the present time.	_
I return the copy of the contract inclosed with your letter.
Yours faithfully,
E. L. Newcombe.
On the whole, he seems to think that we are bound by the contract. He says he does not see his way to indicate how we can repudiate it.


William Chisholm: 
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not think any
lawyer, except for political purposes, will contend that it is not a twenty year contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not a twenty year contract. The first clause says quite the contrary.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It does not say the contrary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It does say the contrary.	.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: At all events, assuming that the hon. member is right, this would still be a ten year contract; and without an Order in Council or anything of that kind, the hon. gentleman gave for ten years to this lady the right practically to administer one branch of the Post Office Department. I need not go further than that.


Charles Murphy: Are the assignees an
incorporated company?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, an incorporated company; and they tell us they have spent between $300,000 and $400,000 on this, and they tell us: Why, you are going to repudiate that contract now we have made this big outlay! That is the position we are in.


John Hampden Burnham: Is it not true that these people are given in addition to the tremendous rights they possess with regard to advertising, which is itself of great value- two per cent on the sales? Is that so?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is for selling
stamps.


John Hampden Burnham: Why are they given
such a tremendous bonus, not only the two per cent but the right to advertise, the right to put pillars all over.
Mr., PELLETIER: I am not here to defend the contract.


William John Macdonald: What is the name
of the company that holds the contract now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Dominion Postage Stamp Vending Company, Limited.
Mr. Mi ' DONALD: Incorporated under letters patent of this Government?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I think it is an
Ontario charter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When was the company formed?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not know; as I said, it is a baby that I found on the doorstep.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The baby you found
was a contract signed by the Deputy Postmaster General with Katrine Ellen Fawns. My hon. friend altered the contract. The amended contract is signed by the Hon. L. P. Pelletier on the 22nd of May, and I see another contract between the Postmaster General of Canada and the Dominion of Canada Postage Stamp Vending Company, Limited. It is not' the same child; it is a child of my hon. friend now.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, no. I am going to ask the hon. member for Rouville to keep the members of his own family at home. I found the contract. The contract, in virtue of the provisions of my hon. friend's contract, had been assigned to this company, and I could not help it because the clause in my hon. friend's contract allowed this lady to transfer the contract to whomsoever she pleased, so it is not my baby.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know the baby carries many good Tory names from Toronto.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It might, and I may say that these good Tory names in Toronto have done all they could to have the contract carried out ais my hon. friend had it worked; but I have fought them for months in order to get the amendments I now have before the House, and I have succeeded to a great extent.


William John Macdonald: What officer signs
the contract with the company-the second contract?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The second contract is signed by Louis P. Pelletier and the Dominion of Canada Postage Stamp Vending Company, Limited; President, George C. Lovey; James E. Taylor, Secretary. I would like my hon. friend to bring me the names of the members of the company. He gave a few a moment ago.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have no objection to doing so.


John Howard Sinclair: Also the date of incorporation.


Charles Murphy: When was that contract signed?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 20th May, 1911.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 22nd May, 1913, just a few days ago.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend is not going to mislead the House. What he reads now-


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is dated 22nd May 1913.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: So it is just signed. It is a new baby.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What the hon. member gives now is the date, not of the contract, but of the amendments which I succeeded in getting. He is not going to run away from that contract. The date of the contract was 20th May, 1911, when the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux was Postmaster General of Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not sign that contract, but my hon. friend signed one a few days ago.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I hope I shall not be Postmaster General long enough to repudiate the good officers of the department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You certainly will not be long.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am man enough to stand constitutionally for what the heads of the department do.
At six o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 223, to vest in the Van Buren Bridge Company the charter rights of the Restigouche and Western Railway Company to construct and maintain a railway bridge across the St.
[Stage Direction]
John river.-Mr. Carvell. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. MICHAUD:: I have received from
the people of St. Leonard's, where the bridge is to 'be built, a message which reads as follows:
St. Leonard's, 'N.B., May 27, 1913.
Dive your hearty support for railway bridge here providing that it is strictly understood that International railway station and terminus remains in St. Leonard's village at its present location.
I went before the Railway Committee the other day and submitted an amendment, which was ruled out. The amendment reads as follows:
.Nothing herein shall in any manner give to the International' Railway Company the right to remove their present terminals from the present location at the village of St. Leonard's or to remove therefrom the station house.
I am sorry that this amendment was not inserted in the Bill. The Chairman ruled me out, and therefore I presume I may be ruled out if I now offer the amendment. I have the assurance of the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) that this bridge cannot be built until the sanction of the Governor in Council is obtained, and I am satisfied with the statement that was made to me by the minister that the company could not begin the construction of the bridge until he had had an opportunity of protecting the citizens of St. Leonard's in their rights. He gave me his word for it and I would like, if he were in the House, to hear him repeat what he said to me the other day. In view of the statement made to me by the minister I shall not object to the Bill.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: On what ground were you shut out by the Chairman? %


Pius Michaud: On the ground that
this is a provincial railway. It is built under provincial laws and consequently we could not make this amendment to the Bill because it would interfere with provincial rights. That was the ruling of the chairman of the Railway Committee.


Mr. LANCASTER:: I do not complain of my hon. friend (Mr. Michaud) saying that he was ruled out by the chairman of the Railway Committee because it may have amounted to that. I advised him not to press the amendment because it would be ultra vires. The railway that is dealt with by that amendment is a provincial railway and we could not in any Dominion statute legislate in any way in regard to a provincially controlled railway. It is not under the jurisdiction of this Parliament at all and I had to advise the hon. gentleman that it would be out of order in the sense that the Mr. PELLETIER.
introduction of a section into an Act of this Parliament could not have any effect whatever in regard to a provincially controlled railway. The hon. gentleman, I understand, is not asking to press his amendment?


Pius Michaud: I will do it.


The CHAIRMAN:: Any substantial amendment to a private Bill requires a day's notice.
On section 1-declaratory:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This Bill is a little
peculiar, and possibly it is only fair to the committee that I should say a word or two about it, because it might be better understood with a few words of explanation. This bridge over an international stream or river must be a work for tne general advantage of Canada; that is to say, no authority but this Parliament can legislate to give any right to build it. It is only the bridge and the necessary approaches to the bridge that come within the scope of this Bill. It'was therefore thought wise after considerable-discussion in the committee that we should make it quite clear that the right to take this bridge over from the company which has not been able to build it should be subject to the Railway Act of Canada. The committee were unanimously of the opinion that it was necessary to put that express declaration in to make it quite clear that this work, oeing a work of international character, should be, in so far as Canada is concerned, under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission and generally of the Parliament and Government of Canada. We inserted at the very beginning of section I the words ' subject to the provisions of the Railway Act ' and left the section as it appeared in the Bill except that when we got towards the end we also, to make it very clear, after the word ' may ' in the eighth line, put in the words * subject as aforesaid,' striking out the words ' in the manner provided by and subject to the provisions of the Railway Act,' because they might create confusion as to the qualifications of the Railway Act which should apply. We wanted the Railway Act to apply to the whole undertaking and we struck out the words that were in there and inserted them at the beginning of the section, in the way that I have indicated.
On section 2, sub-section 2:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have inserted as
a new section the standard clause in regard to municipal control of highways because it is probable that this new bridge, and the approaches to it might interfere, perhaps to a small extent, but still to some extent, with the highways in that part of the province of New Brunswick.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 3-powers for construction, etc.:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Section 3 is what was section 2 of the original Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 228, to incorporate the Pointe Aux Trembles Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Barker. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I should tell this
committee that we were in doubt as to whether we ought to incorporate this company with a Dominion charter. The Railway Committee was very small this week, there being a bare quorum. This railway is a small one in the city of Montreal. This Bill was passed by the Senate, and therefore, prima facie, was entitled to be considered as a proper Bill. It occurred to some members of the Railway Committee that it was not a matter that should be taken away from the jurisdiction of the province, and that there was no evidence on which they could properly find that it could be called a work for the general advantage of Canada. At this late stage of the session, and in view of the fact that the Bill came from the Senate and was therefore apparently entitled to favourable consideration, the Railway Committee did not think it should assume the responsibility of killing the Bill. Therefore we did not decide the question as to whether or not this railway company should have a Dominion charter but leave it to this House itseif to determine.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


PATENTS OF OTTO BARNETT.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 230, respecting certain patents of Otto Barnett -Mr. Kyte. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. CARROLL:: In the absence of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), the documents in relation to this measure have been placed in my hands. Under the Bill the party concerned is given the right to pay a fee, the payment of which was neglected through some misunderstanding on the part of the people looking after the matter. The' article patented is manufactured in Canada and is on sale in Canada. No rights will be interfered with by the passing of this legislation. I have here an affidavit of Mr. Otto Barnett, who owns
the patents at the present time. He declares that he is the owner of the patents involved; that he inadvertently failed to pay the renewal fee because he overlooked the fact that such a fee was due; that the patents have been continuously worked in Canada, and were never intended to be abandoned. This is sworn before a notary public in the state of New Yoik.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 217, to incorporate the Canadian Northwestern Railway	Company.-Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 218, respecting the Empire Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mac-done 11.
Bill No. 227, respecting the Western Canada Accident and Guarantee Insurance Company.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 224, respecting the Western Trust Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill No. 225, respecting the Great West Permanent Loan Company.-Mr. Meighen.
Bill No. 226, respecting the Alberta-Sas-katchewan Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Meighen.
Bill No. 214, respecting the Hudson Bay Insurance Company.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill No. 219. respecting the Casualty Company of Canada.-Sir Edward Osier.
Bill No. 215, to incorporate the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Mackenzie.-Mr. Proulx.
Bill No. 216, to incorporate the Ruthen-ian Greek Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Mackenzie.-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for consideration of the message from the Senate insisting upon the adoption of the amendments made by them to Bill No. 97, respecting the Canadian Northern Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Sharpe (Lisgar).
Mr. LANCASTER. Stand.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is there any way in
which the Chairman of the Railway Committee can arrange with the Senate to have this Bill passed? I heard a suggestion to hold a conference of representatives from both Houses to discuss it. I understand that the Canadian Northern would like to get the Bill passed, as part of one of the branch lines has been commenced. I have no doubt the people in the West would like to assist any road that will build branch lines. Is there any way of coming together?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As far as I can see, I think it is hopeless. This Bill, as drawn by the promoters, was absolutely in the proper form, the stereotyped form, the form that has had judicial interpretations by the courts. The amendment suggested by the Senate is not contended makes any change in the legislation. I am trying to speak respectfully, but they have a newfangled way of wanting to make this legislation which, in my humble opinion as a lawyer, throws a little doubt on the interpretation. I am not sure that it does, but I am afraid it might be so construed by the courts. On April 25 the matter was discussed and we were unanimous that we must adhere to our Bill and reject the amendment. The merit in our refusal and the absolute want of merit in the Senate's amendment is that the Senate does not contend that their amendment makes a bit of difference in the result of the legislation; but they say they would rather do it in that way. It is a very roundabout way, a very complicated way, a way that I admit as a lawyer may be open to a very different construction from the regular meaning of the Bill as it has been construed in other cases. The Senate's amendment fails to give a time for the completion of one of the branches already commenced. While they enact a new time for commencing as to the other lines, they do not perfectly describe them as we do in our Bill by reference to the particular charters. They fail utterly to state the new time for completion of the line already commenced, so that would be very bad legislation beyond any argument. I also point out that in their answer, which is a very complicated one, insisting on their amendment and insisting that the House adopt it, they admit that another amendment will still be necessary besides theirs to 'bring us back by this roundabout way to where we started by our plain and ordinary legislation. With the possible liability of being censured by this House for lack of dignity, I went to the Senate and tried to reason with these gentlemen that they should not send that report to this House, but should accept our suggestion and should not send to this House a message insisting upon an amendment of that kind in the face of our very clear language as to the result of it, which I shall again read to the House. It is true, I am the draftsman, but the House unanimously supported this message:
The amendment made by the Senate to the Bill No. 97, an Act respecting the Canadian Northern Branch Lines Company, was taken into consideration.
And the said amendment being read a second time;
Mr. Lancaster moved, that this Blouse do disagree with the Senate in the said amendment for the following reasons:-
Mr. NESBITT.
(a)	The said amendment does not fully describe the lines of railway referred to and tends to raise doubts as to the respective routes of the same.
(b)	The said amendment does not provide any limitation of time for completion of the first line of railway specified in section, 8 of chapter 56, of the Statutes of 1911, authorized by paragraph (a) of the said section.
Our Bill is so short and has such merit in its clear-cut language that I shall read it again:
The Canadian Northern Branch Lines Company may commence the construction of its lines of railway specified in section 8 of chapter 56 of statutes of 1911-
For the life of me I do not see how we could describe it better.
-excepting the first line which is already commenced, within two years after the passing of this Act.
-making the well-known and usual legislation. The answer given, which is before His Honour the Speaker, by a lot of language, tries to convince this House that their way of doing it, in a very long and not well-understood manner, will accomplish the same results, but suggests that if we do not think so we can pass a consequential amendment. Life is too short for me as Chairman of the Railway Committee and for the House to trouble with arguments of that kind from any Chamber, not pretending to say that our Bill does not do what both Houses intend and saying: If you do not like our amendment, you can pass another. They said also, in the informal conversation I had with them, that having insisted upon it, by their Railway Committee, they are going to insist upon it. It is unfortunate for the Tailway and probably for the people that this Bill cannot be passed this session. This House passed the Act in the ordinary way, but the other House admitting it is the usual and the understood way, with the desired result, interjects an unnecesssary amendment and asks us to try it for one year. I have been provoked into saying this and I think it is due to the House that I should say it. 1 cannot see much use in having a conference. If I was on the conference I could not give in. What we have done we have done in the proper way, and the Bill expresses what we both intended it should express. I say it is for them to give in, as they say they will not give in, the result will be that the Bill will have to go over for this session.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: In what position will the railway company be, in the case where they have started grading on their railway?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They are all right as to that, because with this Bill not passing their other Act applies, and they have

three more years before them to complete that line. That line will be in shape, and we can renew the others next year. The [DOT]only point is as to whether they would have commenced any others sooner by getting the charter this ye'ar.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have very great
respect for my hon. friend's knowledge ol the Railway Act and also for his very earnest work in the Railway Committee. I only want to know whether there is any way by which they could come together. I understand that the House is willing that the Bill should stand.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Anything to be done
would require to be done through a conference. The reasons for a conference must be prepared and assented to by this House. Rule 85 says:
When the House requests a conference with the Senate, the reasons to be given by this (House at the same shall be prepared and agreed to by the House before a message be sent therewith.
As the Senate has now adjourned until next week, perhaps it would be well to let this Bill stand, and if the promoters desire to provide for a conference, they would have an opportunity of doing so.
Progress reported.


CANADIAN NORTHERN QUEBEC RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Further consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 99, respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I wish to make a
motion in regard to this Bill. We considered these amendments in the Railway Committee, and it is quite evident that one of them is a mistake on the part of the Senate; in fact, I can say with certainty that it is, and that if we reject it no doubt they will withdraw it. If it were not so, they -would be undoing all the legislation passed by this House for several years, and would he interfering with the standard or model clause giving protection to municipalities. The first amendment made by the Senate is to strike out part of the route of the railway. As to that, the Railway Committee thought that they could not interfere so long as the promoters of the Bill were willing to accept the change. If the promoters of the Bill had insisted that they were entitled to have that part of their route into Montreal, as well as the rest of the route *proposed, I think we would have been inclined to say there is no reason why they should not have the right. But the promoters were willing to accept that amendment, and that being so, the legislative functions of this Parliament are not interfered with. The only result is that the promoters did not get so long a railway as they would otherwise have got. But the second amendment is one in regard to which this Parliament is'bound to protect the people. The Senate inserted in clause 7, the municipal clause of the Bill the word ' under ' in regard to poles and wires for telegraphing upon the highways. The standard municipal clause adopted by this House in regard to these matters gives the municipalities the control of the service, upon, along, or over the highways. They cannot go along or upon the highways without the consent of the municipalities, but of course they must be allowed to go under. If the municipal council will not allow them to do so, they can do so on the order of the Railway Commissioners, after investigation. If the word 'under' is inserted, the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission would be misted, and each municipality would be able to prevent a railway company, because its telegraph line must be part of the railway, from entering that municipality at all, and the Railway Commission would be helpless to interfere, even to allow the wires to go under the streets. So I move:
That this House do concur in the amendment made by the Senate to clause 2 of Bill No. 99, and do disagree with the Senate in its amendment made to clause 7, for the reason that the proposed amendment varies the well-considered standard section that ha9 been embodied in many railway Bills this session by both Houses, land would in effect transfer to municipalities the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners to regulate the construction, operation and crossing under highways and public places with lines of wires when municipalities refuse to permit them to be placed upon along or across highways, in which event the powers to permit and regulate the crossing under these highways should, in the opinion of this House, remain in the Board of Railway Commissioners; and that a message he sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 235, to incorporate the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohio and other States.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Lenore Power.-Mr. MacNutt.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Post office-outside service, $11,942,975.
['The amendment is merely to the effect that the Bill shall come into force at a date to be fixed by an order clause published in the Canada Gazette. It was thought that some little inconvenience would be occasioned if the Bill came into effect at once. Therefore it was postponed to a date to be fixed.\nAmendment read the first and second time, and concurred in.\nOn motion of Mr. Borden, House adjourned at 1.25 a.m. Saturday.', 'Saturday, May 81, 1913.']
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Before six o'clock, I
think I had explained to the satisfaction of the committee that the present Postmaster General was not responsible for that part of his contract which the newspapers had been complaining about. An

effort has been made to try to confuse the two dates. I want to repeat, so that no mistake will be possible, that the contract in question, was signed by the Post Office Department on the 20t-h May, 1911.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Without an Order in Council.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Without an Order in Council, which makes it worse.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Which makes it void.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I would be glad if
the justice Department had been able to s-gree with that, but it is somewhat curious to see the hon. member for Rouville now calling his own contract null and void.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not my contract.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Who was the Postmaster General at the time?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Who was responsible for the contract from the point of view of responsibility to this House and the country? I may be very obtuse, but I say that it was the man at the head of the department. If some new constitutional Tule or theory can be propounded before the country which will upset all old-time constitutional rules, we will be very glad to hear what the hon. gentleman has to say about it, but this contract having been entered into by his department when he was Postmaster General, there is ns power on earth to relieve him from the responsibility, and I think that I am stating only a safe and sound principle in stating that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was the new contract,
which must have been passed with that Toronto firm, preceded by an Order in Council?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is no new contract and my hon. friend cannot succeed in establishing that there was.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The first contract, I
understand, was with a party by the name of Katrine Ellen Fawns. The second contract was with the Dominion of Canada Postage Stamp Company, Limited, Toronto. Had my hon. friend an Order in Council for that?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is of no use for
the hon. gentleman to try and draw a red herring across the trail. There is no first and second contract. There is only one contract, and that is the contract entered into when the hon. member was Postmaster General of Canada. That is the one and only contract, and that contract being to my mind a bad contract, I succeeded in obtaining certain amendments in favour of this country and in favour of the Post Office Department. It is no use try-Mr. PELLETIER.
ing to get out of it. I am asked: what does this new company have to do? The contract entered into by my hon. friend with Miss Katrine Ellen Fawns, a name he does not seem to remember now, because he has to read in the contract to find it, contained a most extraordinary clause in virtue of which Miss Fawns could transfer that contract without the consent of the Post Office Department at all. I have succeeded in securing an amendment to the contract so that now it cannot be transferred except with the consent of the Postmaster General. The company whose name appears now in the amendment, is the company to which this contract has been transferred in virtue of the clause put into the contract on the 20th May, 1911.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I ask a question
of my hon. friend?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Just one minute; I
would like to finish this. It is not either pleasant or unpleasant for me to defend the worthy deputy minister of the Post Office Department, and it might appear strange to those who look at it from the point of view of politics; but I believe in standing by the officers of my department if I think they are right, whether they have been appointed by me or by my predecessors. The deputy minister has pointed out to me that it is very strange that the hon. member for Rouville repudiates this Miss Fawns and her boxes when a Bill was passed through this House in 1911, not by Dr. Goulter, who was not a member of the House, but by the hon. member for Rouville, and that Bill was passed for the express purpose of having this contract signed. I wonder if that statute is going to be repudiated also?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The statute is all
right, but the statement is not.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The contract could
not have been passed without that statute being passed first. It is not to me that the hon. member for Rouville will make a reproach for that. I was not his deputy minister, and never will be. This contract says, that stamp vending machines may be put at street corners. The Post Office Act did not allow that before. The Post Office Act provided, before this contract was entered into, that licenses for selling stamps should be revocable at the pleasure of the Postmaster General. That was a wise and safe provision because the Postmaster General should have the right to cancel such licenses at any time. That was the law, and this lady, under the contract which has been transferred now to this company, has the right to have these

stamp vending machines placed at certain corners for twenty years, or, if my hon. friend is right, for ten years. That is not revocable at pleasure, and the law was in the way. What do we find? We find that the hon. member for Rouville, then Postmaster General, had three short amendments made to the Post Office Act by this House. The first one is to add the words ' street stamp-vending boxes ' to the ordinary boxes which could be put in different places before. The second one is to add the words ' or for the sale of stamps or other post office supplies.' What is the third?
Paragraph ' o ' of the said sub-section of section- 9 is amended by striking out the words * revocable at pleasure.'
This statute completely removed all obstacles remaining in the way of the signing of the contract, the bill was assented to-mark the dates-on the 19th of May, 1911, and the contract was signed on the 20th May, the day after the statute had been assented to. Here is a gentleman who says that he knew nothing of that contract. I invite hon. members to put all these facts together and judge for themselves. It is unfortunate, but we have a difference here between the word of the hon. member for Rouville and the word of the deputy postmaster general. I am not concerned with the quarrel between the hon. member for Rouville and the deputy postmaster genefal, but 1 am bound to put the facts before the committee in justice to my deputy minister. These are the facts. I had some reason to be surprised when, for the last two or three days in succession, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has stated here in my absence that we should not have stamp vending machines with advertisements on the streets. You know the reason why, now. One of the amendments which I have succeeded in obtaining provides that these machines will not be put everywhere at the sweet will of Miss Fawns and her representatives, but that the Postmaster General will have to give his consent to the erection of any of these machines. The Postmaster General will see to it that this contract is not abused, and that the machines are not put in such places as will hurt the public interest and the interest of the cities or of the municipalities.


Mr. GERMAN:: How do the machines
work?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They are not in operation yet.


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: Ask
Miss Fawns.


William Manley German: I know Miss Fawns well.
I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster
360	[DOT]
General how the machines" are working, and if they are giving satisfaction.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They are automatic.


William Manley German: I know they are. I
know the machines.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am glad to know
that the hon. member is acquainted with Miss Fawns. The former Postmaster General does not know her at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend makes light of all this. I may tell him, and in the presence of the deputy Postmaster General, that I never saw Miss Fawns and never spoke to her. That is the truth.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Either the contract
was entered into with the authority of my hon. friend, or he knew very little of what was going on in his department. My hon. friend has to choose between the two positions. He has borrowed trouble and he has it now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not at all.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What is the trouble
about?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The trouble seems to be in the mind and memory of the hon. member for Rouville.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not at all. I am stating the positive truth. I repeat what I said this afternoon, that I never signed the contract. _ I never saw Miss Fawns. I know of Miss Fawns. She is a well known lady; she sold the same machine to the Government of the United Kingdom and to the Government of Australia. No order in council having been passed, that contract is null and void.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: How was the statute passed?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The statute was passed, but the contract was not passed by me. The statute was passed by me openly; it was explained to the House; it was discussed and approved by the right hon. the leader of the Government. I quoted the debate the other day. My hon. friend must not think for one moment that I do not know what I am talking about. I say I passed the legislation. It is a good piece of legislation. The stamp vending machine is a good one. It is the one in operation in England and Australia. The contract, however, whose only objectionable feature is the advertising, is not signed by me; it was never seen by me. I could not have signed a contract without an order in council, and I never passed an order in council. If my hon. friend finds any objection in the original contract, he has only to speak at any time to Miss Fawns or to her assignees. There was no order



in council, and therefore I am not bound by that contract. That is the law.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend seems to be under a very extraordinary misapprehension. He says:	This contract is
null and void; just cancel the contract.
I may tell my hon. friend that I did all I could, without, of course, breaking faith with the parties who signed this contract


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I ask my' hon. friend a question ?
Mr, PELLETIER: Let my hon. friend possess his soul in patience until I finish my sentence. One of the first things I did was to ask the Department of Justice, which is our guide in this matter. I called the attention of the Department of Justice to the fact that this contract had been entered into without an order in council.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear. Therefore,
I could not sign such a contract.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend has signed many contracts without orders in council.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Contracts of $200. Not for twenty years.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I should remind the hon.., gentleman that he ought not to interrupt.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is impossible for him to rest in peace; let him speak. My hon. friend is a lawyer. Although I have practiced more than he has-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have practiced more than you have.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: You are putting yourself in the wrong by being so excited. I did not like to trust to my own knowledge as a lawyer; and, moreover, we have the Department of Justice to which we are bound to go as our adviser in such matters. I told the Department of Justice that this contract had been entered into without an order in council. I asked if I could repudiate it as being null and void. The answer was: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not so clear as that. Read the opinion over again.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My friend is in an awful position, and he is trying to get out of it in a way which I may say I would not try myself. I remember some time ago in this House, when information was asked of me, I leaned over and asked the assistant deputy minister for the information. The information was given to me in good faith, I believe; but it was a mistake. I gave it as I received it from the assistant deputy Postmaster General, What did I find ? The hon. member for Rouville standing up and saying: What a shame;
Mr. LEMIEUX.	I
there is the minister trying to hide himself behind the officers of his department. Now it is all the other way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is what you did, too.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. [DOT] member foi Rouville had better reflect over the whole situation, and not try to have me held responsible for this advertising^ medium of which he has been complaining, when it is his own baby.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many stamp vending machines did Miss Fawns provide ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The deputy minister says, none.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then she is not living up to the contract, and you should cancel it. You have revived it with another firm in Toronto.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When a man is in the hole, he should stay still. The more he moves the earth around him, the more he goes down. Here I am told: Why did you not say that the contract was not properly fulfilled, instead of confirming it P The contract was signed on the 20th of May, 1911. These people were telling me: ' We have a contract from the department. We have spent three or four hundred thousand dollars on it. You are going to take it away from us.' I said: ' If the Department of Justice says that I am right, I will do it.' The hoq. member for Rouville said this afternoon: ' There are pretty good Tories in Toronto.' There are some pretty good Tories there; I saw them lately. Tory or Grit, there was nothing else for me to do than to agree if the Department of Justice had told me to cancel. But when that department gave me the answer I read this afternoon, I could only make the best bargain possible of the bad bargain th6 hon. gentleman had made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Which I had not made.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman
is going to repeat that until he believes it; so there is no use trying. When he repents, he will let us know. We will pass to something else.


Mr. MORPHY:: Who was the Postmaster General when the contract was made?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Hon. Rodolphe
Lemieux. I was not here, but that is what I was told.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not sign the contract; I had nothing to do with it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. ex-Postmaster General, who has a very bad memory, this afternoon made a general review of the whole post office situation. After he

had dealt with the matter which I have just discussed, he referred to the Parcel Post Bill. Now, we remember that the hon. member for Rouville stood in his place in this House and clamored for parcel post. We have had some other things to do in this House to which I will not more particularly refer, but which hon. gentlemen will remember. I have been waiting for .an opportunity to press this Parcel Post Bill and presented it to the House. I believe it iis an important measure, a measure in the public interest; and I was told I would have the help of the hon. member for Rouville in putting it through. Here we are confronted with a situation which I wish to explain vary clearly to this House. I would like to put this Bill through. On the other hand, I am told on every hand that it is not fair to keep members of this Hpuse here for a very much longer time, and I appreciate that. I had every reason to believe and to expect that this Bill would not be regarded as a controversial one, but I am told this afternoon that the Bill is this, that and the other thing. And why? Because it does not contain the rates which will he charged for the parcels. Here is another thing which the hon. member for Rouville has forgotten.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the hon. gentleman ever explained the Bill to the House?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Bill speaks for
itself-he who runs may read.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It has stood on the Order Paper since the 2nd of April, the night of the locks.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: which we will put in the boxes by and by. There is a sore in the hon. gentleman's heart. And I am sure that if he had had a lock on his lips when he decided to speak yesterday he would be very glad now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It would not be a
patent lock.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We will try to have a lock patented which will keep the hon. gentleman's mouth closed when he ought not to speak.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Keep your infant.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We are told that the rates should be in the Bill. With the officers of the department, and with Mr. Ross, we have been working for weeks and months on these rates. We have not yet come to a final conclusion about the adoption of these rates, but we are pretty near it. We are confronted with a good many obstacles. For instance, we have the express companies which charge a certain rate between Toronto and Montreal and absolutely the same rate between Toronto and Kingston.
360i


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this Bill before the House?	-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it before the Chair at this moment?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is one thing
before the Chair at this moment-the remarks of the hon. member for Rouville. I am sure any judge will appreciate that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know from you what is before the Chair.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The item is 'Post office, outside service.' This afternoon it seems to have been understood by both sides of the House-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: At the request of the hon. member for Rouville.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: -that any matter relating to the Post Office Department might be brought under discussion, and the discussion went on on that basis.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The subject was introduced-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Just a moment. I am interested in the quarrel between the Postmaster General and his predecessor. But I am entitled to have the discussion confined to what is before the Chair.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I can tell mv hon.
friend that parcel post is part of the Post Office Department policy which we are now discussing.	'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But the Bill is not before the Chair. It is not yet introduced.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, yes. It is printed and distributed. The hon. gentleman does not look at his files every morning. But I quite understand the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton North. In friendly feeling toward the hon. member for Rouville, he thinks we should talk of something else, because he finds there has been enough for that hon. gentleman to swallow for one night.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the hon. Postmaster General has any observations to make concerning the member for Cape Breton North, he will find that the member for Cape Breton North is quite capable of looking after himself any day of the week.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Do not get mad. Remember the dignity and traditions of an old-time judge.


Michael Clark: I desire to make an appeal to the Postmaster General on this subject. I am sure that, with the rest of the committee, I have enjoyed very much the discussion hitherto; but I think the Postmaster General, perhaps, will see that

to enter into a full discussion of the parcel post matter would not save the time of the committee or promote the early prorogation which, I am sure, he equally with a number of us, very much desires. I do not raise a point of order, but I appeal to him whether it is not a little irregular on the estimates to discuss parcel post about which we should get into a further discussion. It will open up the whole subject of parcel post and any of us might wish to make a speech on this important question. I put that to him in the most friendly spirit, without participating in the quarrel between himself and the hon. member for Rouville.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I take the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer, who is always very fair, in the spirit in which they are made. I myself am one of those who desire to see prorogation come. I would not have alluded to this matter at all but for the fact that the hon. member for Rouville spoke about it this afternoon, and I thought I might say a few words in answer. But there is a good deal in the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer, and I shall not say more about this now than to recall to the House the fact that under the law as it stands, I have, as Postmaster General, all the power to fix the rates which my hon. friend from Rouville says I should ask of this House in detail. That is my point.


Michael Clark: I wish the
minister to understand that I do not want to interfere with his right to reply to criticism. That is the right of every member. But I, in fairness, desire to recall the fact that what the hon. member for Rouville said was that from his point of view-and I think he made it personal-the measure was controversial.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: But he gives the
*reason for the measure being controversial -that the rates are not given in the Bill. My answer is that I have the power to fix these rates now. Whilst there is at present a law authorizing parcel post, some additional legislation is necessary in order to effect the results at which we are aiming. It really is not new legislation; it is but a remodelling of the old law, and it has been one of my most earnest desires to give this boon to the Canadian people. If the Opposition will help me to pass this Bill and to receive the unanimous consent of Parliament for its adoption, my hand will be much strengthened when I come to deal with the express companies ajnd everyone concerned. Fresh from Parliament with power given to me unanimously by this Parliament, I think I could overcome all those obstacles which now seem to be almost insuperable. Of course I am not going to insist upon it at this stage of the session, but if after Mr. CLARK (Red Deerl
looking over the Bill, having particular regard to section 74 of the Post Office Act, the hon. member for Rouville and other hon. gentlemen of this House come to the conclusion that the matter is not controversial, I will be prepared to put it through and to inaugurate in a few months this great public service for the benefit of the people of this country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The committee will
realize that with the exception of a few moments devoted on a Wednesday evening to the one-sixth vote, this is the first occasion since the beginning of this long session upon which we have had an opportunity of discussing* matters in connection with the Post Office Department, and I thought it was my duty as a member of this House to deal with these different matters at this stage.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am sure my hon.
friend will give me credit for being the last one who would oppose any such action. I have told him that he is at liberty to discuss these matters fully. My hon. friend has spoken about the Wireless Bill; let me say a few words about that. This Bill is one which has for its object the breaking of the backbone of the cable monopoly. I know that very powerful interests are now fighting against the passage of this Bill, which is the result of the work I did in England last summer. If the majority is in favour of this Bill-whether or not it would be thrown out elsewhere I am unable to say-I think it would be regrettable if we were to miss this opportunity of encouraging any competition that will have the effect of reducing the tremendously high rates which the people of Canada are now paying.
My hon. friend referred also to mail bag locks. We have heard a few things in this House about these locks, and outside of the House people have continued to speak of the purchase of 350,000 locks, when they know that that is not true. Some of the newspapers are edited by men who, I am sure, are descendants of .Ananias, although Ananias would surely feel that he was outstripped by these people to-day. Of course they consider it to be part of their duty, and I do not mind it, for I have been through the mill before, but my experience has been that the caluminators never succeed in the end. We have been told that these locks are first-class. Now the hon. member for Rouville says that the locks were not so good as he thought; that there were some bars which had been ordered, and which would have made the locks very good, had not the unfortunate Postmaster General cancelled the order for the bars. My hon. friend, is in the same dilemma as he was in respect of the contract of May, 1911.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The less said about
these locks the better for you.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not hesitate to
speak of them; I have no reason to be ashamed. I made a good contract, and yet the hon. gentleman stands up in his seat and tries to cast aspersions upon my conduct. He has been invited to repeat them to this House; he has not done so, and he will not do so. My hon. friend has read the letter cancelling the order for these bars. The bars are necessary for the new locks as well as for the old. We gave an order in September, 1912, and six months afterwards the order had not been filled. We wanted these bars, and we cancelled the order. Where is the business man who, after giving an order for something which he wanted, apd waiting for six months without receiving that which he ordered, would not cancel the order and endeavour to get the goods elsewhere? That is what I did. Information has come to the department that Mr. Lapointe, who has the patent for these bars, is probably not entitled to that patent. I am making these remarks to prove'to the hon. member for Rouville that the cancellation of the order for the bars was not done on account of any discussion which took place in this House. In order to get the bars which we want in the department we have called for tenders. The people who have tendered have asked us a very large price on account of the risk they run in respect of the patent, but I hope that before long we will get them at a more reasonable price.
My hon. friend has spoken about rural mail, and asked me to give him some information in that regard. I may say that the number of routes authorized up to October, 1911, 614. The number of boxes was 16,015. Since the present Government 'came into power, 720 new routes and 185 extensions of old routes have been authorized. The number of routes authorized to-'day is 1,385; number of boxes reported erected, 44,010; number of boxes which will be erected when the routes now under advertisement, for tenders go into operation, 14,800; number of boxes which will be erected on routes already authorized, but not yet in operation, 9,800. The number of boxes which have been erected after the roads have been in operation for some time, which must be considered in addition to above figures, approximately 3,000. That makes a total of 71,610.	55,000 boxes have been erected
since October, 1911, against 16,015 erected by the previous Government. That, I think, is the information asked for by the hon. member for Rouville. If he wants more information I shall be glad to try and get it for him.


Charles Marcil: I understand that Quebec makes a very poor showing in connection with this service-that there are few roads there as compared with Ontario. Has any step been taken by the department to point out the advantages of the rural mail service so that it may be introduced more extensively in Quebec? I understand that there is a large number of constituencies, probably more than one half of those in the province, if not two-thirds, that have no such service at all.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member is right. The banner province, so far as rural mail is concerned, is Ontario. But very close to it, and neck and neck in the run, is the little province of Prince Edward Island. There is much less interest taken in this particular matter by the other provinces and in the province of Quebec they do not seem to have so far appreciated the benefit coming from this rural mail delivery. I have lost no opportunity to induce our people to try it. _ I have given an example In my own riding. Of course, it is a matter in which the Government does not come forward and install the boxes of its own motion; there must be a demand for them, and the demand must come from fifty-one per cent of the people on the route which the rural mail will follow.-This was, to a certain extent, unknown in the province. I inaugurated two or three routes in my constituency and had, some difficulty in bringing it about. I may say that now the people who have seen the benefit of it are coming in and joining the procession and asking for boxes. I have tried it elsewhere. I have tried it in the good old Liberal parish in which I was born. I have said to them thpre:	Why
should you not try this? ana they have tried it. I have asked other parts of the province to . do the same thing, and I expect they will come in and join in the expenditure which we have been making. In one respect that will give us time to breathe. We are' now giving the rural mail delivery to people who are anxious to have it; others will learn about it later and their turn will come.


Charles Marcil: Has the department a circular that could be distributed in some of these constituencies showing the advantage. I am sorry to say that in my own constituency the benefits of the service are unknown. I would like to point it out to the people, but I am not thoroughly familiar with it myself. If the department had a circular that could be given to persons applying for it, it would be a way to introduce the system.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We have not issued any circulars because the demands are very numerous and we have not needed to invite people to come in.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You have booklets and blank forms in both languages.


Mr. PELLETIEE:: I shall put it very
' briefly for my hon. friend for Bonaventure, and then he will know all about it except the details which are not necessary to know. You have fifty-one per cent of the farmers or people living along a certain route who will sign a petition to the inspector of the inspectoral division asking for the establishment of a rural mail route. When that is fyled in the office a member of the post office inspector's staff goes down, examines the locality and locates the route according to the regulations of the department. There the whole thing is done. The only liability on those signing is that each patron undertakes to purchase, the box, which costs $3. I have allowed two patrons to join in the same box. My experience has been that that arrangement does not last long, the two patrons say:	Now
we know everything about this, we want one each, our own box. The box is adapted to give certain indications. If there is anything in the box for the courier to take up, the box is set in a certain position. If the courier puts something into the box he places it in another position and the people in the house can see that there is something for them and the boy or girl goes to the box. The payment of $3 is once for all, then the box belongs to the man who purchases it. The upshot of the whole thing is that every man has got a post office at his door. The courier has with him booklets of stamps and he sells the stamps to the farmers so that they have at home all of the postal facilities they require. More than, that, they have the right to receive registered mail from the courier and give him registered mail. It amounts to this that it is a small post office at the door of every farmer in the country.


Charles Marcil: Would the parcel post be applied to this service.


René-Antoine Pelletier: That is a big question, it is an obstacle in our way. The boxes are too small to include parcel post.


Charles Marcil: Would the courier accept parcel mail?


René-Antoine Pelletier: Of course he will, but it will become a question of price. He has contracted under certain conditions to carry certain mails. If the weight is doubled, we may expect some complaint for an increase in price, but we shall try to do our best.


Mr. LAW:: Does not the minister think that the percentage of fifty-one per cent on the route is too high?


René-Antoine Pelletier: No.


Bowman Brown Law: In my own county I found sometimes that it was difficult to get that Mr. PELLETIER.
many to take the boxes at $3 each whereas if the percentage was reduced to say twenty-five per cent then they could start the route and others would be likely to come in later on; like the measles, it would be catching. I have always thought that the percentage of fifty-one per cent of the people living on the proposed mail route was too high. Is it the custom of the Post Office Department to close the post offices on the rural mail routes? I find some opposition to that, the people do not like to have the post offices closed, and as the postmaster gets only $35 a year, it does not involve a heavy expense on the Post Office Department. I was glad to hear him say he intended to raise the minimum salaries of postmasters.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The two questions go one with the other; they are very closely connected. If we were to lower that minimum to 25 per cent we would not be able to close the small post offices which now exist along the mail routes, because 75 per cent of the people would still have to deal with the post office. The policy of the department is, at every point, where possible, to do away with the small office, and to deliver the mail to everybody under the rural mail system. We find now that we have our hands full with the 51 per cent minimum, and I do not hesitate to say- this is no reflection on anybody-that where there is only 25 per cent of the people, we had better wait until we have 51 per cent.


Bowman Brown Law: But when a rural mail delivery is established on a certain section, and the post office is closed, and several people in that section are too poor to pay $3 for the boxes, those people are absolutely debarred from post office privileges. I think it is a great mistake to close these post offices simply because of the rural mail delivery. I am really surprised to hear the Postmaster General say there are so many applications that they cannot be filled.


William John Macdonald: What percentage of people on a mail route must avail themselves of the rural mail delivery before the Postmaster General proceeds to close the office?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The rule is that we
close the local office when the rural mail is established. We have to make some exceptions sometimes, but we hate to make them, and we only do so in special cases.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: Is the
system found to work as well in sparsely settled districts as in thickly settled districts, and how many people to the mile

are necessary before the route is established?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It works infinitely
better in thickly settled parts.


James Joseph Hughes: Is any number of people to the mile required?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is not necessary
that there should be any number to the mile provided there are 51 per cent of the people living on the route.


Bowman Brown Law: Did I understand the Postmaster General to say that these mail routes cannot be established except on existing mail routes?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That was the old
policy, and it has been changed. We establish mail routes now wherever they are asked and where, in the opinion of the branch of the department, the local conditions justify them.


John Howard Sinclair: What would the Postmaster General do in the case of a long *mail route, say 60 miles in length, where the work is performed by one contractor? There might be places along the route where the settlement is not thick enough 'to justify a rural mail system. Would he break up the mail contract and adapt him-.self to the circumstances of the country?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We give notice to
the contractor, but we do not establish *mail routes so long as that. They have to be established in such a way that the same courier is able to go over the whole route in a comparatively short time and do it regularly, so that the people know the hour at which the courier will reach a certain point. The courier does his best in that respect, but of course he is not always on time, especially when the roads are bad in winter.


Bowman Brown Law: Is the remuneration to the
courier the same, one dollar per box?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The courier gets a
dollar per box, and the department pays that. The local man, the farmer, has only got to pay the price of his box, and he gets the service for nothing. I think I have covered pretty well all the remarks made by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr, Lemieux). but there is the matter of newspaper postage which was touched upon by my hon. friend from South York. I may inform him that the department is at work on this question, and I think I may say that what he has said this afternoon will help us in the good work we are trying to do. I do not believe that the PostOffice Department should carry newspapers which are only for advertising purposes or something of that kind at the price we are .carrying them now. I do not want to go
into more details just now. This matter is at present under consideration in the department.


Mr. HENDERSON:: I understand that
the department has fixed the allowance to the courier at $30 per mile over the route that he has to go, that is to say, if it is a twenty mile route, he will get $600, and, in addition, a dollar for each box on the route. If the courier can succeed in increasing the number of boxes on his route, he will get so many more dollars. That dollar is paid by the department, and the farmer pays nothing except $3 for his box.
I am under the apprehension that the minister will have to increase that allowance of $30 per mile. No doubt he has succeeded already in getting a good many couriers to undertake the work for $30 per mile, but the complaints are somewhat serious, and I have the impression that when the time comes to renew those contracts he will find himself unable to do so. The demand will be for more money, because the consideration is certainly too small. If the parcel post branch is to be added, he will have to add a good deal more to the remuneration which the courier gets for his work.
I wish to warn the minister, because my experience in the country is that there is serious complaint as to this remuneration of $30 per mile, and I fear that either he will have to increase the remuneration or we will have to go back to the old system. In my county we have perhaps eight or ten routes opened up. The minister will remember that in one case he advertised for tenders and the lowest was $900, in fact it was the only tender. I wrote and asked the man whether he was aware that he would get $1 per box in addition? He was not aware of that fact, but he said that -in view of that extra amount he would reduce his tender by $100. The then minister refused to enter into a contract because the tender exceeded the rate of $30 per mile. The result was that the route has not been opened up, although there was an urgent demand for it. I believe the minister has consented to make a special case of that for reasons which I explained to him, namely, bad roads and hilly roads. There are conditions that must be taken into consideration. You cannot have an *absolute rule for all routes because some are much more difficult to travel over than others. I think that the route I referred to is a route of only about 20 or 22 miles and, if not in operation now, will be in operation in a day or two, and the people are very grateful for it. In regard to the closing of offices, a question has arisen as to the closing of the leading office on that particular route. I asked a gentleman who lives close to one of the post offices, because there are three, if it

would inconvenience the (people if that post office were closed. 1 had an apprehension that it would. This gentleman made a careful calculation and he discovered that there Were only a few people who would not be supplied by the rural mail delivery, and for the sake of these people he desired that the office should not be closed at once. The department have very kindly agreed that they will keep that office open until we advise them that the people will be able to get accommodation in one way or another. I think they will he perhaps in a few weeks or few months. At any rate, the people of the country will have to be very considerate and assist the department in bringing about this rural mail delivery if it is going to be a success. I found that the better plan was to have a man from the inspector's office in Toronto go out into the township and assist the people in laying out their routes, have the boxes subscribed for and then call for tenders. They are getting along very well. There is serious complaint about the small consideration that is being allowed the couriers. It is kept down to $30 per mile. I'feel assured that the minister will have to pay a little more liberally at the expiration of four years if he is going to have these couriers extend their contracts. The people must take an interest in it; otherwise the Government would hardly be able to carry it on.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The average length
of the rural mail routes is 25 miles. The rates of $30 per mile is not a hard and fast rule. My hon. friend and I have had to fight about that matter.


David Henderson: We had a good fight too, and I got the best of the hon. gentleman.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, we fought like
friends, I fighting to reduce the price in the interest of the public and my hon. friend fighting to have his electors given a better price. I thought we were doing wha't was reasonable, and I found my hon. friend very reasonable. His case was a special one.


David Henderson: Yes, the mountain road.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We made inquiry
about what my hon. friend told me-his word is as good as his bond-'and we were able to agree in the end. We are trying to keep down the price as much as we can, because the increase in the expenditure for this rural mail delivery is going to be very heavy, and we cut every dollar that we possibly can.


Bowman Brown Law: Are not the mail delivery
routes put up to tender and contract?
Mr. HENDERSON.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does not the minister
find that there are contracts on a lot of routes at a good deal less than $36 per mile.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Very rarely. It is
oftener above. In some cases it is as my hon. friend states. We find that in some cases people will tender at $15 a mile, but that does not happen very often. That usually happens in the case of a man who wants to get- the contract at any price and be able to look at the other man and say: I got the contract over your head. We generally give him the contract, if he is responsible, and he is stuck in the end.


James Joseph Hughes: Have you ever raised the price after the contract has been entered into?


René-Antoine Pelletier: Not as a rule.


James Joseph Hughes: Is the contractor obliged to carry out the contract?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Sometimes his securities will write to the department and say that they do not wish to continue their bonds and we will have endless trouble about it. In some cases we consent to cancel these contracts, but we keep the contractor to his contract as long as we can do so without losing money.


James Joseph Hughes: 
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Call for new tenders
if the amount is over $200.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is only decent that I
should say that the rural mail delivery system has worked remarkably well wherever it has been tried. There are little troubles sometimes, and the minister is doing the best he can to overcome them. All these little things will arise, and if members who talk about them will look into the matter, they will find they can overcome them. I think the service is getting on remarkably well considering the time it has been in existence.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am glad to hear
that, and I think there is occasion to pay a compliment to the very good man that we have at the head of the branch and who is doing his work well.


William Chisholm: What
has been the fate of the application made for a rural mail delivery service between Merigoniish and Malignant Cove, and why has no contract been entered into for the carrying of the mail there?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The superintendent
of the branch tells me that the route is so long that it would be difficult to have the contract carried out unless the contractor travelled at night.


William Chisholm: Has any contract
been entered into for the carrying of the mail between Merigonish and Malignant Cove, if so, what is the amount, and who is the tenderer?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not able to give my hon. friend that information at the present moment. The superintendent will have to look into the matter, and I will have the information for my hon. friend at the next sitting.


William Chisholm: Perhaps, in view of
the remark which the Postmaster General has made, I might get the information if I called at the department on some later occasion?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Certainly.


William Chisholm: Tenders were called
some time ago and the contract was not awarded. I was given to understand that it was under consideration for some reason. Why has the contract not been awarded?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend will
be *welcomed by Mr. Bolduc, the head of the branch, if the contract has been awarded. If the contract has not been awarded, the policy of the department is to keep these matters secret until the contract has been awarded.


William Chisholm: May I ask the minister if he is going to cut this route into two?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We will have to give the hon. gentleman the information.


William John Macdonald: With reference to
that particular mail route, a proposition was made to divide the route as it at present exists between Merigondsh and Malignant Cove for the purpose of rural mail delivery at a place called Lismore ot Knoydart. I would like if the minister would give the information to my hon. friend from Antigonish, and in this way advise me in regard to this particular phase of it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, when the matter is closed un, the superintendent of the branch will give the information to the hon. member for Pictou as well as the hon. member for Antigonish.


Charles Murphy: As the superintendent
is here, perhaps my hon. friend could inform me as to the cause of the delay in putting into operation the rural mail service between Daniston and the city of Ottawa, in the county of Russell, i understand that the contracts were received nearly two months ago, that everything was regular and that the people were.given to understand that the route would be put into operation at an early date. That has
not been done. Could the minister give me the reason?
Mr. PELLETIER [DOT] The superintendent informs me it is because the tenders are too high.


Charles Murphy: Will new tenders be
invited?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: In such cases the inspector is entrusted with the task of trying to find, either from the men who have tendered or from somebody else, somebody who will take the contract at a lower price. The policy of the department is to write the local inspector, who then tries to get a price which the department can pay.


Charles Murphy: I am glad to get this explanation from my hon. friend, because a great many people in my constituency are under the impression that the gentleman who was my oponent in the last election was the cause of the delay. I am glad to find that their suspicions are unfounded.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for Russell should not complain, because his county has been well treated.


Charles Murphy: I have no complaint in this regard.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for
Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has referred to Colonel Bourke, who was dismissed. It is true that I received a recommendation of Colonel Bourke from the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes), and I put this recommendation before the member for the county (Mr. Lamarche). The hon. member for the county told me that to his personal knowledge this gentleman had taken an active part in politics. It is a well-known rule, adopted by both parties, that when an hon. member says that to his personal knowledge this has been done, his -word is accepted. I have followed that rule in this case.


Charles Marcil: Last night I made a few allusions to dismissals in my county. I did not ask for any mercy for any of them. They have taken their medicine as best they could. I would like the hon. minister, however, to look into one case, that of a woman who was dismissed, Madame Mar-cotte, of Nouvelle West, Bonaventure. She is a deserving woman with a large family, and has kept this office for a number of years. It was formerly held by her husband.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The deputy minister is making a note of it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In regard to Colonel Bourke, the minister says that the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) in-

sisted on the dismissal of Colonel Bourke, on the ground that he had personal knowledge of his admixture in politics. When .stating the case this afternoon, I forgot to read a letter from the hon Minister of Militia, under date of July 18, 1912. This is the letter:
My Dear Colleague,-I am in receipt of a communication from Colonel L. P. H. Bourke, -commanding the 80th Nicolet Regiment in which he states that some person is working to have him removed from his position as railway mail clerk, on the ground that he took an active part in politics.
I have made inquiry and find that this officer has not taken any part in politics, and I would respectfully request that, before he is dismissed from his position as a railway mail clerk, full inquiry should be made in connection with the matter.
I may say that so far as his military record is concerned, it is of the best.
Please have a full inquiry made into this matter, and oblige.
Faithfully,
(Sgd.) Bam. Hughes.
I do not know whether an investigation was held.. Colonel Bourke says that there was no investigation; but Mr. Lamarche, who ran as a Nationalist candidate in the .county of Nicolet, exacted from the hon. Postmaster General that this gentleman should be dismissed, in- spite of the recommendation of the hon. Minister of Militia. I leave the people to judge of the facts.


John Howard Sinclair: In regard to the rural mail routes, it is pretty clear that the present system is not suitable in the case of long routes. Some new system ought to be adopted that will give better service in localities of that character. They are generally localities which have not the ad-wantage of railway communication. As the -minister is anxious to do his best for the -country districts, I would suggest to him the importance of providing that automobiles should be used on these long routes. The post offices might be put a little closer together than they are in some places; and, by the use of automobiles, parties living a long distance from the railways would have the advantage of quick delivery of their mail. I have a number of such cases in my own constituency. There is one case where the mail has to be carried from the station of Heatherton to the town of Canso, .a distance of sixty miles. There are other cases, such as from Antigonish to Sherbrooke, a distance of forty miles, and from Antigonish to Isaacs harbour, also about forty miles. These are very good roads; and in the summer season the trip could be made in two or three hours with an automobile, whereas by the slow coach service which we have at the present time *delay occurs, and the people on these routes Mr. LEMIEUX.	i
do not get their mail from Halifax until late in the night or perhaps the next morning. In the winter season, there might be difficulty about using' automobiles; but I think, with a little extra amount put in the estimates for accommodating these places, the hon. minister could do a great deal towards improving the service.


Mr. HAZEN:: How would automobiles do in the winter season?


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that automobiles are run successfully through the snow in many cases; and, in a winter like the last one, I do not think there would be any trouble. Horses could be used in the winter season, if necessary. Livery men find plenty of use for their horses in the summer, but it would suit them very well if we used automobiles in the summer and horses in the winter, because that is the time when they have little use for their horses for other purposes.
I wish to protest against the hon. minister assuming the right, as I understand he does, to cancel mail contracts. I submit that he should not cancel a mail contract that has been obtained through fair competition in the open market. If a contract has been obtained by political favour, through the recommendation of some politician, I would have no objection to the minister cancelling it if he sees fit. That, however, is not the kind of case to which I refer. I refer to cases wjhere advertisements are placed in the newspapers; where tenders are asked for; where a number of people submit tenders and where the lowest tenderer secures the contract. After having secured the contract, he goes to a great deal of expense in order to carry it out properly. He has to obtain horses and coaches; he has to find bondsmen that he wiil carry out his contract for four years. The contract is signed. An election comes along and the administration is changed. A new Postmaster General takes the place of the old one; and he assumes the right to cancel the contract, and turns the man adrift. This man accordingly loses a large amount of money. I have a case of this kind in my mind. I understand the minister has disregarded these contracts altogether. A number of cases have occurred throughout this country in which that has been done. Questions have been asked in the House during the present session, and I was very much surprised to hear the hon. minister give the reason that the contracts contain a clause that enables the Postmaster General to cancel it when he sees fit. Everybody knows that that is an ordinary clause in Government contracts. I suppose my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) does^ not make a single contract for the erection of a public building, or a wharf, or a breakwater anywhere in Canada without insert-

mg a clause in it, that by notice he will have the right to cancel it, and that the contractor will have no right to damages. It is not intended that a minister should enforce a provision of that kind for political purposes.
Everybody knows that Parliament has very large	powers.	We	have the
power to take the property of John Smith and turn it	over to John
Brown. But does the minister say that because he has the power to take a contract away from a man who has obtained it honestly and in open competition, that he ought to do it ? I say he ought not to do it. The case I refer to is the contract of .Mr. Matthew McGrath, who was the contractor for carrying the mails from Sherbrooke to Sheet Harbour, a distance of eighty or ninety miles-a very large contract. I asked the question in this House recently why this contract was cancelled, and this is the answer I received from the minister:
Mr. McGrath was paid $3,334 per annum, and his contract was not cancelled. It contained a clause that it should be terminated by giving three months' notice. This notice was given and tenders were invited.
The statement that a contract was not cancelled was a quibble. The contract was cancelled. This contract was formally entered into with Mr. McGrath, and Mr. McGrath furnished his horses and coaches to perform the service. And, so far as I know, no complaint was made about the service.^ He furnished sureties, and no complaint was made about these. But the minister had the power to cancel the contract, and he cancelled it. The same reason has been given to other hon. gentlemen who have inquired with regard to other similar cases. Why did the Postmaster General cancel the contract in this case, ? He did not save anything for the department by doing it. As a matter of fact, he told me on the same occasion that he had let the contract to a man named Cameron, a very active political friend of his own, at about fifty dollars more than he was paying Mr. McGrath. The service is not performed any better, and Mr. McGrath has been put to very great expense and loss, and he seems to have no redress. And all this, forsooth, because he was suspected by some people of having favoured the Liberal party, although he himself claims, I believe, that he is a supporter of the Postmaster General. This is only one case; I understand there are hundreds of such cases since the change of Government. This is not a case of a post office. A post office is supposed to be a gift of the Government, and if this Government is disposed to embark on the	spoils	system	and take	awayfrom	the	person	who	holds	it, a
post office given by a previous Government, I have no complaint to make; they will have to justify that before the country. But this is a different case. We ought to respect the sanctity of a bargain. The hon. gentleman has appealed to our sense of justice to-night. When he found a contract in his department regularly entered into, he says by his predecessor, he did not cancel it. He was very careful. He went to the Justice Department and got an answer from that department that enabled him to continue that contract. Why does he not go to the Justice Department in the case of poor mail carriers who are Liberals, and who got their contracts honestly? Instead of doing that, he runs his pen through their contracts and turns these men over to the wolves. That is the justice people get from the present Postmaster General.
Mr. JAS. ARTHURS (Parry Sound): The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) seems to have quite a complaint against the Postmaster General, and he is supported by the hon. member for Rouville. I have a case in my riding where, under the late Postmaster General, a man was awarded a contract which was regularly entered into, and on eight hours' notice he was told by the department that his contract could not be carried out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where was that?


Mr. ARTHURS:: Between Powassan and Nipissing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What year?


James Arthurs: In 1909 or 1910.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the hon. member
say that that contract was obtained by public tender?


James Arthurs: Absolutely, and after
public advertisement. And this man had absolutely no redress. I brought the matter before the former Postmaster General, and there was no redress.


John Howard Sinclair: What was the amount?


James Arthurs: It was $500, or $580; I could not say exactly. The man had gone to the expense of procuring horses and rigs for the service. So, we see that these matters are not confined to one side o'f the House. In the case brought forward by the hon. member for Guysborough, the man had three months' notice while this man had but one-third of one day.


John Howard Sinclair: The non. gentleman
agrees with me that the system is wrong, and he should not support the present Postmaster General-


James Arthurs: It is not so much wrong now as it was before.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Fawns contract,

I may point out, did not contain the three months' clause, and so the cases which the hon. member for Guysborough seeks to compare are not at all similar.


William Manley German: I
asked the hon. Postmaster General a question with regard to the contract concerning stamp-vending machines to which he has referred. I have looked [DOT]over the copy of the contract made in 1911, and also the supplementary contract of 1913, and I really cannot see anything in the contract of 1911 which a minister of the Crown should not have signed. There is nothing in the contract derogatory to the Government or to the minister- nothing which the department should not have executed. It is a perfectly good contract so far as the department is concerned. The Postmaster General must remember that these stamp-vending machines are expensive machines, and the licensee could not afford to put them out for public use under the terms of any contract which did not extend over a number of years. I know the machines, and I knew when the contract was entered into, and a good many of the circumstances surrounding it, though I had no interest in the licensee nor in any part of the proceedings. But I knew proceedings were going on, and knew long before they were begun that they were to be begun. There is nothing in this contract binding on the Government except to pay to the licensee the same percentage on the sale of postage stamps that is paid to every postmaster or vendor of postage stamps, and that is two per cent.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We pay li per cent
and li per cent in some instances.


William Manley German: And you pay 2 per cent in some instances. In this instance you pay 2 per cent, and I think it is not an unreasonable percentage. It does not make any difference whether or not the hon. member for Rouville knew what the contract was, or whether or not he signed it. I am prepared to say there is nothing in the contract making it one that should not have been signed by the minister.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Does my hon. friend think that any contractor should have the right to put any number of these boxes at any place of his own choice, or does he think tiie department should have something to say about it?


William Manley German: I think that under this contract the department has something to say about where the boxes shall be placed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Under the amended
contract.	,


William Manley German: Under the original contract as well, I think. However, what-Mr. PELLETIER.
ever may be the legal aspect of the first contract, the hon. minister himself has recognized the original contract, having signed this supplementary contract with the second company. If he has modified and changed the original contract so as to make it more in the interests of the public and more in the interests of the department, I am quite satisfied. Has the licensee substantially fulfilled the terms of the contract of 1911?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I refused to grant
the contract until the amendments were [DOT]accepted by the company. There were months of discussion before we could bring them to agree to our amendment, so that they have not yet begun to erect the pillars.


William Manley German: That is what I am coming to. As I have said, I do not care whether the contract is good or bad; so far as that is concerned, the hon. minister has recognized the contract by his supplementary agreement. In the original contract the first clause provided that if during the first period of ten years the contract were substantially fulfilled it could be continued for another period of ten years. The only change my hon. friend made so far as that clause is concerned was to substitute the word ' properly ' for the word ' substantially ' in the seventh line. As a matter of law I cannot see the distinction between the words ' substantially fulfilled ' and ' properly fulfilled.' If the terms of the contract are substantially fulfilled, they are properly fulfilled, and if they are properly fulfilled they are surely substantially fulfilled. Irrespective of that, however, what I desire to ask now is whether up to the present moment the terms of this contract have been substantially or properly fulfilled?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: JSIothing has been
done.	..


William Manley German: None of the machines
have been located or installed?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No.


William Manley German: Then does my hop.
friend think that this contract is binding for the full period of ten years, if for two years of that period nothing has been done? This contract was entered into on May 20, 1911, and up to the present time nothing has been done. I would suppose, therefore, as a matter of legal construction, that the department could now cancel this contract. I am rather inclined to think that if my hon. friend would obtain the opinion of the Justice Department, he would be told that if he desired to do so he could now cancel this contract. It really does not make any difference whether it is cancelled or not, unless the department wants

to enter into a contract with somebody else. I cannot quite understand why my hon. friend is so greatly disturbed over this contract, which he says was entered into for a period of twenty years, and which in his opinion is a very bad contract, when he now admits that the licensee, for a period of two years, has done absolutely nothing.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not read the
contract as the hon. member for Welland does. Under this contract there is extended to this company, the privilege of selling stamps. There is no clause in the contract obliging these people to begin the sale of the stamps at any particular time. The privilege is extended to them for a period of twenty years, but they are not bound to commence operations now or a month or in a year. The fact that two years have elapsed and nothing has been done simply means to my mind that two years of the time during which the privi

lege is extended to them has gone. My hon. friend says that, nothing having been done, we could cancel the contract. I want to be understood as saying that nothing has been done so far as locating these pillars in the street is concerned, but these people have told us that they have spent thousands of dollars completing their organization for this work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For Canada?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: So I am told.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Surely not; they have
not erected one box.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They have represented to us that it would be breaking faith tq repudiate this contract now, because they have invested so much money in it. They are responsible and trustworthy people, and they told me in the presence of my deputy minister, and I think some of my colleagues in the Government, that they had made this large outlay.


William John Macdonald: What for?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I understand that
they have paid $100,000 to Miss Fawns.


William John Macdonald: That has nothing
to do with it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: These people, relying on the fact that this was a contract binding on the Government, have made certain expenditures. My hon. friend from Welland, whose legal opinion I respect very much, has joined the hon. member for Rouville in saying that this contract could be repudiated now. That may be all right, but we have the opinion of the Department of Justice, and besides, prominent lawyers in Toronto, including Mr. Lash, have been consulted.


William Manley German: This contract or license stands exactly in the same position as a contract entered into between two people with an indeterminate term. You have given a license to the licensee to do a certain thing within ten years, if they choose to do it. If they do nothing for two or three years and the department wishes to* compel them to go on and do what they should under that license to keep it alive, then I submit, as a matter of law, you can make time of the essence of the contract by giving them notice that they must go on and exercise their right under that license or you will terminate it. You would have to give them notice that they must proceed under that license to do what they are desired to or you will terminate the license and I believe that is what the Justice Department would advise you.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member
will appreciate the fact that I myself took that position. In order to have the opinion of the Justice Department I wrote to the Minister of Justice on February 10 Jast, and I said:
You will please find enclosed copy of a contract entered into on the eve of the last general election by this department and one Miss Fawns. The fact that this contract was in existence was only brought to my knowledge a few weeks ago. It appears that Miss Fawns has transferred said contract and the transferee now wants it to be put into execution. I am afraid I cannot take the responsibility of letting this contract go into operation without having the opinion of the Department of Justice as to its legality. As you will see, the contract on its face looks like a kind of license for selling stamps, but it is much more comprehensive and it creates a monopoly, which, I think, is very much against the public interest. In the first place, it is a twenty year contract, and it is signed bv the deputy minister of this department without the authority of an Order in Council. We never sign contracts in this department for more than four years. I do not see any authority for binding the department for twenty years without, at least, authority of an Order in Council. It is true that the first clause says that the contract is only for ten years, but it states that if the contract has been ' substantially' fulfilled it is to be extended for a further period of ten years. The words ' substantially fulfilled' are not those which the department has been using; our contracts always say they must be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Postmaster General.
I then go into all the particulars of the objections I have to the contract and ask the opinion of the Justice Department whether this contract, signed without the authority of an Order in Council, is binding on me. The answer which I got from the Justice Department and which I read fully this afternoon, contains the sentence: I am unable to find any clear ground on which the contract eould be repudiated.


William Manley German: Quite so, and I quite
agree to that. That is not the point I am urging. I feel quite in accord with the Justice Department on that point as to the law, the department is bound. The point I am urging is that the department can now, by reason of the non-performance on the part of the licensees of their part of the contract up to this date, notify the licensees that they must immediately proceed to carry out the terms of that agreement or you will cancel the license after a certain specified time, say the end of this year, give them a reasonable time to carry out the terms of the agreement and if they da not do so you can cancel it. As I have said, under a contract in which there is no time fixed for execution, you can make time of the essence of a contract by notice and so you can give notice here.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not disagree
with my hon. friend in this respect. When this matter came up, not being able'to repudiate the contract, I would have given; 'them .notice but my hon. friend may be quite sure that these people, who think that this is a profitable contract, would have set to work; they have been after us. since last, December or January asking us to allow them to begin their work.


William Manley German: Let them go on.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We refused until they consented to these changes.


William Manley German: There is nothing in the contract that the department should not carry out; it is a perfectly good contract.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is something in it so bad that the hon. member for Rou-ville repudiated Dr. Coulter in reference to it.


William Manley German: I am not responsible for him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is, as
usual, in a corner, and tries to evade the question. I said that the objection to that was that they had given a private firm the right to advertise on pillar posts with the name of His Majesty and the coat of arms of the King. I think that should not be allowed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We have not done
that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend says
they have not done that. He says he has amended the contract to provide against that contingency. I read this in the amended contract signed May 22, 1913:-
17.	The company agrees with the Postmaster General to give his department free use of spaces as they occur in the pillars for the advertising of Government annuities for a period of five years from date, the use of such Mr. PELLETIER.
vacant spaces by the Postmaster General to continue so long only as it is not required for occupation otherwise in the course of the company's business.
There my hon. friend is at the mercy of the company; so long as the company does not require the space, he can utilize it for the annuities system, but when the company requires that space, then the annuities system has to go.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is your work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not my work, it is yours. Here is a contract that you should have annulled because the company or Miss Fawn did not live up to it. The contract is signed in May, 1911, and in May, 1913, she has done nothing, and you should have annulled the contract and done away with that obnoxious clause. On the contrary, you go to another firm in Toronto, the assignee of Miss Fawn, and insert a clause which you say is a beneficial amendment, but which in my judgment is not, because you are at the mercy of the company. That is the only objection I find to the contract, because if there was anything objectionable in the stamp vending machine I would never have introduced the legislation. This is the objection, I find you give the company the right to advertise where the name of the King is and where his coat of arms is.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend is
wrong. In his contract, whether he signed it or not, in the contract signed when he was Postmaster General,


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the first contract.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, the contract-the company has the right to take the whole of the advertising space for itself. That is the contract made during my hon. friend's time. I have secured an amendment that when some of their space is vacant, instead of putting on some advertisements to fill the gap, they will allow our annuities advertisements to take their place. This means that under the contract as signed in 1911, we had no advertisement at all for our annuities on this stamp-vending machine, while now we have a chance of getting some of our advertisements on it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister let me see the correspondence with the Justice Department?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have read it all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I moved for those
papers.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend moved for the contract, and it was brought down.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If there is nothing confidential in the file I would like to see it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will have it copied
right away, and it will be brought down before the end of the session.


William Manley German: The Postmaster General will admit that clause 17 in his supplementary -contract is a new clause. The original contract had only 16 clauses in it. If he looks at the amended contract he will see added to clause 16:
However, the Postmaster General will not be obliged to accept such transfer,
&c. Then comes clause 17. My hon. friend the Postmaster General lays great stress on that new clause, but he only confirms the agreement of 1911, which he says was entered into without an Order in Council, and as to the legality of which there might be some question and adds a new clause to it. He makes the agreement of 1911, which otherwise might have been open to question, legal and binding by his supplementary agreement of 1913, and he adds to it a clause, for which he takes great credit to himself, giving a certain privilege to the department which did not exist in the agreement of 1911. That provision is for advertising space for Government annuities. How long is that advertising space allowed to the Post Office Department for the purpose of Government annuities? It is only for just so long as the licensee chooses to allow the Government to use it. The company could say, to-morrow we require that space for our own business, and you have to take out your Government annuity advertisement. So the privilege really does not amount to anything.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a gold brick.


William Manley German: No, personally I think
the lease is a perfectly good one, one that the late Government might well have entered into, and one which this Government might well maintain. But I ask the Postmaster General to insist upon the licensee carrying out the terms of this provision and speedily, or, else he should cancel it, which the department can do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend says that the $100,000 has been paid?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Deputy Minister says that it was sold to the company for $100,000.


William Manley German: How much did Miss
Fawns get?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not know.


William Manley German: She should have got the


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It would have to be a pretty fat contract to pay $100,000 for it.
Mr. E.M. MACDONALD (Pictou): It seems to me that this whole business which has taken up so much time to-day, is a tempest
in a teapot. The minister seems to want for some reason to make a great row in regard to a contract which he will not say is a bad one, and which apparently is all right in every particular so far as the interests of this country are concerned. As my hon. friend from Welland has shown in his analysis of the document, there was nothing in this amended proposition that warranted the minister making all the hurrah. There is nothing in it at all. Any one who has followed the discussion closely, as some of us have attempted to do, must realize that the Postmaster General was simply wanting to make a demonstration.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I did not begin this matter.


William John Macdonald: We ought to get back to the consideration of the vote that is before the House. There are other matters of importance in regard to which hon. gentleman on this side, and I assume on the other side, representing different parts of the country, would like to ask questions to obtain information from the minister. My hon. friend has been rather slow in bringing down information during the session. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have repeatedly moved for papers in regard to several matters, and we have had more trouble with the Postmaster General's department in getting them, than with any other department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is the first discussion we have had, and it is at the very end of the session.	^


William John Macdonald: The trouble is that the papers moved for in many cases have not been brought down, and the result is that there is a lot of information that hon. gentlemen would like to have. I myself asked several questions during the session with reference to matters affecting mail routes in my county, and in almost every case the answer was that matter was under consideration. There were cases where contracts were summarily cancelled and given to other men, according to local rumour, at larger amounts than the previous contractors had received. I put a question on the Order Paper as to what had been done in regard to these contracts, but all the Postmaster General said was that the matter was under consideration. He indicates that the whole thing is of such tremendous importance that the policy of the department is against giving information, while he conjures up all kinds of objections to cancelling the contract we have been talking about all this afternoon. He has cancelled contracts upon which people had made expenditures in good faith. He has cancelled them right and left and with an utter disregard for the personal loss involved to the contractors and to the people locally affected.

I attempted a short time ago to get some information in regard to a rural mail route in my constituency. I had thought that while we had not been able to get any information by the ordinary mode of questioning, we would be able to get some to-day when the minister came to deal with his estimates. I would like to call the minister's attention to the contract between Pictou and West Eiver in the county of Pictou, where the man who has had charge of the service for the past ten or twelve years recently received notice two months ago that his contract was cancelled and a new courier appears on the route who is said to be receiving two hundred dollars more than the old courier got. Would the minister tell me what is the position of matters in that regard and whether he has made a new contract ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I could not say offhand.


William John Macdonald: The minister has his officers there.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The superintendent cannot remember without looking at the file. We will take a note of the question.


William John Macdonald: I want to make this complaint that I put a question on the Order Paper a month ago why that mail contract was cancelled, the old contractor sent about his business, and a new contractor put in charge. It was reported locally that he was getting two hundred dollars more than any of the other tenders called for. I put my question on the Order Paper, but I could not get any information from the department. Now, when the estimates are up, my hon. friend tells me that he cannot give me the information.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Was not an answer given ?


William John Macdonald: The answer was that the matter was under the consideration of the department. That is what the minister said in regard to other questions put on the Order Paper this session. My hon. friend is astute in regard to the method of keeping from members of the House information that we have a right to have before the estimates go through. How can we obtain from the Postmaster General an ordinary plain answer to an ordinary question in reference to a matter of detail in his department, and such as is given by any other minister ? The Postmaster General cancels a mail contract to-day and apparently lets the contract to somebody else; yet he cannot tell us anything about it. You see published in the local press months ago a call for tenders for performing a mail service, you see a man performing this mail service, and an hon. gentleman puts a question on the Order Mr. MACDONALD.
Paper: Who is the contractor ? We find that somebody is performing it temporarily, that the whole matter is under the consideration of the department and, that it is impossible to give full information now. That has been my experience of the hon. minister, and I am sorry to find that it is so. Let me ask him another question: What has become of the petition which has been presented for the extension of the rural mail delivery service in the county of Pictou between Pictou and West River station and intermediate points ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend will have an answer to-morrow. I am somewhat surprised at the remarks made by my'hon. friend, that I am not answering questions. I think I have had more questions to answer during the present session than any three or four of my colleagues, and I have answered them to the best of my ability. I have done more than that. When members have not been satisfied with the papers brought down or the answers given and they have written to me and asked for further information, I have given it to them. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) will be my witness to that, as he is one whom I have in mind. I do not like to see the hon. member for Pictou taking that stand, because I am trying to give members the information wllioh I am in duty bound as a member of the Government to give them. There may be one case; such as that to which my hon. friend has referred, where the information has not been given. It is not customary to give information when the matter of a contract is under way.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend has
never answered one question that I have asked him this winter, and I have asked him seven or eight.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am sorry that my
hon. friend has that impression.


William John Macdonald: He will find them
in 'Hansard.'


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Let my hon. friend
ask hon. gentlemen around him if I have refused to give them information. When they have written to me complaining that some information was missing, or that they would like to get more details, I have answered their letters and given them the information. Had the hon. member for Pictou done the same thing, instead of reproaching me in such bitter language here, I am sure that he would have found me ready to do for him that which I have done for others.


William Chisholm: I join
heartily in the protest of the hon. member for Pictou; I think it is most timely and

well deserved. The Postmaster General and his department appear to be very generous and well disposed at this stage of the session, but I can bear testimony to the fact that the reports and returns have not, been brought down as promptly as they should have been. There was an order issued on the 14th February for the production of papers in reference to the_ dismissal of the postmaster at Arisaig, in the county of Anti-gonish, and the appointment of his successor. The correspondence' cannot be very extensive, as the department deals summarily with Grits in my constituency. Why the delay in obeying the order? I saw in perusing some of the returns that came down that a considerable portion of the correspondence had been suppressed. I found references to the complaints that had been made to the secretary of the department addressed to him by persons in the locality demanding dismissal, but the file brought down does not show what the complaints, or who the complainants were. I wrote a personal letter to the minister a few ago, failing to get any satisfaction from the department, to call his attention in which there had been omissions and he was kind enough to acknowledge my letter and state that no doubt the papers in question had been omitted because of an oversight in the department. He gave me the information required in one case, but in the other case he has not given it yet.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Well, I did it in one case anyway.


William Chisholm: Yes, and I am willing to give, credit where credit is due. The trouble is that the Postmaster General and other ministers have got the idea in their heads that they are the rulers of the country and- that pretty nearly half the people who are Liberals can be treated as slaves. They cancel contracts right and left, they .dismiss postmasters and they do not attempt to justify themselves on grounds of decency or morality, but simply say: We are in, you are out, take your medicine like men and do not squeal about it. Let me call the attention of the Postmaster General to the manner in which contracts are awarded. The system by which tenders are called for is the greatest farce in the land. The object of the Postmaster General is to discourage tender from persons who are Liberals. I will call the minister's attention	to the fact in connection with the contract for carrying the	mail	between	Linwood station and Linwood post office.
I find that on the recommendation, not of a sitting member, but of the sub-Tory committee in the district, the contract was given to a new man after the expiration of the then existing contract. It has been the custom in the department that, where
the amount is small, the contract will be renewed at the same figure with the same contractor. It has not been the custom in the past to give it to a new man, even if the amount is under $200, without calling for tenders. In this case no tenders were called for. The man, who was in charge of the patronage, and who is now Senator Girroir, writes to the department in effect as follows:
With regard to that service, I want you to give the contract to one David Delorey instead of to Mr. Decoste, the late contractor.
Against Mr. Decoste a complaint was never made; yet Delorey must get his little job. I find another case on file here, a case of"the service between Beauly and St. Andrews. There were three tenders in this case. I am not complaining of the man who received the contract; I am complaining of the system. The tenders were as follows: A. T. Chisholm, Beauly, $130; Wm. W. Chisholm, Beauly, $135; Michael Punch, Beauly, $140. The department writes virtually suggesting: Do you want us to pass over these tenders-in other words, who are our friends? On the 23rd of May, 1912, the deputy Postmaster General writes to Mr. E. Lavin Girroir:
I have your letter of the 16th instant, in which you ask that the contract for mail service between beauly and St. Andrews may be given to Michael Punch, at $110. Are there any reasons of a public nature which would justify the department in passing over the two lowest tenderers? If so, will you kindly state them. It will be necessary, howeve'r, for Mr. Punch to reduce his tender to $135. Would he be willing to do this.
The letter which Mr. Girroir wrote on May 16, 1912, is as follows:
I received your letter some time ago, advising me of tender with respect to the mail service at Beauly and St. Andrews. I think the lowest amount offered for the service was $140. It would be in the public interest to award the contract to Mr. Michael Punch, one of the tenderers, at that amount. He will do the work for $140.
In the first place, Mr. Michael Punch was not the lowest tenderer; he was the highest. Mr. Girroir writes to the department asking that the contract be given to Mr. Punch, and the department writes, saying: 'Is there any reason of a public nature which would justify the department in doing so.' It suggests that n reason be provided. This is the reason:
I have your letter of the 20th instant, in which you ask me if there are any reasons of a public nature which would justify the department in passing over the two lowest tenders for this route. I have referred this matter to the district committee and they inform me that the lowest tenderer did not give a satisfactory service on another occasion when he held the contract for carrying



the mail in this vicinity and that they are willing to see the contract go to either of the next two. Mr. Punch will reduce his tender to $135.
The man who was the lowest tenderer never had a contract there at all, and never was engaged in any mail service of any kind. When I got this correspondence, I wrote him to ascertain if he had been engaged in a service of this kind and if there were any complaints about him. He stated that he never had a contract in his life for carrying mails and that the statement in Mr. Girroir's letter was absolutely foundationless. I heard ministers state in the House last session that their policy was that, where a member made . a recommendation or where the defeated candidate of his own knowledge vouched for the accuracy of his statement and recommendation, they would act on it. That is very proper. In this ease, the defeated candidate was passed over and the patronage was placed in the hands of a local committee. The defeated candidate was a reputable man who would see that justice was done but that a Tory got preference every time. At the same time he had a sense of justice and he would not be a party to an arrangement of this kind.


John Howard Sinclair: What side is Mr. Punch on?


William Chisholm: He happens to be a Conservative. But I have nothing to say against him on that score or any other. What I am complaining of is that though his tender was the highest, yet the contract was awarded to him on the recommendation of the district committee. The effect of this action will be that no Liberals will put in tenders at all, because the department will award the contract to its own friepds by getting the friend to come down to the amount. It is simply making a farce of the tender system.
I have another case, the contract with respect to the carrying of mails from Anti-gonish to Livingstone Cove. They played fast and loose with that. The lowest tender was several hundred dollars-I speak only from memory here-below that of the man to whom the party wished to give the contract. They sought to find excuses. One was that the man who tendered himself had no real estate in his own name. That is no justification. Although he had no property, he might be an honest, upright man. What are securities for? Why do you ask that a bond be given? This man was ready and willing to give other securities if the ones proposed were not satisfactory; offered unquestionable security and the department were at first disposed that that should be done; but a letter of the kind already referred to was written on June 29, 1912, by Senator Girroir.
Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
I have not heard from you with respect to Livingstone Cove mail service route. You will remember that I wrote you sometime ago expressing a desire that this contract be awarded to Mr. Angus McPherson and alleging that McAdam, the lowest tenderer, was not a man of means and that he would not be in a position to give a good service. 1 am writing the minister to-day about the .matter also, in order that he may gfve it his consideration at the first time with you.
I trust that there will be some way of arranging this contract for McPherson, as the public generally are desirous that he obtain it.
This is addressed to the deputy minister. You will observe that, knowing the department as he did, he has no hesitation in asking a scandalous request, a dishonest suggestion. I asked for the correspondence with respect to the Antigonish and Livingstone's Gove contract. I do not think it has been brought down; but if it has I did not observe the reference to which I find in that letter which has already been read. It only shows that it is unfortunate for even a senator to write on two subjects in the same letter. They held that service up for a year, and they were paying an extra amount to the contractor that they might find an excuse to pass over the lowest tenderer and give the contract to one tendering at a higher rate. I was going to refer to the way the department is imposed upon. It takes information from sources that are absolutely not reliable-intentionally or not it is not for me to say. But I pass that over on this occasion. There is another case I was going to refer to but I will not do so-the Heatherton and Guys-borough contract. This is one of the most scandalous cases of' juggling tenders ever heard of in this country. If this is to be the policy, it simply means that no Liberal will tender. But if it is to be the policy, let us know. Why pretend that you are awarding contracts in an honest and business like way, when, as the correspondence shows, your sole purpose in calling for tenders for mail contracts is to make arrangements for party friends, whilst pretending to do business in an open, fair and business way. It may be charged that sometimes when we were in office we did the same thing, but that is no answer. My experience in that respect has been that where the tenders were at the same figure, or practically at the same figure, the' Liberal was given the preference. But I do not know of a case under the late Government where tenders were called for, and a Conservative happened to be lower than a Liberal, and the contract was awarded to the Liberal. I have had cases in which I thought the contract should be given to the man next to the lowest, not because he was a Liberal-though he happened to be a Liberal, as a matter of fact-but be-

cause it had been represented to me that he was in the business, and was better equipped to ensure a satisfactory service, and I thought that as there was only a small difference between them the lowest should be passed over, yet the late Postmaster General invariably turned me down. Perhaps it was because I had not enough influence; I only give you the facts. But what I protest against is that even in these small contracts tenders are called for and then these tenderers are practically ignored, and the party friends' interest primarily considered.


Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi):: I would like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General the cancelling of the contract in the county of Missis. quoi held by J. C. Beeman, the carrier between St. Armand .station and Fre-lighsburg. I think that perhaps it would be a good thing for the department to state that when calling for tenders that no Liberal need apply. For when a Liberal enters into a contract, even though he goes to great expense in buying horses and rigs and though his contract is for four years, he suddenly finds that contract cancelled. In this case the contract was entered into on the 1st of January, 1912, between the present Postmaster General and Mr. J. C. Beeman. Had the Postmaster General known then th'at Mr. Beeman was a Liberal he would not have given him the contract. But, not knowing it, he gave him the contract as the lowest tenderer. It was not brought to his attention that Mr. Beeman was a Liberal until M.ay. In May of last year there was a provincial election and the postmaster was dismissed and replaced bv a good Conservative, of course. But he did not think this office was large enough for him and so he sought the mail contract also. So, Mr. Beeman was notified that there w*as a complaint against him that he had deposited Liberal campaign literature in the mail boxes. He denied that absolutely.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: But it was a fact.


William Frederic Kay: It is a fact that the literature wTas there, bat it is not a f'act that it was put there by the carrier. It was put there by friends of the man who wished to get his job. I desire to read to the committee the letter which, I suppose, clinched the matter in the mind of the Postmaster General:
Hon. L. P. Pelletier,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Hear Sir,-The inclosed is a sample of the literature which is being inclosed in the daily papers by J. C. Beeman, the courier, mail route No. 1, St. Armand Station, Frelighsburg, and inclosed in . the mail boxes. This parti-
361i
cular one was in J. E. Smith's box on the said route on Monday, May 3rd, 1912. A memorial will follow with interested signed by Conservatives, asking for his immediate removal, for after what has transpired an investigation must be held. For are we Conservatives to he held up to ridicule by the said J. C. Beeman in the employ of the Government, who has and does exhibit to parties *who can he named, a letter written by an official of the postal department, a letter which states John Kraus was the cause of certain trouble in the said routes. Dear Sir, whatever cause or trouble I have given the Postmaster General, I am sorry, but doubt the assertion, for it was merely a matter of justice, or are we to be throttled by certain under officials into silence because as a matter of fact, simply officials who were Liberal henchmen, advocate reciprocity upon all favourable occasions in the past uip to September 21, 1911, then donned the cloak of the gentle lamb that he might vent his wolfish envy in a more spiteful manner, for it is my intention of probing this to the end, and in the meantime the statement of others will follow.
Very sincerely yours,
(Sgd.) John Kraus, Frelighsburg, Que.
It seems to me that that is hardly enough evidence on which to cancel a contract which has run for only four months. But Mr. Pettie wished to get this job, and he signed the affidavit I have read. And there is .also the letter of Mr. France who has had ,a long standing feud with Mr. Beeman. It is perfectly clear in my mind that this Liberal literature which did so much harm to the Conservatives in the last provincial election was placed in the boxes by the Conservative farmers along this route. I would like to have a little explanation from the Postmaster General of this case. Did he have any other evidence than that contained in the papers brought down?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This is the case of a contractor who knows or ought to know that anything that is carried as mail matter ought to be paid for. We have in the record absolute proofs that this carrier took these pamphlets-this Liberal literature of the Queibec Government, as my hon. friend calls it-and distributing it in the boxes as he went along. This was a fraud; it was against all the regulations of the department, and deprived the Government of the legitimate revenue which these papers would give to the department if mailed in the regular way.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: What is the regulation prohibiting that?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The provision that
postage stamps have to be put on these papers.


William Findlay Maclean: If they were not mailed there would be no loss so far as postage! stamps are concerned.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If they are not stamped and mailed, and if the carrier performs the service of distributing them, I think he does not fulfil his duty. He deprives us of the revenue which we would receive if he himself as our contractor did not distribute that literature, which should go through the mails. It. seems to me there cannot be any doubt that the man should have been stopped from doing this and should have been punished for having done it.


William Frederic Kay: Has the hon. member any
further proof of this than that contained in this return?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There were the affidavits.


William Frederic Kay: Affidavits from men who
wanted a job; I do not think they are worth very much.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The fact remains that since the Postmaster General has administered the Post Office Department, he has frequently cancelled mail contracts before the expiration of the period of the contracts, upon the ground of partisanship. I submitted once before in this House-and I think the position taken was -sound-that the Postmaster General has no right to cancel mail contracts because of any act of partisanship on the part of the couriers. I can conceive of some acts on the part of a mail carrier which perhaps might deserve punishment in the nature of the cancellation of his contract, but I [DOT]would like to ask the Postmaster General upon what princinle or upon what theory he iustifies the cancellation of a jnail contract merely because the carrier is a partisan? Why should not the mail contractor *canvass on his mail route during the elee-'tion period, provided it does not interfere with the performance of his duties?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It does interfere with his duties.


William Findlay Maclean: He secures that contract by public tender; he is under bonds to perform his duties under that contract, and that is all this country should require of him. The Government of Canada should not expect a man to refrain from active participation in any work on behalf of his political party merely because he has been successful in securing a mail contract. I do not know whether this ever occurred under the predecessors of hon. gentlemen opposite; I trust it never did, but if so, it deserves condemnation as strongly as the same course does to-day. Of all the many things done by hon. gentlemen opposite since they came into power which were unjustifiable and censurable, I think the cancellation of mail contracts upon charges of partisanship is most unjustifi-Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
able, and deserving of the severest censure of this House. I am not going to discuss any particular cases in my province, but many instances have come to my attention where contracts have been cancelled on the flimsiest evidences of partisanship. I take the ground that even if the mail contractor was as partisan as the hon. Postmaster General himself, that affords no reason for the cancellation of his contract.


John Howard Sinclair: It appears that the
Postmaster General has no reply to make to this charge, and we have to assume that it is to he the policy of his department. If it is to be the policy of his department, then it is useless for a Liberal to tender for a mail contract in this country while the hon. gentleman is in charge of the department.


John Hampden Burnham: In my county the
Liberals have almost entirely monopolized the new contracts.


John Howard Sinclair: a thing should not be done, and it is a disgrace to the department and the minister that he permits such things to be done in the Post Office Department.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: I shall not find any particular fault with the Postmaster General for the dismissals in the constituency of Humboldt, because I know there have been a certain number of them, and I would not undertake to say in all cases that if political partisanship is a fault that is deserving of the penalty of dismissal, some of those dismissed were not rightly dismissed. My complaint is with reference to the way in which the post office service at a particular point in that constituency which I have the honour to represent was held up for practically a whole year awaiting the decision and the redecision of the defeated candidate in that constituency in the recent election as to who should be appointed to fill the vacancy as postmaster. I refer to the case of the village of Wakaw, a new village on a branch line of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Young to Prince Albert. The steel was laid into this point some time in the fall of 1911 and immediately a small village sprang up, as they do in the West very quickly. The old post office was some three-quarters of a mile away. It became necessary at once, as the former postmaster had a business at the point where he was, that the post office should be removed for the convenience of the tillage. The matter was brought to the attention of the department, according to a file which was brought down in the Senate pursuant to an order dated February of this year:
Fo.r a return of all papers, telegrams, petitions, letters and other documents in any way-referring to the appointing of Mr. McCloskey as postmaster at Wakaw, Sask.
In February of last year a widow woman supporting herself by keeping a boarding house or restaurant in the village applied for the position of postmistress, and she accompanied the request with a petition signed by all the citizens of the village that she should be appointed. The matter was referred to the defeated candidate at the last election, Mr. Hearn, and he recommended this woman's appointment as postmistress. I have no fault to find with the course of the department in referring this recommendation to the defeated candidate, I understand that is the recognized practice, but I do find this fault that to suit the views and change of views of the defeated candidate, the public service in this particular village was a disgrace for the whole of last year, the service was absolutely unsatisfactory from every standpoint to the citizens, and, notwithstanding protest after protest which was made to Mr. SINCLAIR.
the department over the delay in the change of the post office and the appointment of a postmaster, and with reference to the character of the person to be appointed, the minister deliberately awaited the pleasure and the will of the defeated candidate and kept the people at this point with the most inefficient and inadequate service through the whole of 1912. As I say, in February, the petition of the citizens to have this woman appointed, was signed, and in April-I suppose the department had inquired whether this would be a proper appointment or not- Mr. Hearn wrote to the department that this woman should be appointed. Later in April, Mr. Hearn changed his recommendation, and recommended that a man by the name of McCloskey, who at the time was teaching a school a few miles from the village, should be appointed, the understanding being that Mr. McCloskey was likely to move into the village. Why that change of view on the part of Mr. Hearn, the defeated candidate, I do not know. It must surely have been represented to Mr. Hearn that Mr. McCloskey had been a faithful supporter of his in the election of 1911. I do not know what the reasons were, but I do not think I am far afield in supposing that that was the motive which induced him to change his recommendation. In May, immediately following Mr. Hearn's recommendation, the citizens of Wakaw became aware that that recommendation had been made, and the board of trade sent a strong protest to the department against Mr. McCloskey's appointment on the ground that he was not a fit person to hold the position of postmaster of the village; certain allegations of improper conduct, while he was acting in the capacity of teacher in a school in the vicinity having been made. The deputy took the proper step of wiring to the inspector to suspend Mr. MoClos-key's appointment until the protest of the board of trade had been given proper consideration, and an investigation had been held. On the 29th of May, the department wrote to Mr. Hearn, the defeated candidate, informing him of the protest of the board of trade against Mr. McCloskey's appointment, and asking him to further advise them. In the same month, not only the board of trade, but the citizens generally of Wakaw, sent a petition asking to have Mr. MoCloskey's appointment cancelled. Seventy-eight people signed the petition, everyone of whom was sworn in the presence of a notary in the village. During the same month, the department received a letter from the inspector at Saskatoon, advising them that he had received serious complaints against Mr. McCloskey to the effect that he was not a fit person for the position. The depart-

ment then notified Mr. Hearn of the petition and protest, and sent him the inspector's report on the matter. After the protest against Mr. McCloskey's appointment had been referred to Mr. Hearn for consideration and further advice, no reply came from Mr. Hearn. In the month of June he was notified that the board of trade had again petitioned for the appointment of this woman as postmistress, instead of Mr. McCloskey as postmaster. In July the department wrote to Mr. Hearn asking him for further advice as to Mr. McCloskey. In August the member for Prince Albert (Mr. McKay) became somewhat interested, because Wakaw is in the northwest comer of the constituency adjoining that of my hon. friend from Prince Albert, and I think my hon. friend is fairly well acquainted with the people of the village. He wrote to the department asking why Mr. McCloskey had not been appointed. This was in August. The department replied to the hon. member for Prince Albert informing him that they had received complaints against Mr. MoClos-key,' that he was not a fit person to hold the position of postmaster, and giving him details of the complaints. On the 21st ol August, the department again wrote to Mr. Hearn. You can see, Mr. Chairman, that during all the summer months of last year, the department refused to act upon the recommendation of the board of trade or upon the petition sent by practically every citizen in this village in favour of the appointment of a proper person to act as postmistress. They allowed the post office service to be utterly demoralized at that point, waiting month after month for the decision of the defeated candidate as to whether or not he still wished to recommend Mt. McCloskey for the position. In the latter part of August, the department again wrote to Mr. Hearn regarding the appointment, and he replied stating that he had consulted with the member for Prince Albert and asking the department, notwithstanding the complaints that had been entered against McCloskey, to go on and make the appointment. Then, early in September, the department wrote to the post office inspector Instructing him to carry out Mr. McCloskey's appointment and to install him as postmaster in the village, and I believe the inspector carried out those instructions and Mr. McCloskey was appointed. Later in the month, further serious complaints having been made to the inspector at Saskatoon, with reference to the character of this man who was appointed, that inspector was sent to inquire into the complaints, and he made a report to the effect that the people had absolutely no confidence in Mr. McCloskey as a person to hold the office. As a matter of fact, a
great many of the citizens were compelled to change their post office address, and to have their mail sent by special couriers to outlying post offices, rather than trust their mail in the hands of this person against whom the department had been warned, not only by the people of the village, but by the inspector who had investigated the matter on the ground, and who had found out for himself that the complaints were well founded. During this same month, the residents of the village again protested to the department against McCloskey's appointment, and on the 23rd of October, the assistant deputy postmaster general wrote on behalf of the department to Mr. Hearn telling him of the continued serious complaints against the postmaster. In November, Mr. Hearn wrote to the department confirming his former recommendation of Mr. McCloskey, and expressing the hope that no change would be made. That was a strange situation, Mr Chairman, that the people of that district should be compelled to accept the recommendation of the defeated candidate of Humboldt, a man who was something like 1,000 votes short of saving his deposit at the last election, should be compelled to accept the appointment of a man as to whose suitability he could not very well know personally, or only to a limited extent. I say it was a strange thing that his recommendation should be taken against the repeated protests of the citizens of the village and of the inspector himself, who, I assume, is no partisan, and who gave the department the results of his impartial investigation into the mat-
Fortunately for the people, the appointment did not last very long. This postmaster was arrested in the month of December on the streets for disorderly conduct, conduct unbecoming to any decent citizen, and he was brought before the magistrate in the village and fined. Other serious charges were laid against him and amongst them was the charge of a patron of the office who brought a certain sum of money to the post office, gave it into the hands of this gentleman, who claimed he had no money orders in his possession, and gave his own personal cheque which was worthless to this individual with the result that the patron of the office was defrauded by this postmaster out of $88 which he desired to send to Winnipeg or some other place to meet some business liability.


John Howard Sinclair: Does he still hold the office?	*


David Bradley Neely: He held the office until he voluntarily skipped out of the country when charges were preferred against him, one by his wife of assault and the other by the clergyman of the church which he attended, when he did attend church, also

of assault. With these charges pending against him and the mounted police on the way to secure his person, this worthy appointee, recommended by my opponent in the last election, saw fit to decamp leaving the post office to take care of itself.
I have no fault to find with the Postmaster General for accepting, or appealing to the defeated candidate in Humboldt for his advice in reference to an appointment of this sort. But surely the Postmaster General should not have put the citizens of this village to the inconvenience of a practical suspension of the postal service for a whole year awaiting the pleasure of this gentleman, or until he should make up his mind who was the proper person to fill the office, but the appointment should have been made immediately. In the second place, I do not think that the advice of the defeated candidate or anybody else should induce the Postmaster General to make an appointment when charges as serious as those which were made against this individual are laid before a minister because that is the time when the Postmaster General ought to assert his authority and say to the defeated candidate or to the member representing the constituency: We cannot appoint that man, our information is that he is not a fit and proper person and therefore we would ask you to recommend somebody else. Notwithstanding this information, these reports from the inspector and these protests from other citizens of the village, the Postmaster General appoints this man. The next thing after his appointment that we know is that he is arrested on the street, fined for disorderly conduct and, very serious charges having been made against him, he finds it necessary to give up his office and skip out of the country so as to elude the mounted police who are on his trail, and who are endeavouring to secure his person and make him suffer the penalty of his misdeeds. That is the case which has been brought to my attention by the people of the district repeatedly and I have awaited this opportunity to bring the matter before the Postmaster General. Surely the Postmaster General could not have had a matter like that brought to his ersonal attention; otherwise, he would not ave carried out the recommendation of the defeated candidate and appointed a man of this character. Yet, on the other hand,
I maintain that whatever be the practice the department follows in making appointments, it is not fair to the people, it is not fair to the public service, that the people should be deprived of a proper postal service for months and months simply awaiting the pleasure of the man who happened to be the Government candidate in the elections. There is surely no reason why the whole community should suffer the penalty of his delay and inaction in making a proper recommendation to the department.
I have been asked to bring to the atten-
Mr. NEELY.	I
tion of the Postmaster General a case which is of a somewhat different character and one which is outside of my own constituency. I think the Postmaster General as he did _ give this case his personal attention, will recall the case when I tell him that I am referring to the dismissal of a postmaster at Lloydminster which is in the constituency of Battleford. Looking over the return that'was also brought down in the Senate on the 20th February, it seems to me, giving it a cursory examination, that this is one of the most flagrant instances of the abuse of the spoil system that has come to my notice for some considerable time. The postmaster, at Lloydminster, when this Government came into office was Mr. Lyster. The documents in connection with Mr. Lyster's dismissal and the position of the postmaster constitute a very interesting comment on the methods that are evidently being adopted and pursued in the Post Office Department in reference to these dismissals. It appears that a complaint was sent to the Postmaster General some time in October, 1911, that Mr. Lyster was an active partisan, that he should be compelled to resign from his office and that another gentleman should be appointed in his place. This protest was sent to the minister by two gentlemen by the name of Hill and Daly, president and secretary, respectively, of the Lloydminster Conservative Association. In the month of December, these gentlemen wrote again to the Postmaster General asking him that the matter of dismissing Mr. Lyster be left for the time being in abeyance. The reason why the dismissal was to be left in abeyance for some time is given in one of the letters which I find on this file. On the 21st March of last year a Mr. Keith, a barrister of the town of North Battleford, who had been appointed to investigate into charges of partisanship against Mr. Lyster sends the following letter to the department. He had received instructions apparently to investigate these charges and report on them to the Postmaster General. He writes:
I would be obliged if you would favour me with your further instructions in regard to-holding the judicial inquiry as to the charges made against N. S. Lyster, postmaster at Lloydminster. I wrote you some time ago that I had received a letter from the Lloydminster Conservative Association requesting' that the matter be not proceeded with in view of the coming provincial elections, and the association sent me a copy of - the resolution which had already been forwarded to your department.
I am sorry to say that I do not find that resolution on the file, although I have gone through the file pretty thoroughly. Mr. Keith, however, writes that this is the purport of the resolution passed By the Lloydminster Conservative Association that the

suspension of Mr. Lyster be not proceeded with in view of the coining provincial elections. That was written on the 21st of March. Something evidently annoyed the executive of the Lloydminster Conservative Association, because on the 23rd of March, last year, they write to the Postmaster General in a totally different manner, as follows:
Eeferring to our letter of the 16th December, asking that the dismissal of Mr. Lyster be left in abeyance, we would be glad if you could carry out the recommendation of our letter of 27th .November that Mr. Lyster be dismissed and George M. Mayberry appointed in his stead, and that the dismissal be carried out without the formality of an inquiry.
That is a good Tory method. That was the second request for the dismissal of Mr. Lyster. It does not look as if these gentlemen had any serious complaints to make against him. Just as soon as the citizens of Lloydminster heard of what had happened, they sent in a petition, signed by no less than three hundred and fifty of the patrons of this office, protesting against the removal of Mr. Lyster as postmaster, and stating that he had given the very best service to the community. These three hundred and fifty names probably represent the great majority of the supporters of both political parties; certainly they are not confined to supporters of the Liberal party. The gentleman who forwarded this petition, stated that it had not been circulated, but had been left in one place, and that the people had come and signed it voluntarily. Notwithstanding this protest, the defeated candidate in that district, Mr. Howell, who lives in the town of North Battleford, became mixed up in the matter and also urged the dismissal of Mr. Lyster. The Postmaster General, however, did not accept the advice of the Lloydminster Conservative Association, and ordered an investigation. He sent Mr. Keith, a Conservative lawyer of North Battleford, to Lloydminster to conduct the investigation. On the file appears the evidence taken by Mr. Keith at that inquiry and also his recommendation to the department. I just want to show that, even when the Postmaster General undertakes these fair, impartial investigations, he does not always hold himself to be bound by them. This is the letter sent by Mr. Keith to the Postmaster General, summing up the result of his investigation:
As instructed by your department in your letter dated the 20th ultimo, I held an investigation at Lloydminster on the 4th instant as to the charges made against N. C. Lyster of political partisanship during his incumbency of the office of postmaster at Lloydminster.
I interviewed first <Messrs. Hill, Daily, and Farley, who are the officers of the Conservative Association, and obtained from them the names of all witnesses. All of the witnesses
were called, and gave their evidence, and a number of witnesses were also called by the postmaster. I find that there is no foundation for any of the charges made against Mr. Lyster. The only evidence that was brought out that could be considered at all by me, was that of two witnesses, Herbert B. Hall, and Ivan Frederick Crossley, both of whom stated that Mr. Lyster was around the Lloyminster polling booth on the last Dominion election day for part of the day, but neither of them would state that he was taking any part in the election proceedings. As his post office is only two or three doors from the polling booth, it might be quite natural for him to be in the street on a day of excitement such as election day, without taking any part in the election at all. The evidence of Crossley and Hall is, however, contradicted 'by a number of witnesses produced by Mr. Lyster.
I shall read the parts that are pertinent to the point I am making. (Reading):
Mr. Lyster himself, and a number of witnesses, stated in their evidence that Since the appointment of Mr. Lyster as postmaster he has taken no part whatever in politics, and the officers of the Conservative Association, called by me, stated that they had no complaint to make against him.
1 have therefore to report that the charges made against Mr. Lyster are unfounded.
(Sgd.) D. Keith.
One would think that that would satisfy the hon. minister. His own investigator had looked into the matter. He had a protest of three hundred and fifty patrons of the office against the dismissal of this man who was giving excellent public service. It does not satisfy .him, however, because on the same file I find a letter under date of September 26, 1912, addressed -to M. J. Howell, North Battleford, signed, ' Yours faithfully, L. P. Pelletier,' and reading as follows:
Dear Sir,-'With reference to the charges of political partisanship made against the 'postmaster at Lloydminster, I beg to say that nn examination of the evidence taken in this ease shows unmistakably that the postmaster took part in the election.
If the Postmaster General wrere only to furnish me with some light to justify that remarkable conclusion, I am ready to say that he is the greatest genius alive. He appointed a lawyer of his own political faith to make the investigation. And after that gentleman had, by calling witnesses and taking their evidence, come to the donclusion that the man accused had not been guilty of partisanship, the Postmaster General, taking the same evidence, reads it in such a way as to come to the remarkable conclusion that this man had acted as partisan in the election.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Has the hon. gentleman notes of the evidence?


David Bradley Neely: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I thought the hon. gentleman said that I had only the report of Mr. Keith before me.


David Bradley Neely: No, but I say that the man who was on the ground, who went to the office of the Conservative Association before he held the investigation, who heard the officers of that association give evidence and afterwards heard Mr. Lyster's witnesses, though his sympathies were undoubtedly against Mr. Lyster, who supported Mr. Howell, yet being a fair-minded man- and I am glad to say there are fair-minded men among the Conservatives, at any rate among the rank and file-came to the conclusion that the man was not guilty. The Postmaster General takes the same evidence, taken in long hand, I suppose, and by the commissioner himself, and comes to an absolutely different conclusion from that of the man who had made the investigation. After the investigation, Mr. Lyster wrote to the department asking for the result, and it would appear from the letter he sent afterwards that Mr. Leschin-ger told him that the commissioner had absolved him from the charges of partisanship, and naturally Mr. Lyster and his friends, the patrons of the office, came to the conclusion that his appointment would not be cancelled. But they had not counted on the Postmaster General. Reading the same evidence, he comes to a totally different conclusion. I have read that evidence, I hope I was not prejudiced, but I failed to find one line of it that would in any way justify the conclusion that this man had acted as a partisan in the election.
Now, this country paid Mr. Keith for his services$10 a day, with $3 for living allowance and travelling expenses as well. I do not know how many days he consumed in his different trips to make this investigation. I suppose I could find his account on the file or in the department. And that commissioner makes his report that this man had not acted the political partisan in the election; yet at the request of the candidate that he should be dismissed, the Postmaster General takes the commissioner and the commissioner's report and throws them overboard and decides that this postmaster has played the partisan. Why, the whole thing is a travesty upon decency and fair play. Why does not the Postmaster General give up the farce? I am coming to the conclusion that the only reason he appoints these commissioners is to give his friends remuneration of $10 a day, $3 a day living expehses and travelling expenses besides. I said at the outset that I was not complaining of dismissals in my own constituency, though ,a number of dismissals have been made. But let the Postmaster General tell us that the position is that if he finds out that a man has Mr. NEELY.
Liberal leanings in his heart, whether he expresses them or not, he is going to be fired from public office, if that office is in the Post Office Department. If the minister will say that we shall know where we stand and the .country will know what he means and how he intends to carry on his department. Some of the dismissals-and the two I have selected are among the number-are certainly altogether unworthy of a great department of the Government which we have looked upon in the past as probably more free from partisan manipulation and control than any other department of the Government.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: As to the first case the hon. gentleman referred to, I am getting the thick file which we have in the department put in brief form in order to be able to speak about the matter when the supplementary estimates are taken up. As to the postma'stership of Lloydminster, I had enough trouble about that to remember something of it. The view I take is that if the commissioner in holding an investigation does not take down or have taken down, notes of the evidence, his report is binding; I have no power to go over it even if I wanted to,-which I never did. But if evidence has been taken down and is placed before me, and if I am satisfied on reading that evidence that 'the commissioner has made a mistake either in favour of the postmaster or against him, I will give my own judgment on the evidence. The .commissioner is only the representative of the Postmaster General for the purpose of holding an investigation; he is not the man who decides whether the postmaster remains or not; that is the duty of the postmaster himself. I read the evidence in this case, and it seemed to me that the proof had been made. My judgment may be good or it may be bad. But the hon. gentleman is wrong when he says that it suffices for a man to have Liberal leanings to be dismissed. In my own county there are forty-five or fifty postmasters, not ten per cent of whom are Conservatives; and out of the whole, only two have been dismissed for political partisanship.
There have been more in other counties, but this rule which has been followed in my county will show my hon. friends opposite that they should not be surprised when these Liberal postmasters are dismissed.	.
Mr. .1. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville); Mr. Chairman, the Post Office Department has sent Mr. Joseph Barsalou, the mail carrier in the city of St. John, a notice stating that his contract would expire on the 16th of August next, whereas it should not expire before April, 1915. I wish to know from the hon. Postmaster General

what reasons the department can allege for putting an end to this contract?


René-Antoine Pelletier: We shall take note of this, and I shall give my hon. friend that information.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: To the average mind there might appear to be a possibility that the newspaper and other reports have been unfair to the Postmaster General. 1 am always prepared to believe that in the criticism of their actions, public men are not always fairly dealj with, that any slip which they make may be somewhat exaggerated, and that when we get at the real facts they are not so bad as they appear on the surface. The reverse of that situation, however is altogether true in respect of the department of the Postmaster. I have had a great deal to do with the department of the Postmaster .General during the last 12 or 15 years. I never received any favours from that department, and I am not aware that I ever asked for any. I represent a very large constituency, in which there are a great many mail contracts. I am in the presence of the officials of the Postmaster General, and I ask them to speak out if they can say that I ever asked the Postmaster General to do the slightest 'favour to anyone aside from acting on the principle of accepting the lowest tender. The lowest tenderer got the contract every time, and if any gentleman who was tendering made any inquiries with regard to the matter, the invariable answer was: Things are done in an honest way in the Post Office Department; if you are the lowest tenderer you will get the contract. That is the treatment the public would expect to receive at the hands of the Postmaster General. I heard the Postmaster General this afternoon talking about a certain character in ancient history known as Ananias, and he characterized some of his opponents as being connected with that particular sort of humanity. If the hon. Postmaster General exhausted his comparisons, and had nothing left with which he himself could be compared, I would remind him that Ananias left a widow. The Holy Book points out that when Ananias fell dead, his wife came in a few moments afterwards, not knowing that she was a widow. She also lied before the Lord, and she also fell dead. The Postmaster General had better be careful, for, if he does not bear any relationship to 'Ananias, he may be found to have a striking resemblance to his widow. The hon. gentleman talks about trials and about evidence; the idea, he says, asking the Post Office Department or the Postmaster General to be governed by evidence is absurd. The hon. gentleman went back
to the days of Ananias, and there found something upon which to base his comparisons. I wish to refer him and those of his followers who are fond of quoting cases and precedents to the fact that in the old day there was a court in or about the very same place which is brought to the mind by the reference of my hon. friend to ancient history. In that court there sat a distinguished jurist known as Pilate. He found that there was no evidence, but that had nothing to do with his decision, and he reached the conclusion that he had to play to the mob. My hon. friend the Postmaster General finds that there is no evidence; he has got a mob to play to, and he must, Pilate-like, give a decision to please that mob. Not only has he a mob to play to, but invariably he has his Barabas who must be relieved from poverty and put in a position of affluence. So we have the widow of Ananias as to facts, we have the Pilate as to the court and the evidence, we have the same old mob to cater to, and the Barabbas who has to be relieved. I notice that the Postmaster General was delighted this afternoon in the thought that he had discovered something to say against the ex-Postmaster General, ttie bon. member for Rouville. But I am afraid the hon. Postmaster General exploded too soon. He thought he had found something upon which he could create a scandal, or find fault of some substantial character in respect of the ex-Postmaster General, but on the slightest investigation it turns out that there was nothing behind this storm and fury. When I was sitting here and watching the veheminance and eruptions and explosions of the Postmaster General, I could not help thinking of an old Scotch preacher who had come down from the Highlands to visit a small Gaelic-speaking congregation in London. On the way down he stayed with a brother preacher, who asked him to preach in English to his congregation. This he seldom did, and then not very well, but he did not like to refuse, and he accordingly consented. He took as his text: 'The devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour.' In opening his address he said: My brethren, I want to deal with this text under three headings; who the devil he was, where the devil he was going, and wfoat the devil he was roaring at. That is the way I felt about this tremendous explosion of the Postmaster General. What was the trouble, what did he explode about? What did he do about the contract? He had the opportunity, according to tihe best legal opinion we could get here in the House to-night, and it was not contradicted. The hon. member for Welland, who is regarded as a clearheaded lawyer, gave him an opinion on this contract which he accepted. He said

that opinion is good, I have no quarrel with it. It was that he could have cancelled that contract. What did he do? He ratified the contract although he could have cancelled it and he added another clause to it and is willing to carry it forward in its fulness. He says there was a very dangerous clause in it that the contract had to be filled ' substantially ' in order to get an extension for a further period. He changes that, saying it is poor legal phraseology and he says ' properly.' That is the result of this ponderous investigation and the product of the brain of my hon. friend. He said it was a tremendous thing that this country should be submitted to this contract as it passed the hands of the department in the first instance. I was watching him here to-night as I would have watched Pilate of old if I had had an opportunity of watching Pilate when he had given his decision, when he had catered to his mob and satisfied his Barabbas. He had his officials around him and when one basket after another' was placed before him, with the gruesome heads in it, with the blood streaming off them, freezing on the basket, he delighted over them and laughed to his officials: Are we not doing splendidly? That is the. hon. gentleman who is supposed to be representing the King in connection with this contract. I have a copy of the contract here. As I said the other night, the Prime Minister, when he was first returned to power, said that his victory was not a party victory but a national victory.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He meant Nationalist.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That may be. We
would expect the several departments which are under the general control of the Prime Minister to act according to this principle and this extreme bitter partisanship could not be expected. Here we have a contract signed by Mr. Louis Phillipe Pelletier, K.C., Postmaster General of Canada, acting for and on behalf of His Majesty the King. He dismissed this man down in Quebec on no evidence at all. The man was supposed to have carried a newspaper in his pocket and to have passed it to somebody in an election, although of that there is no evidence. He had only an extra judicial oath which is contrary to law, at least in my province, and in spite of that he breaks a solemn contract given for four years. There was not a particle of evidence to show that this man did not do everything he was required to do under the contract which he had entered into after competition and public tender. I ask hon. gentlemen if they are proud of their national victory, proud of being the representatives of the King, when a poor man in this Mr. McKENZIE.
country cannot compete for a contract and perform that contract to the letter, relying on .the principle that the King can do no wrong; but is thrown to the wolves, his	contract is	cancelled
and he has no remedy whatever. The poorest man in the land, when he enters into a contract, has his remedies if that contract is violated. But I submit we are taking cowardly advantage of the name of the King, and, sheltering ourselves behind it, in breaking contracts every day simply to cater to the mob and to make room for a new Barabbas every time. A Pilate is at the head of it all, for the Postmaster General is the guiltiest of the guilty in connection with these matters. He is the Radeliffe of the Tory party; that is giving him a character which he deserves. I have had other cases in my own county, but when I heard of the cases from Antigonish, where tenders were asked for and some of them were 'lower than those which obtained the contracts, and when I find letters going out of the office of the Postmaster General asking some heeler in the county of Antigonish to devise some miserable scheme by which they could outwit the lowest tenderer and give the contract to another, it is so far beyond anything that happened in my county that I am not going to say anything more about it. I am not exaggerating this. The letters were read here to-night, and they are on file. They were most shocking to me, because I never thought that anything could happen in the Post Office Department which would prevent an honest man who put in the lowest tender from getting the contract. We have heard the cases of two men who were turned down, and both of them were lower in their tenders than the men who got the contract, and all by reason of the fact that some Tory heeler in Antigonish wrote to the Postmaster General. What further evidence is required, and what more can we expect? Is there any member who will now write to his constituents and say that the honest, clean thing is being done in the Post Office Department, that if you are the lowest tenderer you will get the contract? There is no hope for that now. What we will have to say is: do not tender at all; or if you do, get into some conniving scheme with' a Tory heeler in order that you may get into this Pilate's court which caters to the mob, and perhaps a Barabbas will get it, and you will get it under him. That is the machinery that is provided now in the Post Office Department. Let us hope that the cancer is confined to this department, and that the Prime Minister will see that the yellow flag is put on the door, and that the people-
1X457

will keep away from that poisonous, pestiferous institution where nothing honest can be done. Let me advise the minister to put the yellow flag there, and to see that the disease does not spread to other departments.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are the
salaries of any of the assistant postmasters in the larger cities, such as Halifax, being increased?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We are trying to fix that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I expect that the hon. gentleman will bring down the complete file relating to this stamp vending machine contract?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The moment the hon. gentleman requested it, I gave orders that it be done.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When may I expect it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: As soon as it is
copied. I have given instructions to have it done without delay.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I expect it on Monday or Tuesday?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Monday.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to see the original contract.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will bring it down.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend from
Richmond wishes an opportunity to bring up one or two cases when the supple-mentaries are considered.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I told him it would
be all right.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions, $1,916,934.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are we to take these
and the Trade and Commerce items on the last page, too?


Mr. PERLEY:: We could leave one item in each, so that any question could be asked by hon. gentlemen later, if they wish.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to bring
up the question of the Paris agency. Is that in the Prime Minister's estimates?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When can I take it up?


Robert Laird Borden: When the supplement-aries come up.


George Halsey Perley: We can let item 168 of
the Mail Subsidies stand.
Steam service between Halifax and Sherbrooke, $2,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister tell
me the ports of call between Halifax and Sherbrooke? .


George Halsey Perley: The ports of call are Port Dufferin and Moser river, in Halifax county and Ecum-Secum, Marie-Joseph, Liscomb and Sonora in Guysborough county.
Steam service from the opening to the^ closing of navigation in 1913, between Pictou, Mulgrave and Cheticamp, $7,500.


William John Macdonald: Who is the contractor?


George Halsey Perley: The contractor is the
same man as last year, Captain W. A. Beattie.


William John Macdonald: What is the cause of the increase?


George Halsey Perley: He gets $7,000 and there is a small service to be performed for $500 between Pictou and Mulgrave calling _ at some of the smaller places. I have forgotten the contractor for this service, but I can get it for my hon. . friend.


William Chisholm: Referring to the larger service to be performed by Captain Beattie, does the boat call at ports in Antigonish?


George Halsey Perley: It makes a round trip
every fortnight between Mulgrave and Pictou, and two round trips each week between Mulgrave and Cheticamp, calling both ways at Port Hastings, Port Hawkes-bury, Port Hood, Margaree harbour, Grand Etang, Eastern harbour and Big Pond, and calling once each week at Pleasant bay.


William Chisholm: Then this boat will
not call at any ports in Antigonish?


William John Macdonald: The places that the minister has named are in Inverness county.


William Chisholm: The boat going from
Pictou to Mulgrave will call, I understand, at several points in Antigonish.


George Halsey Perley: The boat running from
Pictou to Mulgrave calls both ways at Arisag, Georgeville, Cape George, Morristown, Malignant Cove, Livingstone Cove, Ballantyne Cove and Cribbin's Point.


William Chisholm: Why do you reduce
the frequency of calls there?


George Halsey Perley: As I have explained, we are putting on a smaller boat. I am sorry I have not got its itinerary, but my hon. friend can get it in the department. This smaller boat will make trips also from Pictou.


William John Macdonald: Is it a motor boat or a steamer?


George Halsey Perley: It is an auxiliary gasoline schooner.


William Chisholm: I am not complaining of the smaller boat service. I think it is proper, but I do think that once a fortnight is cutting out that shore pretty badly where they have no railway communication. With the increasing revenues of the Government there is no reason why there should not be a boat calling at Arisaig, Cape George, and Morristown once a week. .


George Halsey Perley: We had much trouble arranging this service and thought we could meet the requirements by reducing the number of trips of the large boat and putting on an additional small boat.


William Chisholm: It may be that the
manner in which these harbours were neglected during the last two years has impressed the Government with the difficulty of calling as regularly as the needs of the people require and I suppose that is why this smaller service has been put on. I hope the Government will see that these harbours are dredged and that the boat will be able to call at them regularly.
Steam service between Pictou and Montague and between Charlottetown and Montague, calling at Murray Harbour and Georgetown, $6,900.


George Halsey Perley: This service has been altered a little and the description is not correct. I move that the words ' and between Charlottetown and Montague ' be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Steam service between Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton and Newfoundland, $12,000.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the name of
the steamer that is performing this service and where does she call in Cape Breton?


George Halsey Perley: This service is carried on by the Dominion Coal Company. The steamers start from Montreal and call at Summerside and Charlottetown and in Cape Breton and North Sydney and Sydney.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, I am familiar
with the service.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved second reading of Bill No 231, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When addressing the House on the budget debate, I discussed the question of the small reduction in duties which were made upon raw sugar by reason of the West Indian agreement and the Customs Tariff Act. I stated at that time that it would not assist the consumer to any great extent, because all the sugar refiners in Canada were in the combine. I have since been informed that one refining com-Mr. PERLEY.
pany, the Dominion Sugar Company, Limited, was not actually in the combine. I am told that they sell direct to the retailer. I do not wish to mis-state any position and I take this opportunity of making these remarks.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Bill considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No 204, to amend the Conservation Act/-Mr. Borden.
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the nature of the amendment?	-


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment is merely to the effect that the Bill shall come into force at a date to be fixed by an order clause published in the Canada Gazette. It was thought that some little inconvenience would be occasioned if the Bill came into effect at once. Therefore it was postponed to a date to be fixed.
Amendment read the first and second time, and concurred in.
On motion of Mr. Borden, House adjourned at 1.25 a.m. Saturday.

Saturday, May 81, 1913.