1916-04-10

PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Abstract of Statement of Insurance Companies in Canada for the year ended December 31, 1915.-Mr. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 86, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Explain.


Mr. DOHERTY:: This Bill is introduced at the instance of the Ontario Government. They have by recent legislation modified their system of reformatories, more particularly by establishing institutions known as industrial farms, and the principal purpose of this Bill is to make applicable to those industrial farms the provisions of the Prisons and Reformatories Act. Provision is also made in this Bill for the transfer of prisoners from the jails to the industrial farms. Another provision gives wider powers than they have hitherto enjoyed to the Parole Board, which was established in connection with the reformatories by the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, these powers being with regard to the determination or suspension of indeterminate sentences.


George Perry Graham: A good idea.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 87, to amend the Railway Act.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


Mr. REID:: This Bill is to repeal section 157 of the present Railway Act, which requires that before a railway charter is

granted the plans must be approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals and also by the Board of Railway Commissioners. Mr. Cochrane's Bill to amend the Railway Act, which was introduced in the Senate about two years ago, but not passed, proposed to amend that section and place all these matters entirely under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and that is also the object of the present amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I should like to ask my right hon. friend whether he proposes to make any recommendation with regard to the appointment of one of the counsel who are to assist Commissioners Chief Justice Sir William Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff in the inquiry which they are to undertake.


Wilfrid Laurier: I propose to do so, and will see my right hon. friend about it to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the commissioners are in a position to start the inquiry, as the commission was issued the latter part of last week. If my right hon. friend will let me have the name as soon as possible, I will see that the necessary steps are taken.



INTERCOLONIAL TRAIN DESPATCHERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GAUVREAU:: Can the Acting Minister of Railways tell me if there is any foundation for the report that the train despateher at Riviere du Loup ie to be removed to Levis? The Board of Trade of Riviere du Loup are very anxious to know.


John Dowsley Reid: We are considering the reorganization of the despatching service on the Intercolonial, and that may necessitate taking one or two men away from Riviere du Loup. We intend, however, to keep some despatchers there.



DUTY ON SHELL BOXES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Nearly two weeks ago I asked the Minister of Customs whether
169*	.
shell boxes were entering Canada duty free, and I have received no answer yet.


John Dowsley Reid: We have no information as to shell boxes entering Canada duty free.


George Perry Graham: Maybe they come by Morrisburg:


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: An awful place!



MAIL MATTER FROM THE UNITED STATES CENSORED.

Wilfrid Laurier: Is there any truth in the report that all mail matter coming from the United States to Canada has been ordered to be censored?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The report is true; it has been dope at the request of the Imperial Government.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no objection to submitting the documents, which-are of a confidential and even a secret nature, to the right hon. gentleman for his perusal.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is
great objection to the sacredness of the mails being violated by censorship. I can understand that it is necessary to censor mail matter, if any complaints have been received that secrets have been revealed to the enemies of Canada; but it is difficult. to perceive how any secrets coming n the mail from the United States to Canada can come under the observation of the enemy.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my
right hon. friend will be better able to understand the reasons for the censorship if he will be good enough to look at the documents which we shall be very glad to place at his disposal. I understand that all mail from Great Britain to the United States is censored in the same way at the present time and has been for some time past.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

George Perry Graham: (a) Has the Government, or any department thereof, leased from J. T. Lindsay, of North Bay, any buildings or rooms? If so, (b) for what purposes are the buildings or rooms being used, and (c) what rent is being paid or to be paid?


Mr. BLONDIN:: (a) A one-story building has been rented from Messrs. Lindsay & McCluskey, of North Bay. It is not known

if the " Lindsay " represented is J. T. Lindsay, (b) The building is used as an armoury for " G " Company, 97th Regiment, and " G " Company, 23rd Regiment (Militia), (c) Rent $50 per month, leased for the period of three years.


SIR MAX AIKEN.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Up to date, what is the total amount paid Sir Max Aiken as general representative of Canada at the front?
2.	Of the amount so paid, how much was for travelling expenses, and how much for office staff?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Nothing paid him personally.
2.	Travelling expenses: Nothing; office staff, $9,365.65.


DREDGE PORT NEDSON.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What is the total cost to date of the dredge Port Nelson, including purchase price, towing, charge, pipes, maintenance and repairs?
2.	What quantity of material has been handled by this dredge up to date?


Mr. REID:: 1.	$363,518.87.
2.	Quantity of material handled not measured. The dredge was operated for nine weeks during the season of 1915, improving upper end of deep channel, the excavated material being deposited outside channel limits through pipe lines.


PORT NEDSON DOCK ACCOMMODATION.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	How many square feet of dock space are now available at Port Nelson for sea-going ships, and what has it cost?
2.	How many sets of gates have been built for the dry-dock at Port Nelson, and if more than one set, why?


Mr. REID:: 1.	No dock space is available for deep draught steamships.
2.	One pair of gates has been built. During the absence in Ottawa last spring of the engineer in charge, some work was done on the construction of a pair of gates, which upon his return to Port Nelson he found necessary to remodel.


LIVE STOCK FOR PORT NEDSON.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What quantity of live stock was purchased
by the Government for shipment to Port Nelson?	
2.	How much of it reached there?


Mr. REID:: 1.	In 1913, 14 head of cattle, 20 sheep, 20 pigs; in 1914, 8 horses, 1 cow, 24 small pigs, 14 fowl.
2.	The shipment in 1913 was made on the ss. Cearense which was wrecked. One steer, 10 pigs, and 6 sheep were landed at Port Nelson. All the live stock shipped in 1914 reached Port Nelson.


ARMSTRONG LAKE BRIDGE.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What has the collapse of the bridge at Armstrong lake on the Hudson Bay railway cost the Government up to date?
2.	What is the estimated loss to contractors?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to reimburse the contractors for material and equipment lost by them?
4.	What form of permanent work is designed at this point, and what is the estimated cost?
5.	Has the responsibility for the bridge failure been fixed?


Mr. REID:: 1.	The crossing of Armstrong lake was first constructed as a pile trestle about one thousand feet long, which would eventually be filled in before the decay of the timber. The piles having been improperly driven, the structure collapsed under the test load, and rock filled timber cribs were substituted for the pile structure to secure a temporary crossing. The total cost to the department to date has been $54,000.
2.	No estimate has been made of the loss to contractors.
3.	This will depend upon determination of legal liability if claim is presented.
4.	The permanent crossing will be a rock and gravel fill superposed on present crib structures. It is estimated that a further expenditure of $60,000 will be required to complete the permanent crossing.
5.	Answered by 1 and 3.


QUEBEC JUDGES.
Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	What are the names of the different judges of the province of Quebec?
2.	Where does each of the said judges reside?
3.	What salary does each of the said judges receive?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Court of King's Bench:	Hon. Sir
Horace Archambault, Hon. Norman W. Trenholme, Hon. Joseph Lavergne, Hon. Alexander G. Cross, Hon. L. P. Pelletier, Hon. Henry' G. Carroll.
Superior Court: Hon. Sir F. X. Lemieux, Hon. J. S. Archibald, Hon. Campbell Lane, Hon. J. B. G. Lamothe, Hon. Thomas

Fortin, Hon. L. T. Marechal, Hon. John Dunlop, Hon. Eugene Lafontaine, Hon. Edmund Guertin, Hon. Napoleon Charbon-neau, Hon. Victor Allard, Hon. Louis Coderre, Hon. Charles Archer, Hon. Robert A. E. Greenshields, Hon. L. P. Demers, Hon. L. E. Panneton, Hon. J. E. Robidoux, Hon. F. S. Maclennan, Hon. Wilfrid Mer-cier, Hon. A. A. Bruneau, Hon. Paul G. Martineau, Hon. W. A. Weir, Hon. T. H. Chauvin, Hon. Charles McCorkill, Hon. C. E. Dorion, Hon. Albert Malouin, Hon. L. J. Cannon, Hon. E. J. Flynn, Hon. I. N. Belleau, Hon. L. R. Roy, Hon. F. O. Dugas, Hon. M. F. Hackett, Hon. M. Hutchison, Hon. Arthur Globensky, Hon. J. C. Pouliot, Hon. F. X. Drouin, Hon. J. M. McDougall, Hon. E. Monet, Hon. R. Letellier, Hon. Auguste Tessier, Hon. J. A. Desy, Hon. N. L. Duplessis, His Honour Calixte LeBeuf, His Honour J. D. Purcell, His Honour Aehille Dorion, His Honour J. B. Archam-bault.
2.	The residences of the said judges are fixed by the revised statutes of the province of Quebec, as enacted by chap. 33, sec. 2, 4 George V (1914).
3.	Each of the said judges receives the salary fixed by R.S.C. cap. 138, secs. 8 and 17, as enacted by 4-5 George V, chap. 38, secs. 1 and 4.


BRIGADIER-GENERAL CARSON'S STAFF.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	How many commissioned officers are attached to the office and under the direction of Brigadier-General Carson in London, England?
2.	What are their names and the amount of their pay per month, respectively?
3.	What was the total cost of the maintenance of the office of Brigadier-General Carson up to December 31, 1915?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	One.
2.	Captain Oulster; $202.50 from April 1.
3.	$14,622.


MACHINE GUN SUBSCRIPTIONS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: Is it the policy of the Government to return to any municipality or donor who may desire it, the amount of their subscription for machine guns to the Government?


Robert Laird Borden: I think this
question has already been answered. I will make inquiry, and if it has not already been answered it will be answered on Wednesday.


TRANSPORTATION OF FIRST CONTINGENT.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	How many ships were employed to carry the first contingent of 30,000 men across the Atlantic?
2.	(a) From "whom were these ships chartered, (b) and what did they cost?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Thirty-one ships.
2.	(a) Donaldson Line, Cunard Line, Canadian* Northern, Canadian Pacific, Canada S. S. Co,. Royal Mail Steam Packet, Allan Line, White Star Dominion Line.
(b) $3,363,240.42. These ships were under Admiralty rates and regulations. The cost was largely increased in consequence of having to charter ships some time in advance, in order to secure a sufficient number and to go into consort, under a convoy of war ships, entailing considerable expenditure for demurrage. As these ships all had to go to one port to disembark their troops, this also added to the cost of victualling, as well as further demurrage charges.


INTERIOR TERMINAL ELEVATOR.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce received any petitions from farmers in Southern Alberta asking for the establishment of another internal storage elevator in Alberta?
2.	If so, how many petitions were received, and from what places and organizations?
3.	Is it the intention to establish another internal storage elevator in Alberta?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Petitions received asking for the erection of an interior terminal elevator at Lethbridge, Alberta: P. H. Rice, Rice Malting Co., Winnipeg, August 18, 1913; Jos. P. Tracy, Commissioner of Commerce, Lethbridge, January 16, 1914; J. S. Stewart, M.P.P., Lethbridge, February 5, 1914; J. Hay, Secretary, Board of Trade, Lethbridge, January 31, 1916; Jas. Weir, United Farmers of Alberta, Lethbridge, January 25, 1916; Raley Council, United Farmer's of Alberta, February, 1916; Stavely Council, United Farmers of Alberta, (3 petitions), February, 1916; Cowley Council, United Farmers of Alberta, February, 1916; ..No. 177 Council, United Farmers of Alberta, February, 1916; Mountain Peak Council, United Farmers of Alberta, February, 1916; Barnwell Council, United Farmers of Alberta, February, 1916; Seven Persons Council, United Farmers of Alberta, (7 Farmers), February, 1916; Iron Springs Council,

United Farmers of Alberta, February, 1916; Nobleford Council, United Farmers of Alberta, February, 1916; Masinasin Council, United Farmers of Alberta, (8 farmers signed), February, 1916; Granum Council, United Farmers of Alberta, (67 farmers signed), February, 1916; Bow Island Council, United Farmers of Alberta, (11 farmers signed), March 11, 1916; Summerview Council, United Farmers of Alberta, March, 1916; Coutts Council, United Farmers of Alberta, (50 farmers signed), March, 1916; Cardiston Council, United Farmers of A1

berta, (60 farmers signed), March 17, 1916; Coaldale Council, United Farmers of Alberta, (44 farmers signed), March 17, 1917. 22 petitions were received.
3.	It is not the intention of the Government at present to establish another internal storage elevator in Alberta.
VALLEYFIELD CONCRETE BREAKWATER. Mr. DELISLE:
1.	What are the days and the dates that the engineers, L. S. Parizeau and J. T. Lemire, personally superintended the dredging work and the building of the concrete breakwater at Valleyfield ?
2.	What is the name of the employee who certified to the quantity of material removed at Valleyfield from the 9th to the 13th June?
3.	What quantity of material was removed at the upper entrance to the channel from the 1st May to the 19th November, 1915, and the name of the employee who certified to such quantity?


Mr. REID:: 1.	L. S. Pariseau, engineer in charge: 1915-June 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, July 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 29, August 2, 3, 7, 14, 18,
20,	21, 23, 27, 28, September 4, 9, 11, 15, 18, 19, 23, October 4. J. T. Lemire, resident engineer: 1915-June 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18,
22,	23, 25, 28, 29, July 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, August 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, September 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22,
23,	24, 25, 28, 30, October 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14,
21,	22, 28, 29.
2.	Wm. O'Brien, superintendent of dredging fleet.
3.	25,190 cubic yards quantity certified to by Wm. O'Brien, superintendent of dredging fleet.


FOREIGN TRADE LICENSES FOR STEAMERS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries appointed a committee under the authority of the Order in Council of March 11, 1916, relating

to . the granting of licenses to Canadian Registered Steamers to engage in foreign trade?
2.	If so, (a) what are the names of the Committee and (b) who are the Chairman and Secretary.


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. Alexander Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries; Mr. G.. J. Desbarats, C.M.G., Deputy Minister of the Naval Service; Mr. John McDougald,
C.	M. G., Commissioner of Customs; Mr. F. C. T. O'Hara, Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, (b) Mr. Alexander Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, is chairman; Mr. F. H. Houde is acting secretary.


ELZEAR MONTPETIT AND ARCHIBALD MACDONALD.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. BOYER:	'
1.	What sums of money have been paid to Elzear Montpetit, of Rigaud, for the different works undertaken or superintended by him since 1911?
2.	What is the nature of such works and the payments made for each?
3.	What sums of money have been paid to Archibald MacDonald, of Rigaud, for the different works undertaken or superintended by him since 1911?
4.	What is the nature of such works and the payments made for each?
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Department of Public Works:
1 and 2. Amount paid to Elzear Montpetit: 1911-12, nil; 1912-13, nil; 1913-14, cement sidewalk, kalsomining, repair door, etc., $432.00; 350 feet wire fence, 2 gates, $134.00; sundry repairs, $225.70; 1914-15, installing clock, etc., $606.72;	1915-16, nil;
total, $1,399.42.
3	and 4. Nil.
Department of Militia and Defence:
1.	$350.
2.	Repairs to wharf, $100.00; painting to drill hall roof, $250.00.
3 and 4. Nil.	.


WAR PURCHASES-HAY.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Has the Government bought any hay in Kings county, N.S.? If so, from whom has it been bought?
2.	What price per ton has been given for the hay, ready for shipment in boat?
3.	What price per ton has been given to the farmers?


Mr. HAZEN:: The Department of Agriculture, acting for the British War Office, has purchased a certain quantity of hay in Kings county, N.S. It is undesirable in the public interest to give information on such matters at the present time.


Mr. KAY:: 1.	How many tons of hay has the Government purchased in Prince Edward Island since the war began, and how many tons have been delivered ?
2.	How many tons have been contracted for and are yet to be delivered?
3.	What price per ton has the Government paid for hay already delivered alongside steamers at Charlottetown, and what price per ton have they agreed to pay alongside steamers at Charlottetown for hay not yet delivered?
4.	From whom has such hay been purchased?


John Douglas Hazen: The Department of Agriculture, acting for the British War Office, has purchased a certain quantity of hay in Prince Edward Island. It is undesirable in the public interest to give information on such matters at the present time.
4.	John Rines, of Riverside Corner, and E. J. Barron, of Rawdon Gold Mines.
5.	Answered by No. 1.


WAR PURCHASING COMMISSION.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who are the members of the War Purchasing Commission?
2.	When were they appointed?
3.	Were they appointed by Order in Council?
4.	How many persons are in the employ of said commission?
5.	Are said employees or clerks employed under the Civil Service Act?
6	What was the cost of the maintaining and operation of said commission from its inception to December 31, 1915?
7	What was the total amount of the expenditure made by said commission from its inception to March 31, 1916?
68 th BATTALION.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that certain of the privates of the 68th Battalion stationed at Regina are said to be experiencing great difficulty and delay in procuring payment of their wages?
2.	Have any complaints been made to the
Government with regard to such a condition of affairs ?	.
3.	Why hag private J. W. McDonald, of the said 68th Battalion, not been paid his wages?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	J. W. McDonald is not a private in any battalion, but is hired as engineer of the Horse Show building at Regina, which is used by the 68th Battalion. His salary will be paid in due course.


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Hon. A. E. Kemp, Mr. G. F. Galt, Mr. H. Laporte.
2.	May 8, 1915.
3.	Yes.
4.	17.
5.	No.
6.	$21,154.52.
7.	From the date of the appointment of the commission, May 8, 1915, to March 31, 1916, the commission was authorized to expend upon the items which come under its jurisdiction, as. set forth by Order in Council, approximately $63,000,000, exclusive of sundry small items, transportation charges, provisions and food supplies for the troops and sundry items in connection with internment.


LETHBRIDGE IMMIGRATION AGENT.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is Vickers, Limited, mentioned in page 2649 of unrevised Hansard as having purchased ammunition, the Canadian Vickers, Limited, or the British firm of the same name?	.


Mr. KEMP:: The British firm.


WEST GORE-CLARKSVILLE STATION MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Is Ansen >Snie the mail carrier from West Gore to Clarksville station, Hants county, N.S.?
2.	What amount is paid therefor to him?
3.	Did he tender for said service?
4.	If so, who are his bondsmen?
5.	If not, what are the terms on which he is performing the service?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	The contractor's name is Anson Simm.
2.	Sixty-eight cents per trip, amounting to $212.84 per annum.
3.	Yes


Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Is there an immigration agent located at Lethbridge at the present time?
2.	If so, what is his name and his salary?
3.	Who is the caretaker of the immigration hall at Lethbridge, and what is the salary attached to this position?
4.	Was not A. E. Humphries removed from the position of agent at Lethbridge on the ground that there was not sufficient immigration business to warrant his employment?
5.	If so, what was the reason for the appointment of a new agent?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A. H. McKeown. Salary, $1,000 per annum.
3.	Mr. McKeown discharges duties as agent and caretaker.
4.	Owing to the fact that there was at that time practically no work to do in connection with immigration at Lethbridge, Mt. A. E. Humphries, whose salary was $1,300 per annum, was on October 15, 1914,

indefinitely suspended from his position as travelling immigration inspector.
5.	On November 1, 1914, Mr. A. H. Mc-Keown was appointed as caretaker of Lethbridge immigration hall at a salary of $65 per month, it being found necessary to have some one in charge of the building there. In June, 1915, on recommendation if the Commissioner of Immigration, who considered that an active and efficient officer was required at Lethbridge, Mr. Me-Keown was appointed agent.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY POLICE COMMISSIONER.
Mr. PARDEE:: Is C. Rankin still Police Commissioner on the National Transcontinental railway? If so, what salary is he In receipt of?


John Dowsley Reid: The following information
has been received from the Chief Engineer of the Transcontinental railway:	Yes,
$150 per month.


' TRENCH WARFARE.
Mr. McNUTT:: 1.	In view of the statement of the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of April 6, as to the surprising developments of trench warfare, has the Militia Department offered special aid to the War Office beyond the purchasing of certain trenching tools?
2.	Has any method if improving trench warfare, with a view to preventing casualties among Canadian troops, been submitted to the department by any Canadian Engineer?
3.	Have any tests been made as to the efficiency of any devices which have been submitted?
4.	If p,ny proposals have been rejected by the department, is there any objection to making them public? If so, what is it?
5.	Have all questions as to the efficiency of special munitions of war, designed in Canada, been turned over to the Imperial Munitions Board?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Yes, by submitting devices and inventions (which were thought of sufficient merit) to the 'Comptroller, Munitions Inventions, England.
2.	Yes, many inventions with tljat object in view; some of the inventors being engineers.
3.	Yes, and in a number of other cases inventors were told facilities did not exist hete to test their inventions, and their drawings and models, together with descriptions, were submitted to Munitions Inventions, England, for consideration.
4.	It is not deemed advisable to make them public.
5.	Yes, those which affected the Imperial Munitions Board.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Burnham.-For a copy of a certain lease made by the Government of Canada to one J. A. Culverwell, of a certain water-power on the Trent waterway, known as the Burleigh Falls power; and of all assignments of said lease and of the consent of the Government of Canada thereto; and also a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, tenders, reports, contracts and other papers relating to the said original lease.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 66, in aid of provincial legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors-Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice); Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Charles Joseph Doherty: When the Bill was last considered in committee, a motion was under consideration, which was moved by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) as an addition to the Bill. Before we deal with that, if I may be permitted, I should like to refer to suggestions made, one by the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. A. A. McLean) and the other by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) supported, I think, by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). Upon consideration, I am inclined to think there was more in what was pointed out than, on the spur of the moment, I was disposed to believe. I am not prepared to say that amendment of the section is really necessitated .by what was said, but I am quite prepared to concede that there is more than enough in it to make it wise that I should act upon both these suggestions. I am referring, if I have the permission of the committee, to section 1. The suggestion of the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I., was that the wording of the Bill:	"Any person who, by himself, his
clerk, servant, or agent," might be interpreted to exclude responsibility on the part ol the clerk or agent. As I say, I am not prepared to accept that view, but I do want to avoid any difficulty about interpretation. The other suggestion, in which, I say quite frankly, I Think there is much more than in the first I have mentioned, was that of the hon. member for St. John. In the view of that hon. gentleman the manager, agents, or employees of a govem-railway would not be subject to prosecution under this Act if they carried liquor

in violation of the Act. While I am not ready to say that I absolutely adopt that view, I am still free to concede that the positive view I entertained upon the subject was, perhaps, not justified, and that possibly there is room for the section being interpreted in the way the hon. member for St. John suggested. While I still believe that what I said is correct, speaking as a general proposition, I think now that I did not give sufficient attention to the fact that the unlawfulness of things done in violation of the Act would be the result of this Act alone, and that the view might be entertained that, the Crown not being specified by this Act, that which was done by a Government railway not otherwise unlawful, would -not come within the purview of this Act If I am permitted, I would move that section 1 be reconsidered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 1-person not to send liquor into province knowing: or intending that it will he dealt with unlawfully:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that this section be amended by adding after the word "agent" the words:	.
-and any person who as clerk, servant or agent, officer or employee, of any other person or of any Government railway whether Dominion or provincial.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I am glad that the minister has decided to make this change. It will remove what struck me as an important difficulty which might arise in case of liquor being carried upon a Government railway. Whether the minister is right or not, or whether I was right or not, I think this will be an improvement.


Mr. HUGHES:: Will this affect the transportation of liquor within the province, on a Government railway?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, we are not dealing with what happens within a province, hut with the sending of liquor into a province. But perhaps I do not quite grasp what the hon. gentleman suggests we should do.


James Joseph Hughes: If liquor is sent into a province in contravention of this Act, but in such a way that it cannot be traced, and it is then carried from the point at which it has entered the province to another point in the province where it was really intended to be consumed, would it be the business of the Provincial Government to act in that matter, or would it !be the business of the Dominion Government? Could the Prq-vincial Government act if the carrier within the province were a Government railway?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that, generally speaking, carriage within the province is a matter that ought to be dealt with by provincial legislation. But, as at present advised, at all events, if a province should undertake to prohibit the transportation of liquor within its own boundaries, I would be disposed to make any provision neces-saray to make that effective as regards a Government railway. Perhaps the hon. gentleman is better informed as to that subject than I am, but I do not know whether there is at present any provision in local legislation prohibiting the transportation of liquor from one place to another within a province.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not think there is.
I do not know whether it would he within the power of the Provincial Legislature to pass such a law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think it would be wise for us to undertake to prohibit something within the province that the province itself does not deem it proper to prohibit. If they should do so, and difficulties should arise merely because the Intercolonial is a Government railway, I think there would be every disposition to take any steps necessary to cause the Intercolonial to conform to every law of the province applicable to other carriers of the province. But we are dealing for the moment with a measure that has to do with the transmission of liquor from outside the province into the province.


William Pugsley: I appreciate the difficulty of dealing with the subject of carrying within the province on Government railways. The question is whether or not a provincial legislature could pass a law which would impose any penalty upon the Crown as represented by the Dominion Government or its employees. The minister is aware, of course, that the courts of th.e country have determined that employees of the Dominion Government cannot be taxed by the provincial legislatures, on the ground that if that could toe done it would be giving the provincial legislatures authority to hamper, in seme way, the administration of public affairs by the Dominion Government. I have never been able to see the reasonableness of that. I have always thought it was taking a very narrow view. But still the courts have held that, and the consequence is that to-day, throughout Canada, the officials of the Dominion Government are not taxed by the various muni-

cipalities. I know that was the decision of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, and 1 think it was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. If that is good law-and, of course, we are bound to assume that any decision, once made, is good law-I should think it would follow, as a matter of course, that the provincial governments could not impose penalties upon the employees of the Dominion Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am disposed to think that the hon. gentleman's view is correct, but we are dealing with a Bill that has to do with the transportation of goods from one province into another.. I think we may, for the moment, leave aside the Intercolonial and its peculiar situation, and we may say that it is quite within the purview of a province to make legislation as to the carriage of goods within the province. I agree that such provincial legislation would not, of its own force, apply to the Intercolonial, but I think a more proper place to deal with, that question, as affecting the Intercolonial railway, would be in connection with the Acts concerning the Government railways. If a province made a law of application to carriers generally in that province in regard to the transportation of liquor, it would be a proper thing that the Intercolonial should be made subject to that law; and if I am in a position to do it, when that action is taken toy any province, I will be very glad to help to supplement it 'by legislation of this Parliament. But in the meantime this hardly seems to be the proper place in which to interject a provision of that sort.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the proposed amendment of Mr. Stevens, to add the following to section 2 of the Bill:
In addition to any other penalties prescribed for a violation of section one of this Act, any person holding a license to carry on the business or trade of a distiller or brewer, issued under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act, who violates the provisions of section one of this Act, or who sells or delivers intoxicating liquor in violation of the law in force in any province, shall also be liable in any prosecution under this Act, on conviction for a first offence, to the suspension of such license for any" period not exceeding three months, and on conviction for a second offence, to the suspension of his license for any period not exceeding six months, and on conviction for a third offence, shall forfeit his license and shall thereafter be unable to hold such a license.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the hon. gentleman proposed his amendment, I understood him to move that it be inserted as clause

2, and he mentioned two other amendments which he proposed to make, and which he desired to be put in as clauses 3 and 4. I think that the provision would come in better order if it came in as clause 2. Clause 2, as in the Bill, as proposed, is a clause laying down a rule as to the burden of proof in prosecutions under this Bill. The amendment which the hon. member for Vancouver seeks to introduce is a clause imposing an additional penalty for violations of the Act, and I think it would naturally come immediately after clause 1, which sets forth the penalties proposed by the Bill as originally introduced.


William Pugsley: It would be much better as a separate section.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that if it oame in as section 2 it would be better.


James Joseph Hughes: It has been suggested that the amendment drafted by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) should be placed in the Bill somewhere, and I think it might properly be inserted in this section. The amendment is to the effect that:
No license shall hereafter be granted or renewed under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act to any person to enable such person to carry on business as a distiller, brewer, or malster in any province wherein a provincial Act is in force prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor.
If this amendment were adopted, I do not imagine that there would be any necessity for the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The suggestion which the hon. gentleman makes was offered the other evening, and we had some discussion with regard to it. At that time, I pointed out some reasons why I did not feel disposed to accept it. Of course, if the hon. gentleman desires to move it as an amendment, I suppose it would be in substitution of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver.


William Pugsley: There might be prov inces in which the prohibitory law was not in force, and the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver would apply to those cases; whereas, the amendment suggested by the hon. member for South Wellington is only applicable to distillers or brewers in provinces where the prohibition law is in force. I think it would be better to take a vote on the amendment of the hon. member for-Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) as section 2, and let the hon. member for Kings (Mr. APRIL 10, 1916
Hughes) move the other amendment as a substantive motion.


James Joseph Hughes: I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Justice, which I think would be in accordance with the principle of the proposed amendment. In the case of steamships receiving a subsidy from the Government, if it is found that they have contravened the provisions of the Act, an additional penalty should be imposed. I would suggest that for the first offence the subsidy be reduced by say one-third; that for the second offence it he reduced one-third, and that if violations of the statute are repeated, the subsidy be cancelled.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The suggestion of the
hon. member might further insure the observation of the provincial laws, but it seems to me to be hardly germane to the matter we are dealing with. It would become a question of people doing certain things within the limits of a province-


James Joseph Hughes: This would be from one province to another; it would not be within a province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will make our Bill
somewhat cumbersome and unwieldy, if we try to think of every possible thing in connection w'ith a subsidy, or in connection with any other matter that might tend to secure temperance. The better time to deal with such things would be when we were providing for the subsidies. Conditions might be attached to the granting of a subsidy. I think it would be desirable to keep this Bill within a reasonable compass, and to limit ourselves to things directly pertinent to the matter at issue. No doubt, if we stopped to think about them, we could find a great many other precautions which would help the enforcement of the provincial law.
Mr- HUGHES: I agree with the minister that a good time to impose conditions would be when the subsidies are being granted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: After looking carefully at the wording of the amendment proposed, I find that while it fs intended to impose suspension or cancellation of a license as a consequence not only of violations of- this proposed Act but of violations of the provisions of any Provincial Act, the section, as drawn, indicates that the liability shall be incurred " in any prosecution under this Act." If it stands as it is, it would hardly touch the suspension or cancellation of a license on a conviction obtained under the provincial Act. To fully meet the purposes therefore, I think that to the words " in any prosecution under this Act" there should be added the words " or any such Provincial Act," or " any such Provincial law." I beg to move in amendment to the amend-of the hon. member for Vancouver that after the words " this Act " in the sixth line, there be inserted the words, " or under such provincial law,"


George Perry Graham: Under that section would a man be liable to prosecution under both the Provincial and Dominion Acts?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He would be liable to prosecution, under the Provincial Act, for violation of the Provincial Act and he would be liable to prosecution under this Act for violation of this Act, but the purpose of the section is to attach to a conviction, either under this Act or under the Provincial Act, a suspension or cancellation of the license according as to whether it is his first or second offence. If a man holding a license to manufacture under the Inland Revenue Act sells liquor in a province in which he -manufactures, he will not be violating this Act, because this Act is to prevent his sending it info a province. If he is simply selling liquor within a province which has a law forbidding the sale within that province, he will be violating the law of the province, but it is intended to attach to his conviction a can- cellation or suspension not only for the violation of this Act but for the violation on the part of the licensee of the Dominion of a Provincial Act.


George Perry Graham: If he violates the Provincial Act he will be violating the Dominion Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He will be liable to this additional penalty.	.


George Perry Graham: He will be liable under the Dominion Act for the violation of the Provincial Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but we impose an additional penalty. We say to the Dominion licensee: We will suspend or cancel your license if you are convicted under a Provincial Act.


James Joseph Hughes: Where will the action have to be taken? Can it be taken in the provincial courts?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, a prosecution for violating a Provincial Act will naturally

be taken in the provincial courts. In a subsequent provision of this Act we provide that a man violating this Act may be prosecuted either at the place whence he . sends this liquor or at the place to which h he sends the liquor. The place to which he sends the liquor will be within a prohibitory province, so that if he is a man in an outside province, he may be prosecuted before the courts of the province into which he has sent the liquor in violation of the law of that province.


George Perry Graham: Being a layman, perhaps I do not understand the legal significance of the matter. The hon. gentleman has referred to the fact that an alleged violator of the law may be prosecuted either in the province to which the liquor has gone or in the province from which it is sent. Would it be possible for him to be prosecuted in both provinces?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he was convicted in one place he would have a perfect defence in another province in that he had been once convicted. He is only guilty of one offence. Under the general pro-4 p.m. visions of the law he is protected against being tried or convicted in two places. There are under the general law-provisions in which, under certain circumstances, a man can be tried at one place or at another. For instance, a man who is prosecuted for criminal libel can be prosecuted in the place where the libel was circulated. Although he may publish his paper in one province, if the libellous matter is circulated in another province, he may be sued in another province. Of course, he can be sued in his own province, but he could not be prosecuted by reason of the same offence
Mr. GRAHAM. If a man were charged with having sent liquor into this province, say, and a prosecution took place in Ontario, would it be possible, if he should be acquitted in Ontario, that he might still be prosecuted in Quebec for sending it in if they had not proved that it had reached its destination in Ontario?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think so. The offence is one and the same, and I think he would have a perfect defence in that he had once been put upon his trial and acquitted. I think it would be just as good a defence if he had been convicted.


William Pugsley: They might do what
persons who commit a'ssaults very often do;

they go before a friendly magistrate very quickly, plead guilty and pay a small fine before the real complainant can get at them. If a distiller in Ontario, or in the upper provinces-because that is where the distilleries are; we have none in the lower provinces-was guilty of violating the law by sending liquor to Prince Edward Island, before the zealous temperance people there, like my hon. friend from Kings (Mir. Hughes), could get at that distiller down in the island, the distiller might go before a friendly magistrate in Ontario, plead guilty of the offence, be convicted, and that would bar proceedings in Prince Edward Island.


George Eulas Foster: That is an imputation against the magistracy.


William Pugsley: No, it is not. It is simply stating what we all know to be the case with the magistracy throughout the country.


George Eulas Foster: You are making it worse now.


William Pugsley: The law can be evaded, and much more easily evaded toy reason of the failure of the Minister of Justice to provide for a public prosecutor. He must see how easy it would be for the distillers to escape punishment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have guarded against that by imposing a minimum penalty; so even an easy-going, friendly magistrate could not fine an offender less than $100.


William Pugsley: What is $100?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is for the first offence. When it comes to the third offence the magistrate has no option but to send the offender to jail. With, regard to the risks of a friendly magistrate entering into collusion with a man of this kind, those are the risks we have to run in the application of the law generally. Even where a man is susceptible of prosecution in any one place, there are different magistrates, different stipendary magistrates, and different officers, and if we are going to begin to provide against what verges on corruption of the magistracy we shall have to provide against that in the application of other laws as well as in this particular one. It seems to me we have afforded adequate protection. I have already said what I hav? to say on the question of the appointment of a public prosecutor. The whole system of our law proceeds upon the assumption that the administration and the enforcement of the law belongs to the province.

We are willing to leave the enforcement of the provisions of our Criminal Code, so far as any Government is charged with their enforcement, in the hands of the province; and if there be any law that may safely be left to the provinces to enforce, it would seem to he a law which is provided for the specific purpose of rendering more effective the province's own law. This law is intended to make effective the laws of provinces that desire prohibition; we are handing to those provinces an instrument to make their law more effective. Now, if we can trust the provinces generally to enforce our criminal law, it would seem to me that we might in a very special manner rely upon a province to see to the enforcement of this law, which is enacted for the precise purpose of enabling them to make their own law more effective.


William Pugsley: Many years ago a great many people had the same faith in the ease with which prohibitory laws could be enforced. The Minister of Trade and Commerce remembers what enthusiasm existed a great many years ago in New Brunswick in connection with the enforcement of the Canada Temperance Act; but, somehow, lawyers iseem to be able to display much more ingenuity in driving a horse and cart through a prohibitory law than through any otherv kind of law placed upon the statute book. Difficulties which one could never have conceived of have arisen in connection with the enforcement of the Canada Temperance Act, and the result has been that year after year Parliament has made amendments which, I am sure, Parliament would never have thought of making in connection with'any other law upon the statute book. For instance, Parliament had to enact that the right of search should be taken away, and that there should be no appeal from a magistrate's decision if there was no evidence of the guilt of the accused.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would you suggest that a clause be put in the Act to the effect that this Act 'shall prohibit, notwithstanding anything else that may appear in the statute book?


William Pugsley: That is what is intended, of course. The difficulty is that the minister, while impressed with the idea that this Parliament should give the provinces an instrument, as he calls it, to enable them better to carry out their wishes, is really not giving them an effective instrument at all. The reason for this law is that liquor is brought in from outside and
distributed in provinces where prohibition is in force, and whose people are desirous of keeping prohibition in force. For instance, a violation of the prohibitory law of Prince Edward Island may have its origin in a distant part of the Dominion, perhaps a thousand miles away. The minister makes no provision for enforcing the law against the distillers in that distant province, but throws the burden on the people of the prohibition province, who, as I said, may be a thousand miles from where the offence originated; and the temperance people, who, after all, you have to rely on to enforce the law, could not go to the expense of employing lawyers and meeting all the difficulties which lawyers for the defense would bring against them, in a case so far from home. This Government has the duty of enforcing the law of Canada, and I say it should bear the burden in respect of offences committed outside of a province that is directly interested. There is no question about that. Just think of the difficulties that might arise in respect of a conviction, and the taking away of a distiller's license! The minister has very properly stated that a -man cannot 'be tried twice for the same offence. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) was going to suggest that that right was included in the Magna Charts, but being a layman he did not care to do so. But there is no doubt that that is the case. This Bill provides that on a third offence a distiller's license shall be taken away. But the minister knows that that result would not happen unless the information that was laid declared it to be a third offence. Unless the information and all the proceedings declare that it is a second or a third offence, as the case may be, the Taw in every instance regards it as a first offence, and unless there is in the province where the offence originated somebody directly interested in the enforcement of the law, so far as it affects the province immediately concerned, the distiller would simply be fined for an offence that would not cause a cancellation of his license. For instance, when proceedings came to be taken in Prince Edward Island, let us say, a conviction in Ontario would be set up, and the distiller would ibe discharged as having already been fined. Unless you have somebody to watch those proceedings and see that they are properly carried on, I am satisfied that the law, so far as its enforcement is concerned, will

be simply a farce. An honest effort was made in the different provinces of Canada to enforce the Canada Temperance Act, but there was great difficulty in enforcing it owing to the numerous objections and the doubts which were raised as to what the various sections meant, and those objections and doubts really made the Canada Temperance Act a farce, so far as enforcement was concerned, in some of the provinces, and possibly in all. I think it is on account of the difficulty in enforcing the law that the demand has come for provincial and Dominion-wide prohibition.


John Hampden Burnham: Does not venue lie in both places? That is to say, if people wish to prosecute in either province, can they not do so?


William Pugsley: Under this Bill, prosecution may be made in either province.


John Hampden Burnham: What has that to do with prosecution a thousand miles away?


William Pugsley: I will tell my hon. friend one difficulty. Suppose a prosecution takes place in Prince Edward Island for a violation there; the offender may be in Ontario, one thousand miles away, and be has to be served with a process. I doubt very much if the process of a Prince Edward . Island magistrate would run into Ontario unless you had some special provision in the Bill which would enable a distiller to be served in Ontario. If a distiller having his business in Ontario were fined in Prince Edward Island, I am not quite sure how the penalty could be collected. The distiller has no place of business, no residence, no goods and chattels in Prince Edward Island upon which a levy can be made. How is the penalty to be enforced? Are the temperance people of Prince Edward Island to go into Ontario in order' to endeavour to enforce a conviction? I doubt very much whether they can do so. As my hon. friend takes enough interest in this matter to ask questions, I would be glad if he would apply his intellect to this question and find out some means (by which this law could be enforced. If there is an honest desire to make this an effective means of enforcing provincial prohibition there is only one way to do it, namely, to provide officers who, under the instructions of the Department of Justice, will enforce tb.e law in the province where the offence originated, and not compel the people of the far-off province, where the offence is consummated, to go long distances at great expense in order to obtain a conviction.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: Would not the
person who carried the liquor into the province be liable in the province? Would not that be a separate prosecution? Would not the person who sent the liquor, say, from Ontario to Nova Scotia, also be liable? Would not the person who carried the goods and also the person who sent them be liable?


William Pugsley: I was dealing with the question of proceedings against the distiller. It has been thought by the Minister of Justice that it will make the Bill more effective to enable the manufacturer, or distiller, to be proceeded against by reason of his sending his goods by steamship or railway into a province which is prohibited territory. I think myself that, if proceedings can be taken against a manufacturer, the law can be much more easily enforced. What I was speaking of was the fact that there is no clear nor effective method provided by this Bill of enforcing the law as against the manufacturer who may be outside of the province directly interested, and, as I have said, may be not only hundreds of miles, but one or two thousand miles away.


Mr. NESBITT:: May I suggest to the
minister, as this Bill seems to be very complicated, that the easiest thing to do is to withdraw it and bring in a simple Bill prohibiting the importation and manufacture of spirituous liquors for beverage purposes?


George Perry Graham: In a word.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Just a short Bill. In that way you will get over all this complication.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I want to follow up for a moment the proposal of my hon. friend from St. John. I drew this matter to the attention of the minister when we were last discussing this Bill, and I regard it as really the most important matfeT in connection with the Bill. If the Fereral Government will undertake the task of enforcing the law outsde of the province where the legislature of the provonce prohibits, it will make the Bill effective. If they fail to do so, I fear that the Bill will not be effective. We have the experience of the Bill of 1908, which was similar to this in language and passed for a similar purpose, to prevent intoxicating liquor from being brought into and sold in counties that had adopted the Scott Act. At that time the counties of Nova Scotia, with the exception of one or two, had adopted the Scott Act, and it was regarded as very important to

have a measure of this kind that "would enable us to prosecute a merchant outside of the dry area for sending liquor into that area, and we secured that measure in 1908. It was, however, almost a dead letter on account of the fact that there was no method of prosecuting the man in the outside province who sent the liquor into the area covered by the Scott Act. This is not a new proposal for this Government. There are on the statute-book a number of very important Acts in connection with which the Department of Justice is dealing with prosecutions at the present time. Take, for instance, the' Fisheries Act. If a violation of that Act occurs along the coast, the Minister of Justice is notified and he has his organization to deal with it. He prosecutes the poacher, the man who violates the regulations in regard to fisheries. That is a duty that devolves upon the Department of Justice, and it carries out that work successfully throughout Canada. The same is true with regard to Inland Revenue. If a breach of the Inland Revenue regulations takes place in any province in Canada, the prosecution is dealt with by the Department of Justice and dealt -with successfully. The Weights and Measures Act is another statute in regard to which the Department of Justice deals with any violation of it. I understand that the proposal of my hon. friend from St. John is to adopt a somewhat similar principle in the Bill under discussion. If the minister will agree to adopt that principle, I think the measure will be a very successful one. Of course, he can see that at the present time each province can deal with offenders within its own boundaries. The provinces are not asking for any assistance from this Government to prosceute men who violate the provincial laws; but it a different matter entirely when the provincial authorities have to deal with a violation in a distant province. When I mentioned the matter to the minister the other day, he said: All you have to do is to lay an information in the province in which the violation is committed. That is to say, if a merchant in Montreal violates this law by sending liquor into Guysborough, the shire town of the county I represent, some person from that town will have to go to Montreal, lay an information there before a magistrate, employ solicitors and counsel there, and carry on a prosecution before the courts in Montreal, in order to punish the violator of this statute. The minister has the machinery
for the enforcement of this law; he has his officers and representative of the Department of Justice all over Canada, and it is the easiest thing in the world for him to take charge of these prosecutions, whereas, it is practically impossible that it could be done by the local authorities. I have a draft section here which I wish to submit to the minister for his consideration:
When an offence against the law of any province of Canada prohibiting or restricting the sale of injtoxicating liquor, or against the provisions of this Act, has been committed outside the boundaries of such province, it shall be the duty of the Department of Justice to take such steps as may be necessary to prosecute the party guilty of such offence.
If the minister will insert such a section, I think we will all give him credit for giving a Bill that will promote temperance in this country.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the first place, this amendment asks that we should prosecute, not only for violation of this Act, but foT violation of a provincial law outside the province. I cannot conceive how there can be a violation of provincial law outside the province, because the provincial law runs only within the province. Nor can I see any good purpose in my repeating what I said the other evening: that there is nothing about this law that makes it any more necessary foi this Government to enforce it than there is about the laws generally.	The hon. member has pointed
out certain laws that he says we enforce,	as,	for instance, the Inland
Revenue Act and the . Customs Act. But these are for the collection of debts due to the Dominion, and we act in these cases as any man would act in connection with offences that affect him in his business. The general administration of the criminal law is in the hands of the province. It does seem to me that the provinces ought to be trusted to enforce this law. The hon. gentleman keeps repeating-because it is not the first time he has said it- that, if a sale is made in Montreal of goods delivered in violation of this Act in Ontario, a man will have to go. down to Montreal, employ lawyers and carry on a prosecution, and this, in the face of the express provision of this Bill that he may prosecute that man in Toronto, in the very province into which the liquor has been' brought. I do not know that I shall gain anything by repeating that. I have said it several times, and the hon. gentleman still says that the man who wished to prosecute will have to go to Montreal.


John Howard Sinclair: How is the minister
going to get the witnesses to the shipping of the liquor in Toronto, or, say, in Nova Scotia? The witnesess must be called. The issuing of a summons in the city of Halifax to prosecute a man in Montreal for shipping the liquor through Halifax can have no force unless proof is produced.


Charles Joseph Doherty: You will have to bring your witnesses.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister say
that witnesses must be subpoenaed in Montreal to go to Halifax to prove the case?


Charles Joseph Doherty: You will have your
-choice of doing it in whatever way you find most convenient. If the statement is made that you must go to Montreal to prosecute, I say that, under this Act, that is not correct.


William Pugsley: The minister says that the provinces are charged with the enforcement of the criminal law. That is true, speaking in a general sense, but there are exceptions. The Dominion Government has recognized in many cases its duty to enforce the criminal law. In a case of robbing the mails, or stealing money from a post office, the Postmaster General, through the Minister of Justice, will prosecute. Some years ago, when I was Attorney General of New Brunswick, I knew of a number of such cases in which the Dominion Government prosecuted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the Dominion Government's property is stolen it lays an information like any one else, and sets the law in motion against the offender.


William Pugsley: But they have their own, counsel to represent them at the trial. After obtaining the commitment they do not hand over the action to the provincial authorities, but carry the prosecution through. Here is the distinction-a distinction I had hoped to impress upon the minister, but apparently am not able to; the provinces have to do with the administration of the criminal law within the boundaries of the province, but the minister has provided here that a liquor dealer or liquor manufacturer, who sends liquor Into a province where a provincial prohibitory law is in force, shall be guilty of an offence. Take the case of the man in Montreal who sends liquor from Montreal to Prince Edward Island. That offence is not committed in Prince Edward Island. It is true, the minister, by his Bill, provides that the case
[Mr. Doherty. 1
may be tried, in Prince Edward Island, but the offence is committed jn the province of Quebec, and the minister has provided that the authorities of Prince Edward Islandtaking that province as an illustration

shall have cast upon them the duty of enforcing the law in the province of Quebec.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Or the authorities in Quebec.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. minister think for a moment that the authorities in any province are going to proceed against a distiller or wholesaler who may foe doing a perfectly lawful business in that province, and whose offence is really committed against the spirit of the law of the province into which the liquor finds its destination? It is absurd to suppose that the authorities of Ontario, for instance, are going to prosecute a distiller who is manufacturing, it may be, quite legally in Ontario, and whose offence really is that he has sent liquor to Prince Edward Island, or New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia, or some other distant province. It is casting an undue burden upon the provincial authorities to require them to go into another province for the purpose of prosecuting a distiller in such case as I have mentioned.


John Hampden Burnham: If the hon. member for St. John were criminally libelled by a newspaper in Vancouver, would he allow the operator of that newspaper to snap his fingers at him, or pay no attention to him, or would he go to Vancouver and prosecute there?


William Pugsley: That is a different matter; that is a criminal offence which is committed in Vancouver. But here the offence is consummated by the liquor being received in the prohibited territory. The minister is providing that, instead of enforcing the law in the place where the offence is consummated, proceedings may be taken in the province where the offence originates. What I submit is that if this Government is sincerely desirous of strengthening the hands of the provincial authorities and of preventing violations of provincial prohibitory laws, it should take upon itself the burden of enforcing this law, at all events in respect to proceedings which are to be taken outside of the province immediately affected.


Mr. WRIGHT:: In order to enforce the present laws, throughout the Dominion of Canada it is found necessary to appoint magistrates and constables in every village,

township, town and city, a very large number indeed. Do I understand the hon. gentleman to suggest that the Dominion Government by legislation that it may pass here should duplicate these officers all over Canada?


William Pugsley: Not at all, it would not be necessary. All I ask is that the Dominion Government shall make it its business to eee that this law is enforced, not the provincial, laws. Let the provinces enforce their own laws; but for any violation of this law, in respect of which proceedings may be taken either in the province where the offence .is consummated by the receipt of the liquor or in the province where the offence originates by the liquor being shipped, the Dominion should proceed.


William Wright: Would this not necessitate the appointment of new officials?


William Pugsley: No, no new officials would have to be appointed. Suppose a manufacturer, a distiller or brewer, in Quebec sends liquor to Prince Edward Island, where there is a prohibitory law now in force; under this law the distiller may be procedeed against in the province of Quebec. Ali that would be necessary would be for the prosecutor appointed by the Dominion Government to take proceedings before any one of the magistrates in the province of Quebec, submit the evidence showing the offence, and obtain a conviction. What I protest against is that the temperance people away down in Prince Edward Island or in any part of the Maritime Provinces, or out in Saskatchewan, perhaps in the Peace river district, or any other remote section to which liquor is sent from leading wholesale and manufacturing centres of Canada, should be put to the enormous expense of coming to the wholesale and manufacturing centres of Canada to prosecute offenders, and we know * that the most effectual prosecutions will be against the distillers, wholesale dealers and brewers, and the most effectual way to carry on prosecutions will be to have them in these leading centres, instead of in the provinces where the offences are consummated. If the minister is content to say that this Government is discharging its full duty to the temperance sentiment of this country by simply placing a law upon the statute book and not preparing to spend one single dollar in the enforcement of that law, let him take that position But surely this Government has a higher duty than simply to put a law upon the
statute book. It has the duty of seeing to the enforcement of that law, and there is no power in this country which can so effectually or so well enforce the law as the Dominion Government. The distillers, wholesale dealers, and brewers, in the leading centres are shipping their goods to all parts of this country. You may have a prohibitory law in every province, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and you will find, as we know by experience,- as the people of Prince EdwaTd Island know by experience during the time they have had a prohibitory law,-that these distillers and brewers and wholesale dealers secretly shipping liquor to all parts of this country. Then, if instead of the local authorities being obliged to come to these leading centres to follow up these offences and secure evidence against the wholesale dealers and manufacturers who were originating these unlawful transactions, this Dominion Government were to have a few prosecutors, one in each of the leading centres, to carry on the necessary detective work, they could easily enforce the law with a comparatively smail expense. They would thus be able effectively to prevent violations of the Act, which this Parliament is now asked to place upon the statute book.


Mr. MORPHY:: Ontario has those officials now-and I have no doubt that other provinces also have such officials-who are paid by the province to detect such offences.


William Pugsley: Ontario has officials, but not officials to go into the province of Quebec.	[DOT]


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The province of Quebec has them too.


William Pugsley: The province of Quebec is not interested in punishing people who send liquor to the province of Prince Edward Island.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There must be some
good temperance people in Quebec.


John Hampden Burnham: Yes, what becomes oi your general temperance sentiment?


William Pugsley: That is quite true, there are good temperance people; but they are interested in seeing that liquor is not sold to communities in the province of Quebec where there is prohibition. Most of the people in one province do not care how much liquor is sent into some other province, but they do not want the law violated right in their own home. The Minis-



ter of Justice intimates that this Government does not enforce the criminal law. Then what is all this Dominion Police force? Do they not enforce the law against the white slave traffic? Why do they do that? Why do they not leave that to the provincial authorities? Surely the minister cannot put up the plea that they are interested in that in any financial way.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are interested in
looking after the immigation coming to this country, which is purely our affair.


William Pugsley: It is not limited to immigration; it is within the purview of the law against the white slave traffic that the law shall be enforced in respect of women who are already in this country. It is not limited to immigrants.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Dominion police do not look after violations of these laws in the country generally: We did have a little special vote to enable them to afford protection in that regard in connection with immigrants coming into this country.


William Pugsley: The minister now says something that will be a surprise' to members of this House. When we were asked to vote $10,000 a year for the Dominion police to endeavour to suppress the wnite slave traffic, so-called, it was clearly understood that it was not limited to immigrants who might be brought into Canada; the money was intended to enforce the law generally, to prevent that illegal and deplorable traffic. And so I might mention many other instances, all going to show that if the minister wants to do this, he can do it. If this Government desires to enforce this law, it has the machinery, it has the detectives, it can easily utilize its Dominion police. It could appoint a few public prosecutors, whose duty, it would be to take the necessary steps to enforce the law, and then this Act could be effectively enforced: As I have said before, if this Government feels that it has no interest at all in the suppression of intemperance in this country, that its whole duty is discharged when it simply puts in black and white the Jaw, then well and good. But if it is sincerely desirous of assisting in the cause of temperance, then I say that this Bill should provide for the appointment, under the direction of the Minister of Justice, of such officers as may be deemed necessary, in the different manufacturing and wholesale centres, for the purpose of seeing that this law is carried out.


Mr. TURRIFF:: I think it will be generally agreed that this legislation is the result of a general demand from the whole Dominion of Canada for a Dominion prohibitory law, and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, in the different debates that have taken place, has sought to convince this House and to convince this country, that under this Bill he is giving the temperance people of Canada a much better, much more satisfactory, and a much more complete Bill for the suppression of the liquor traffic than would be a Dominion total prohibition law.
My hon. friend surely has seen from the discussion that has taken place since the Bill was introduced that in its present shape it is going to be absolutely a dead letter. I think I am not going too far when I say that it is going to be absolutely a dead letter by the wish and intention of the present Government. I do not think that they have any intention that it should be a help to prohibition. So far, they have refused to agree to the appointment of a prosecuting officer to look after infringements of the law. We have in the province of Saskatchewan prohibited the sale of liquor as a beverage. In the past, the great bulk of the liquor used in Saskatchewan has been purchased, as it is still, in Ontario or Quebec, chiefly in the city of Montreal. If an infringement of the Saskatchewan liquor law occurs in Toronto or in Montreal how can the temperance people of the province of Saskatchewan be expected to successfully prosecute the offenders. It would be an impossibility. The temperance people cannot take that duty on their hands. The Government of the province of Saskatchewan will look after the prosecution of offences that take place within that province, but who is going to look after the prosecution and punishment of offenders against the law of Saskatchewan in other provinces as provided in this Bill of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. Unless a public prosecutor is appointed and paid for out of the Dominion funds, my hon. friend might just as well withdraw the Bill. It would be more satisfactory to the temperance people of Canada if that were done than to have it put on the statute book in the form proposed, with nobody to look after the prosecutions, and to have it become a dead letter, because the result of a law which becomes a dead letter is to bring the law into disrepute, and in this case it would be a blow to the temperance

people and to temperance sentiment throughout the country.
To my mind, there are only two ways of dealing with this question. The people of Canada, from one end of the Dominion to the other, have demanded a Dominion prohibitory law. If the Government cannot see its way clear to go so far, well and good; _but if they cannot, and they propose an Act which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice says will be of great .advantage to the temperance people, surely it is up to the Government to provide the necessary machinery for the carrying out of that law, in order that something may be accomplished along the lines desired by the temperance people. The officers of the province of Saskatchewan cannot come here and enforce this law. This will be a Dominion Act. Who can enforce it? Only the Dominion Government, and if it refuses to provide the necessary machinery for the enforcement of the law, the Act will certainly become a dead letter, and, as I have already said, not only of no use to the temperance people but a disadvantage and a detriment which will place them in a worse position than they are in now.


Angus Alexander McLean: It is quite evident
that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has riot read this Bill. Its purpose is to aid provincial legislation by restricting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors. It is to be placed on the statute book for that purpose and any person who carries liquor into a province from any other province, or imports it into any province from any place outside of Canada is liable to a penalty.


George Perry Graham: That is for the sale.


Angus Alexander McLean: That is, any person who imports into a province any liquor to be used in violation of the provisions of the provincial law. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent any person taking liquor into the province. There is nothing in the provincial legislation of Ontario which prevents a man from taking in liquor for his own use. There is nothing in the legislation of Manitoba which prevents it. Suppose that a man sends liquor from Montreal to Prince Edward Island; the person who carries that liquor into Prince Edward Island-


John Gillanders Turriff: What about the man who sends it?
170J


Angus Alexander McLean: I will come to that. The man who delivers that liquor in Charlottetown is liable, and under our provincial law the liquor is liable to be seized. Suppose that the case which my hon. friend just put to me happened. The Provincial Government is liable for the administration of the law, and it can prosecute the man in Montreal who sends the liquor. Suppose that a man in the city of New Glasgow steals money from my hon. friend, and he goes to the city of Montreal and is arrested under a warrant issued in the town of New Glasgow; at whose expense would that be done? It would be at the expense of the Government of Nova Scotia. This Bill is to aid provincial legislation, and it will be effective if the law is enforced by the provinces. A change has come over the spirit of the dreams of hon. gentlemen opposite since this Bill was introduced. They were perfectly satisfied with it when it was introduced; they thought it was proper that it should be administered by the Provincial Governments. Now they want the Dominion Government to take charge of it, to pay for the enforcement of it, and to have it taken out of the hands of the Provincial Legislatures altogether.


William Pugsley: I desire to entirely repudiate the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. McLean) that those of us who said we would favour the passing of a law by the Dominion Parliament to aid provincial legislation are bound to accept all the provisions of the Bill as introduced by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice himself invited us to make suggestions which might improve the Bill, and, I am bound to say, with a very broad spirit he has accepted suggestions that have been made. That is what we are here for, at all events that is what hon gentlemen on this side of the House believe, and I am sorry to see my hon. friend from Queens take the view that it is his duty, not to suggest, but to support ail that the Government introduces and to cry " hear, hear."


Angus Alexander McLean: I did not say anything of the kind.


William Pugsley: During the whole discussion the hon. member for Queens has not made a single suggestion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He made one which I accepted.


William Pugsley: He must have seen the weaknesses in this Bill, and he ought to have suggested some improvement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He suggested one.


William Pugsley: Which one?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He suggested that it be made clear that the clerk or agent, as well as the principal, would be liable, and I' adopted that suggestion at the same time as I adopted the amendment with regard to the railways.


William Pugsley: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I thought it was my hon. friend from Kings who made that suggestion. Then the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLean) set us a good example.
But the hon. gentleman does not draw the distinction between the offence which will be committed in a province where the liquor is received and the offence that may be committed in a distant province in sending the liquor either by steamer or railway. Of course, it is only when the liquor reaches its destination in prohibited territory that the offence is consummated, and this Bill provides, evidently and as the Minister of Justice thought it well that it should so provide, that prosecutions might take place at the point where the offence originates. What we complain of is that people living in distant parts of Canada, some in Prince Edward Island, some in the Northwest Territories, some away off 2,000 miles in Saskatchewan, into which territory liquor may go from week to week, or month to month, from the wholesale dealers and manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec, knowing how injurious it is that these things should be done, should he obliged-and the burden would rest largely upon the temperance people-to put their hands into their pockets if they are going to prosecute under this law, come down to Montreal or Toronto, spend a lot of time, waste a lot of money, and employ counsel at their own expense for the purpose of carrying on prosecutions at these centres. That is what we complain of and all we are asking the Government to do is to show that it appreciates, even in a small degree, the desirability from the standpoint of the people of Canada, of having this law enforced.
I would like to hear what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has to say about this Bill. I would like to know whether he is one of those who are simply content to put a law on the statute book and then be able to say: all you have

to do is to look at the statutes and you will see that the Dominion Parliament has passed a law to assist in enforcing provincial prohibition. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce content with that? He was for years and years, long before these other hon. gentlemen talked, or ever had a thought, about temperance, prominently known as a leading temperance advocate in this country, and as one who was in favour of the total abolition of the use. of intoxicating liquors. My hon. friend now comes from a province where in almost every county they had a prohibitory law many years ago under the Canada Temperance Act. He knows with what enthusiasm and with what eloquence he advocated the adoption of that law. My hon. friend must have watched its operation, he must have known how earnest the temperance people of the province were about the enforcement of that law, that they spent thousands upon thousands of dollars in seeking to enforce it, and how at last they became discouraged. He must know further that in most of the counties of New Brunswick the Canada Temperance Act is to-day a dead letter;
but, they have a law on the
5 p.m. statute book, as the Minister of Justice will have a law upon the statute book, if this Bill goes through. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows just as well as he knows that he is reading a newspaper at this moment, that unless you appoint a public prosecutor to enforce a law of this kind the law will never be enforced. You will have a spasmodic enforcement for a little while but the people will then become discouraged and the law will become a dead letter. I agree entirely with what my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has said that unless this Government makes provision for the enforcement, not of the provincial laws-we do not ask that-but of this law that it is asking * Parliament to put on the statute book, it cannot expect the people to believe that it is in earnest; that it sincerely desires that this law shall be a success and that by this means the cause of temperance will be promoted. May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give me the benefit of his view in regard to the absence of any provision in this Bill for the appointment of a prosecutor whose duty it will be to see that the law is enforced?


John Hampden Burnham: This Bill seems to me to be a splendid measure and for this

reason: Let ns suppose that the enforcement of the law were in the hands of the Dominion Government; we will say that the Dominion has a Conservative Government and that there is in the province a Liberal Government. Knowing how deeply polities and partisanship have eaten into the life and being of this country, does anybody suppose for one minute that the cause of temperance would deter the Liberal Government of the province from making an exhibition of the administration of that law by the Dominion in that province, and making it so utterly and absolutely impossible and intolerable to the people that at the next federal election every man would vote against the Federal Government? That to my mind is one of the very strongest objections to the scheme proposed by the hon. member for St. John ('Mr. Pugsley). You have in addition to that, preserved in this legislation the sacred right of provincial autonomy. Now then, if a man is offended against outside of his own bailiwick, he is, as I understand it, and as I understand the principle of all law, required to put the law in motion himself at any distance or at any local point at which that local law is administered. If. the people of Ontario want prohibition they have it now within their grasp. Their objection has been heretofore that constitutionally they could not enact a full prohibitory law, and also that the Federal Government would not assist them because there would be an invasion of their territory by all sorts of liquor selling by freebooters who would bombard, as it were, the province in such a way that it would make their provincial law ineffective. The Dominion Government now says: we will stand aside, we will remove that objection, we will allow you to have full sway, we will put you in the position, that the entire Dominion will assist you in defending yourself and in making your Act effective. In order that this legislation may have its full value, we have only to look at the other side of the question. A province which does not wish to have a prohibitory law is not included in any vain attempt to carry out an impossibility. You have to preserve the distinct individualities of the provinces. If the province of Ontario wishes prohibition it need not sidestep it the way it is doing now but it can, according to the constitution, enact it and then pursue to the uttermost parts of this Dominion all offenders against the Act. This Bill removes all the objections in that respect and surely, for the reasons which I have given, and for other reasons too numerous to mention, it is far better that we should respect the rights of the provinces than that we should invade them and bring about a collision with the provinces with the hostility, the animosity and the possible disruption of this Dominion, that would result.


John Howard Sinclair: I am surprised that
my hon. friend takes such a serious view of this matter. When the question is the prosecution of a wholesale dealer in the city of Montreal or Toronto, no controversy between the local and Federal Government could possibly arise. The information is laid by some person who knows that the offence has been committed; it is a purely private matter; it is no part of the provincial Government's business to advise the Department of Justice what to do in the prosecution of any criminal. My hon. friend's statement is so wide Of the mark that I feel sure he cannot have read the Bill. He must not run away with the idea that this is a prohibitory measure. It is nothing of the kind. After this law comes in force, there will still be dozens of stills in the province of Ontario manufacturing liquor at different places, and dozens of bonded warehouses dotted all over the province offering this liquor for sale. The only thing this Bill prohibits is the sending of liquor into a prohibition province from outside, and we are simply making the reasonable request that this Government shall enforce this law ip outside provinces, and leave the province of Ontario, or any other prohibition province, to enforce its own law. I was a little disappointed at the attitude of my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. McLean) when he cited the case of Prince Edward Island. Let us suppose that an illicit dealer in Prince Edward Island orders a quantity of intoxicating liquor from a wholesale merchant in Montreal. The merchant ships it by the Intercolonial. It is addressed to the illicit dealer in Prince Edward Island; it is put on the train at Bonaventure Station, and is taken by the Intercolonial to Charlotte-where the illicit dealer takes possession of it. Now, all those concerned with the shipment are guilty. The first guilty party is the wholesale merchant in Montreal who sold the liquor to the illicit dealer in Prince Edward Island; then the Intercolonial is guilty for having carried the liquor into Prince Edward Island, and that is the only way in which liquor

can be carried into Prince Edward Island at certain seasons of the year. My hon. friend has heard the minister say that he will not prosecute the Intercolonial for carrying the liquor into Prince Edward Island, and therefore that criminal cannot be dealt with. If my hon. friend wished to prosecute the wholesale merchant in Montreal, he would have to prosecute him before some court in Montreal. I am surprised that the hon. member from Queens should advocate a system which would throw a duty of that kind upon his own province. Why does he not come in with us and ask the minister to . provide that when an offence of that kind is committed by a wholesale merchant in Montreal, Toronto, or any other large centre, the Dominion Government will undertake the duty of prosecuting the offender, just as it prosecutes offenders against the Inland Revenue Act, the Weights and Measures Act, the Fisheries Act, .and all similar Acts dealing with offences that may be committed in any part of the Dominion. That is what I should have expected my hon. friend to do.


James Joseph Hughes: From the discussion that has taken place it is evident that this Bill is not quite as effective as the Government could make it. There were, no doubt, reasons that commended themselves to the Government why they should not introduce what is called Dominion-wide prohibition; but having decided to introduce a measure of this kind, I cannot understand why they hesitate to make it as effective as possible. I think the Bill would he strengthened by providing, as the hon. member for St. John has suggested, that prosecutions for offences committed outside of a prohibition province shall be taken care of by the Dominion Government. Of course, if that provision would not make the Bill any more effective, that is a good reason why the Government should decide against including it in the Bill. But if it would make it more effective, why does the minister refuse to insert it in the Bill? Why not make the Bill as effective as possible? No reason that has commended itself to the judgment of the committee has yet, I think, been given by the minister why the suggestion of my hon. friend should not be adopted. The suggestion certainly appeals to me.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not heard any good reason given yet why we should subvert the whole system of the administration of law in this country for the sake of this particular law. The hon. gentleman says 
my reasons are not good, but before discussing that, let me point out the utter inaccuracy of the hon. member for Guys-borough, who insists on saying that we have not provided any means by which there shall be a prosecution when goods are carried on the Intercolonial; if he has followed the discussion he must have observed that I openly accepted the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John, and it is in the Bill now.


John Howard Sinclair: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I did not know that he had accepted that suggestion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have provided that any officer or man on the Intercolonial w'ho violates this law will have to answer for it.


John Howard Sinclair: It is not in the printed Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill has been improved with the co-operation of my hon. friend from St. John and of my hon. friend from Queens, and I am quite open to make further improvements.


John Howard Sinclair: It does not change my argument at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It only removes its basis; but the argument is just as strong as it was before, because even with its basis it did not carry weight, and I might perhaps have saved myself the trouble of removing it.


John Howard Sinclair: In the illustration I gave, could the Minister of Railways or the Crown be prosecuted for carrying liquor on the Intercolonial into a prohibition province?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will be no defence for any man, freight agent or whoever else he be, to say that he did it as an employee or officer of the Intercolonial; he will have to answer for it just the same. I have not suggested that His Majesty should be sent to jail under this Bill, but the hon. member for St. John will agree that I have adopted the suggestion he made, that any officer of the Intercolonial who carries liquor into a prohibition province will be liable to be prosecuted, just the same as any other person.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This law will be enforced just as every other law of the same nature is enforced. It has been pointed out that we prosecute under the Inland Revenue Act. We collect the revenues of the Dominion, and we prosecute those who steal from the nation just as any man initiates proceedings when his property has

been stolen; but laws of this nature are left to be enforced primarily by people who may be injured by the action complained of, or, in the last resort, by the provincial authorities, and this law will be absolutely in the same situation. The hon. gentleman from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) says: Oh, it would be more effective if we provided a special prosecutor. That would be quite true of all criminal laws; but, if we start to do that, we cannot differentiate, and as' was suggested by an hon. member who spoke a little while ago, we would have to establish a police and detective force in all parts of the Dominion to devote itself to hunting out violations of this liquor law. Why should that be suggested when there is throughout this country the officers of the provinces, all of them interested in enforcing the provincial laws? And this is a law to aid in the enforcement of the provincial laws. It is true that the offence of the man "who sends" is committed in one province, and in that respect it violates the law of the Dominion of Canada. It produces its ultimate result in another province, and there it violates the law of the Dominion, and by means of that liquor being sent in, there is brought about a violation of the law of that province. -It is suggested that the people interested in temperance in this country are so absolutely selfish and local that they do not care one straw about the violations of laws of this kind, enacted to enforce temperance laws, provided that you are not hitting them in their own province. Much has been said about Montreal and Toronto and the other great centres; that there will be nobody there to prosecute, and that a man will have to come all the way from the wilds of Saskatchewan to the wicked 'city of Montreal in order to lay his information and do his prosecuting. I can assure the hon. gentleman from St. John and all the other gentlemen anxious about the enforcement of this law that I know good earnest people in Montreal who will see that the wholesaler must not violate the law, and that the vendor of liquor who is violating the law, even though he is sending it to Saskatchewan, will have an information laid against him, and that the prosecution will go on like a prosecution under any other law.
It has been said: if we were honest in our desire, and if we were sincere, we would do this, that, or the other thing Suggestions of lack of sincerity or honesty are very easily made; but it is perhaps possible to
doubt the sincerity of suggestions that would attach to this measure the creation of an immensely expensive and I submit unnecessary machinery for its enforcement.
I have sufficient confidence in the people who are behind the temperance laws-and many of them, and the strongest and most sincere of them, have urged and commended this legislation-that, when we have given them the instrument for which they ask, they will not hesitate to use it, and I am satisfied that the apprehensions of my hon. friend from St. John will not be justified. I sincerely trust that I have given to the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) a reason that he at all events will accept as having some weight. I am particularly desirous of doing so, because I am glad to recognize that the hon. member for Kings does not find it necessary to make suggestions of lack of sincerity or honesty in regard to a proposal of this nature in order to back up his opinions. I accept his questioning as being intended to bring out the facts, and I really do think the fact has been brought out that we need not have any anxiety about the enforcing of this measure.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister said that the enforcement of this law would entail heavy expenditure, and that it would be unfair to place that upon the Dominion, but he also inferred that it would be quite right to put it upon the shoulders of private individuals, such as the temperance people.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the first place, the provinces already have machinery in connection with the enforcement of their own laws, so that they would not have to create new machinery. So far as the operation of the temperance people are concerned, they may be carried on whether we have a prosecutor or not, and the work in any one particular city or toym does not entail very heavy expense; but if we had to provide a special force scattered throughout the Dominion, away up into the wilds of Saskatchewan as well as in the wicked cities of Montreal and Toronto, and in other places, that would impose a tremendous burden upon this Dominion of Canada. More than that, it is asking us to set a precedent. If we are going to provide that special macliinery for the enforcement of this law, I confess that I do not see what reason there is why we should not provide a similar machinery for the

enforcement of laws the offences against which, however grave one might regard the offences against this law, are certainly much graver than those contemplated by this law. I have heard it put forward that this Government should not provide laws that were desirable because this Government was not going to proceed to enforce them. The sentiment that is behind this law can be trusted to see to its enforcement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Pugsley: No, not just for a minute or two. The Minister of Justice has presented so many views in such an earnest manner that, while one does not quite agree with him, one feels it his duty to state his reasons for disagreeing. The minister rather intimates that we have been calling Montreal and Toronto wicked cities.


Charles Joseph Doherty: You called them big centres of whisky.


William Pugsley: We do not do that at all. We speak of them as being cities where to-day it happens that there are large manufactories of intoxicating liquor. We do not suggest for a single moment that they are not just as moral cities as any other cities in Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will accept your
apology.


William Pugsley: I hope my hon.. friend will apologize to the House for having made the suggestion that we called them wicked cities.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will go so far as to
accept your apology.


William Pugsley: I have nothing to apologize for. The Minister of Justice asked why we should treat this law in a different manner from the other laws which are placed upon the statute book, the enforcement of which is left to the provincial authorities. The reason is that a vast majority of the people of this country think that the Dominion, as a whole, is deeply interested in the prevention of the use of intoxicating liquors. The people who have petitioned this Government for the passage of a Dominion prohibitory law have put forward very strongly the fact that by the use of intoxicating liquors there is a great waste of energy and money, and that particularly during the war, that waste should be prevented as far as possible, and the resources and energy and strength of the people

should be conserved for the purposes of state, which means for the purposes of Canada. I can see, but my hon. friend the minister cannot see the very great difference between the duty of the Dominion Government so far as the enforcement of this law is concerned from what it is in regard to the enforcement of hundreds of criminal statutes which are law in the country. The very nature of the business which is sought to be prevented also makes it desirable to treat it from an entirely different standpoint. That is a view I have endeavoured to present, and I can see the very strongest reason why this Government should do what it reasonably can by the appointment of officers to secure the enforcement of the law.


John Hampden Burnham: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to give us some example of laws which are enforced by the Dominion now-precisely similar laws-


John Howard Sinclair: Fisheries.


John Hampden Burnham: Never mind, thank
you-precisely similar laws which are enforced in the way he suggests this should be' enforced.


William Pugsley: Take the fisheries laws as suggested by my hon. friend from Guys-borough. We know that there are laws relating to the rivers of Canada, both tidal and non-tidal, prohibiting fishing on Sunday, prohibiting fishing in certain seasons of the year, prohibiting the obstruction of tidal waters by nets. The Dominion does not own the fish, but regards it as being to the advantage of the people of this Country that the fisheries should be conserved and protected, and the production of fish increased as much as possible. The fishery laws are enforced absolutely at the expense of the Dominion treasury. The Dominion has its fishery guardians to see to the enforcement of the law, and when offenders are arrested the Dominion confiscates the nets or rods, the Dominion employs counsel, prosecutes, and bears the expense of the enforcement of the law.


John Hampden Burnham: Is that a purely provincial matter?


William Pugsley: No.


John Hampden Burnham: Then I am not asking about that. Hive us one case of a law of this kind.


William Pugsley: This is a Dominion matter, just as the enforcement of the fishing

laws is a Dominion matter. Surely, this pertains to the interest and welfare of the whole Dominion.


John Hampden Burnham: That is begging the
question.


William Pugsley: I am afraid my hon.
friend is seeking to find a reason for defending this Government by defending the measure now' before the committee. I am obliged to assume he is very sincere, but I am afraid he is very prejudiced, which is, perhaps, not an unusual condition for my hon. friend to be in, and perhaps he is hardly to blame for it. I think it is of Dominion-wide importance that this law should be enforced. I agree with hon. members on this side who have spoken that, unless you have a criminal law properly enforced you not only create a contempt on the part of the people for that particular law, but you tend to create contempt for all criminal laws. In this matter, Parliament surely ought to be guided by the experience of the past. I am glad that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has come into the Chamber. He knows perfectly well that where the prohibitory laws in the province in which he was born-and which had the honour of having him for a good many years as one of its representatives in this Parliament-have not been enforced, it has been because there were no proper officials to enforce them. He knows that the burdens of such enforcement are too heavy to be borne by private individuals or by the temperance organizations of the province. The Minister of Justice-I trust he will pardon me for repeating my observations; I cannot help repeating them because he still seems to pursue the wrong course and to be guided by wrong views as to the importance of these laws-must clearly understand that, so far as the enforcement of provincial laws is concerned, we do not ask this Government to appoint public prosecutors. We say that the most effective way in which you can assist provincial legislation is to allow prosecutions to take place	in those	very centres
where the offence originates, where the liquor is manufactured, and from which it has been shipped. If he knows anything of what has been done in the past in reference to shipments of liquor to Prince Edward Island and other places where prohibition is in force, he knows that liquor is sent under various disguises,-sent, sometimes as groceries, sometimes as pickles, and
so on. These gentlemen in Montreal-not these wicked gentlemen, but these astute gentlemen-engaged in the manufacture of liquor, know a thing or two about the way to deceive the transportation companies and the authbrities, and they send the liquor into prohibited sections of Canada as the most innocent articles of merchandise you can imagine. The Minister of Justice himself admits that it is desirable to have some provision for prosecuting these manufacturers and distillers who may seek to send liquor into prohibited territory. That being the case, does it not raise the question of proceedings being taken outside the province immediately affected, perhaps hundreds of miles away from that province. It is that extra-provincial prosecution, it is that Dominion prosecution, which we want this Government to undertake. We want simply that the phase of the law which provides that a manufacturer or wholesaler who sends liquor into prohibited territory may be proceeded against shall be enforced by officers provided by the Dominion Government. That is all that we ask; and we say to you, Mr. Minister, with all sincerity that, unless you do appoint public prosecutors at the expense of this Dominion, whose duty it shall be to ferret out violations of the law, and to punish offenders, you may just as well stop the passage of this Bill, for you will be simply putting upon the statute book a measure which, while you say it will aid provincial legislation, will really be a mere pretense, a merely farcical piece of legislation, absolutely nugatory, and which you yourself some day, will be ashamed of and will wish you had never placed upon the statute book.


John Hampden Burnham: Will the hon. gentleman give us a concrete case of such a prosecution-just take one.
Mr. PUGSLEY- I will give a concrete instance of what such a prosecution would be, if that is what the hon. gentleman means?	.


John Hampden Burnham: All right.


William Pugsley: Suppose a manufacturer or wholesaler sends liquor into a province in which prohibition is in force, the liquor being intended for sale in that province, that manufacturer or wholesaler is liable under this Bill. The offence, let us say, originates in some city in Ontario or Quebec, but is consummated in Prince Edward Island. We say that this is a case that ought to be attended to and carried to. a

conclusion by the Dominion Government. So far as offences within the province are concerned, we are quite willing that the provincial authorities should bear the responsibility. But, when the burden has to be borne of going into another province, perhaps many hundreds of miles distant, the prosecution can be better attended to by officials of the Dominion Government than by the provincial authority, and therefore we say it shpuld be looked after by the Dominion. We also wish to urge and this is the last word I shall have to say^in regard to this matter


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: Gentlemen on the other side treat this Bill as if it were a joke, something of the least possible importance merely to be carried through and placed upon the statute book, that they may boast of what they have done, being quite satisfied to leave the law merely nugatory. All I nave to say about this feature of the Bill is, that if you pass the Bill in its present form, the legislation, will be simply on paper and will not be effective, and might better never have been enacted at all. We have said all we' can, and responsibility must rest upon hon. gentlemen on the Treasury Benches and their supporters behind them who are evidently not desirous of having a measure on the statute-book that there will be any hope of being made effective.
Amendment to amendment agreed to.


John Gillanders Turriff: I have an amendment
to propose, if this is the right time. I move:
No license shall hereafter be granted or renewed, under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act, to any person to enable such person to carry on business as a distiller, brewer or maltster in any province wherein a Provincial Act is in force prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor.


Charles Joseph Doherty: A suggestion on the lines of this amendment was made the other evening by the hon. member for South Wellington. I do not know that I need repeat at length what I then said. The proposal involves our making an absolute prohibition of manufacturing because the province has made a prohibition of pale, and so it is not on the lines on whicn this Bill proceeds. It is not in accordance with the principle of this measure, which principle was endorsed by a very large majority of this House, namely, that our legislation should be in the direction of making effective legislation adopted by the prov-

inces. It is suggested that because a province has prohibited one thing, we should legislate to prohibit another and a different thing, both of them being things within the province. For the reasons which I gave the other evening, and which will be luund upon Hansard, I feel that I cannot accept this suggested amendment.
Amendment negatived on division.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), when this Bill was last up, gave notice of another amendment in connection with this section. As it appears in the Votes and Proceedings, it is to be an amendment to section 3. I am quite satisfied the intention was to add the following as section 3 of the Bill:
Every one is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding tyro hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for six months, or to both fine and imprisonment, who: '
(a)	Sends or ships by any public conveyance to any place in which the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited, any package containing intoxicating liquor not plainly labelled so as to show the actual contents of such package; or
(b)	Sends or ships by any public conveyance any package containing intoxicating liquor addressed to a fictitious person, or addressed otherwise than to the actual consignee of such package; or
(c)	Being a common carrier or the servant or agent of a common carrier, knowingly receives for conveyance, carries or makes delivery of any such package; or
(d)	Knowingly takes delivery from any common carrier of any such package.
The purpose of the amendment is to thwart the endeavours of people who seek secretly to introduce liquor into a province in which there is a law prohibiting sale, the requirement being that all such packages should be plainly labelled, showing their contents. The different sections provide for the different offences that may be committed in connection with such packages.


William Pugsley: The minister accepts the amendment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am prepared to accept the amendment. It may very well be that we ought to modify the wording to meet a suggestion made in connection with the Intercolonial. There are provisions there with regard to carriers. I would move that we add in subsection i(e), after the words, "servant or agent of a common carrier," the words, "or of any Government railway, Dominion or provincial."


William Pugsley: With regard to the employees of a Government railway, could the minister not put something in the Bill


ID, 1916
[Stage Direction]
that would guard the minor official? I think that the Intercolonial railway should be in exactly the same position as the ordinary railway company, but, of course, the ordinary railway company could be proceeded against. It seems to me that it would be hardly fair to proceed against a minor employee who was simply doing his duty on the Government railway. Take, for instance, the baggage master, or the brakeman, or the conductor, or the engineer; they should not be held liable. It seems to me that the parties held liable should be the officials- who receive and the officials who deliver the goods. I dp not know how the minister would work it out, but take, for instance, the agent at Shediac.
A package might come consigned to Prince Edward Island. Or take the carter who transfers the package from the cars to the steamer. He might suspect it to contain liquor, but he could not exercise his judgment. He has no right to refuse the package; it is his duty to send it on. But should he be held liable? I think the point is worthy of consideration.
Mr .DOHERTY: We are in this situation : We do mean to say to that man, and to strengthen his position by putting the law behind him, that whatever may be the instructions of his superiors, he is not to do that if he knows that the package contains liquor, and it is not properly labelled. The law does propose to step in between any superior officer on the Intercolonial railway and any inferior officer, and to say to them all equally: You shall not take or carry liquor unless it is properly labelled. . I hardly think we can assume that the superior officer will dismiss a man for obeying the law. If he does he puts himself in a position of ordering or authorizing that man to break the law, and it seems to me he would make himself responsible. But after we have made it perfectly clear that we mean this legislation to apply to [DOT] every person on the Intercolonial railway, does the hon. gentleman apprehend that the minister, or the general manager, would give instructions that the Intercolonial employees should violate the law?
William Pugsley: What I want to do is to guard the inferior employee against wrongdoing. We know that the Crown is some times very merciless. I have known ou the Intercolonial cases where men doing their duty have violated the law, and damages were recovered against them, and the Government did not stand behind them
as an ordinary railway company would. Can it not be provided that, where the employee of the Government railway is simply acting in the discharge of his duty, and is carrying out his instructions, the general manager be held liable. Let the general manager take the place of the railway company and then, of course, in the event of damages being recovered from him, he would be recouped by the Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are dealing with the criminal law and it seems to me that to make the general manager responsible for something with which he had nothing to do would be acting more harshly than if we were to say to the employee: You must not do this. Before an employee could be convicted, it would have to be shown that he had knowingly violated the law. I think it is important that the law should make it quite clear that nobody is to do this knowingly, and that it will not do to plead instructions from a superior officer. Once this law is passed and made applicable to all the people that come under it, the situation of the servant who, under the instructions of his master, knowingly violated this law, would be in the position of a servant whose master told him to steal a package of goods. It would not avail him to say that his superior had told him to violate the law. I felt the desirability of making this special provision with regard to the first section of the Bill so as to cover those employees for the reason that as the Bill does not apply to the Crown and the offence is an offence created by the proposed Act, there might have been a loophole of escape from what I believe to be the general law. I think the possibility of hardship is very remote. It is desirable, if you are going to have an effective law, that every man who has to do with the handling or carrying of goods should be brought under its operation. Any employee of any carrier dismissed for obeying the law, iat all events, if he had a contract of any kind with his employer, would certainly have grounds for an action for improper dismissal. When we know how eloquently dismissed officials are defended in *the House on occasion, if this case should arise, certainly any such grievance would not be unheard of.


James Joseph Hughes: If there are several persons, can they all be prosecuted ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, you may have many parties to the same offence.

Mr. CO'PP: Suppose a number of packages of liquor are shipped from Montreal, some of 'which are consigned to Quebec, where there may not be a prohibitory law, and some to New Brunswick where we hope, with the proposed legislation, we will have a prohibitory law; when the train gets to Campbellton, near the border line between Quebec and New Brunswick, the train is taken charge of by a new set of men, and when the train gets to Newcastle there will be found, amongst other goods sent from Montreal, a package of liquor consigned to somebody in Newcastle. The brakeman, whose duty it is to look after the train, throws off this package along with others. The liquor, or prohibition, inspector of the province is on hand; he sees the brakeman putting off that package and he at once takes his name and lays information against fum. Here is a perfectly, innocent man working upon the train who delivers this parcel along with others. The inspector, under the law, has a right to take this man's name and to at once take proceedings against him for breaking the law. I contend that the brakeman, or the Intercolonial employee, who is absolutely innocent, should not be mulcted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He will not be.


Mr. COPP:: He may be. %


Charles Joseph Doherty: The law only says that if he "knowingly" does it he will be liable.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But, if this package of liquor is on his train and he gets an order to put it off, it is his duty to unload it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then if he does he ceases to be doing his duty; he should leave it alone.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What will he do with it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Leave it there.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Where will he take it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he is a wise man, the law saying that it must not be " taken," he will not take it anywhere.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But it is on the train, he is in charge of the train and what is he going to do with it-throw it off and destroy it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not know that brakemen were in charge of trains; but, whoever put that on the taain is responsible for having it there. If the brakeman lets it severely alone, as I would advise him to do; I cannot see what he is going to be convicted of.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But in all probability the minister will not be there to advise the brakeman and he will not know what his duty is.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will transmit the advice; he has the brakeman in his eye. I move that the committee rise and report progress.


James Joseph Hughes: Is that amendment
adopted ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blain in the' Chair.
Post Office-Outside Service-salaries and allowances, $7,943,162.25.
['I do not think there is\nany possible chance of an adjournment for any extended period at Easter, unless there is a prospect of getting the business closed at a very early date, because hon. members who are here and who come from a distance, are most anxious to remain at their work until the business of the House has been completed.\nIn respect to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes), I believe, from information I have, that he will probably be in his seat on Friday of this week. If the boat on which he sailed makes its usual connections the minister will be here on Friday and I am sure that he will be prepared and willing to answer anything that he may be called upon to answer as to the administration of his department. With respect to legislation, an announcement will be made almost immediately by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister as to what additional legislation is to be brought down, and I am sure that it will not be of such an important character that it would not be possible for this House to give it all the consideration that was necessary and even then, if we were diligent in our efforts, be able to prorogue Parliament o* Thursday night before Easter Sunday. However, if that is impossible, we will have to keep on and in that case it will not be possible to have an extended adjournment during the Easter holidays.\n_ Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11 p.m.\nTuesday, April 11, 1916.']
George Perry Graham: What is included under " mail service?"


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Rural mail service, steamship mail service, and the ordinary service iby land. The Transcontinental railway, running through new territory in the province of Quebec, and the Canadian Northern, opening up territory in other parts of the country, account for an increase of $19,932. The balance of the increase, $385,000, is accounted for by rural mail delivery and the ordinary mail service.


George Perry Graham: How much of that increase is due to rural mail delivery?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The greater part of the $385,000 is on account of rural mail delivery. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) asked me to bring down a detailed statement of the increased expenditure on rural mail delivery since 1908. It is as follows: 1908-9, $6,212; 1909-10, $19,615; 1910-11, $60,022; 1912-13, $86,355; 1913-14, $290,700; 1914-15, $477,945, making a total of' $940,849.


George Perry Graham: If I remember correctly, an effort was made some years ago to change the method of granting mail subsidies, and it was proposed to pay a certain amount to any steamship line that carried our mail. Originally, the subsidies were more restricted than of recent years. What steamship lines are getting mail subsidies?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Properly speaking, the steamship subsidy does not come under my

department, but under the Department of Trade and Commerce. One of the conditions of the contract entered into between these subsidized steamship lines and the Government is that they shall carry the mail. Heretofore, subsidies have been granted to the Canadian Pacific Steamship Line, the Allan Line, the White Star, the Canadian Northern-in fact, all the principal lines sailing from the St. Lawrence. As my hon. friend knows, the Canadian Pacific and the Allan Line are now amalgamated and that is the only line running now.


George Perry Graham: Has the war interfered
very much with the mail service?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Very much.


George Perry Graham: A good deal of our mail goes via New York?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Most of it does, because steamships sailing from that port are generally faster than the lines on the Canadian route, and they give a more frequent service.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Could the minis-ier give us the aggregate cost of the conveyance of mail by land and by railways for the years 1913, 1914 and 1915?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I could get these figures for my hon. friend during the evening.


George Perry Graham: This afternoon the right hon. leader of the Opposition asked a question as to the censorship of mail coming from the United States to Canada. Does that apply both ways?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


George Perry Graham: And to private correspondence as well?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: All. I would rather
my hon. friend did not pursue these inquiries.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As the fiscal year 1915-16 has been ended for some days, could *the minister give us a summary of the result of the operations of his department for the past twelve months? I would remind the minister that he promised us an estimate of the revenue derived from the war stamps, showing what properly belonged to the department and what to consolidated revenue.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: As to the first question put by my hon. friend, I will remind him that I gave the figures some time ago in answer, I think, to my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). It is estimated
that the department will receive about $6,000,000 from the war stamp tax.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What were the figures
that the minister gave to the hon. member for Rouville the other night?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I cannot give them
offhand.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the minister remember roughly what the revenue and the expenditure were?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not. I think the figures were given in answer to my hon. friend himself; they were brought down to the end of December.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I got a statement down to the end of December.
Mr. iCAiSGRAIN : And for certain offices in the principal cities we brought the figures down to the end of February.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I want to find out the probable receipts of the department for the year ended March 31, 1916, and also the probable expenditures. .


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I will give the information in a few minutes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: In the statement which
the minister has given for rural mail deliveries for 1914-15, viz.: $477,945, can he tell us how that is distributed amongst the different provinces?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Those figures I also
gave the other day; they are on Hansard.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is an item for salaries and allowances. I presume that refers to salaries of postmasters.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, not to all postmasters, because the great majority of the postmasters are paid by commission.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does that item include what is allowed in commissions?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, simply the salaries to those who are paid salaries.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What does " allowances "
mean?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There is a provisional
allowance given to all employees west of Sault Ste. Marie on account of the higher rate of living west of that point. It has been given for years.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is an advantage which the western employees have over the eastern employees.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is not an advantage, because it costs more to live west of Sault Ste. Marie than it does in the East.


Mr. OOPP:: Is there anything in the
Estimates or in the report of the Postmaster General to show what commissions are paid to the different postmasters in the rural districts?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Fifty per cent on receipts of $1,000 ; 30 per cent from $1,000 to $10,000 and 20 per cent over $10,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is the information I have. After the prorogation of the House last year a constituent of mine asked me if the postmasters would be allowed the same commission on the sale of what was alleged to be the extra war stamp of one cent, which came into force last session, as on the sale of the ordinary stamps. Is that the case?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No. The department has come to the conclusion that, as there is now no more work entailed upon the postmasters than before the tax was imposed, the sales of those stamps will not be counted for purposes of commission.
' The postmasters will get their commissions on the ordinary revenue, not including the war tax.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When did that regulation come into force?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The commission cannot be computed until all the returns are in. Therefore, for the year ended March 31, 1916, the commission will be computed when we get all the returns in from the different postmasters up to that date, and the salaries will be fixed for the year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The commission on the sales of the extra alleged war stamp will be deducted.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The postmasters will get no commission on the sales of war stamps.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is an arrangement that is coming into force now? '


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is to be retroactive.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is not really to be retroactive. The only way in which we can compute what the commission will be is by waiting for the returns for the fiscal year which has just closed, and then fixing the commission. In fixing the commission we will not take into consideration the sales of the extra war stamp.


Arthur Bliss Copp: No commission will be allowed to postmasters for sales of war stamps?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is right.


Mr. ROSS:: As rural mail delivery has been extending, post offices have been eliminated. Can the minister tell the House how many postmasters have been done away with throughout Canada as rural mail deliveries have been extended, and what amount has been saved in that manner?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I could give my hon. friend the information as to the nuhaber of postmasters who have ceased to be postmasters, but that would take some little time to compute. I do not think that the saving will be very great, because in many instances the cost of rural mail delivery will be more than the amount paid to the postmaster.


James Hamilton Ross: Can the minister give any approximate idea of how many postmasters have been eliminated?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, I would not like to give any approximate figures. I would rather bring down the exact figures.


James Hamilton Ross: That will be all right.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: I \ ould like to ask the minister one favour, and that is, to send a representative of his department to the county of Inverness to examine the way in which his department has juggled the post offices in the district of Southwest Margaree and Creignish. He has established five or six post offices within a radius of three miles, instead of two as before. Our difficulty there is that the people who are *supposed to be served by those post offices, who were formerly served by two offices, will have to go the round of five new offices before they can be satisfied that there is no mail for them. These post offices are Kiltarlity, Scottsville, Mount Borden, Gil-lisdale, and one other post office within a radius of four miles. And the funny part of the whole thing is, that the man in a part of the district formerly served by Upper Margaree post office, if he wants to get his letter or newspaper that has been addressed to him, may have to make the round of the five offices. The minister will see that I am pretty well conversant with the circumstances, otherwise it might be destructive to my political standing to find fault with the multiplying of offices there; *but the fact is I am not finding fault with increasing the number of post offices. I want to show that these offices were

opened for political purposes, and the only reason I know of for placing the offices where they are was to give an office to John Jones here, to Tom Smith there, and to others who were faithful friends of the party in power. If the offices were located properly, I should be quite willing-I know how these things are done; I am human- that the friends of the Postmaster General should get appointments when new offices are opened. But it' is ridiculous that five different offices should be opened up within a narrow radius in a thinly-settled county, when other portions of the same county are not efficiently served. On the line from Dunvegan to St. Rose there is not a post office for six or seven miles, though this is a fairly thickly settled country. But in other cases there are four post offices not more than a mile or a mile and a half apart. It was found necessary to dismiss certain postmasters, friends of mine and of the party I support, and to give these offices to other people, who, of course, had to be of the other political persuasion. I am going to ask the minister to be kind enough to send somebody to investigate, and if he does not tell me, when I see him next session, that I am correct I will not ask any more favours. While I am on my feet I wish to say a word on the subject of mail contracts. I was astounded to hear that the department of the Postmaster General respected the system of tender and contract. That is the most marvellous thing I have ever heard. The system of tender and contract is the last thing we hear of in my county. To show the ridiculousness of the procedure, as followed in my county, let me refer to the Mabou-Whycooomagh route contract, and to the Invemess-Margaree service. The department followed the ordinary course in looking for tenders. They put up notices, and so on, and a number of men tendered. As it happened, the lowest tenderer in each case was a Liberal. The department decided, from some information they got from the gentleman who was the patronage-vendor-I do not mean any disrespect by that, I refer to the man who represents the Government, and who, no doubt, informed the Post Office Department-that it would not be right to give these men the contracts. So, correspondence was carried on with the agent there until finally it was discovered that there was a man who would take the contract for a dollar or two, or perhaps fifty cents less than the .lowest tenderer. This is the case of the Mabou-Whycocomagh service, and the
same condition obtained with regard to the Inverness-Margaree service. The reason I specify these is that they are substantial contracts, where the mail is carried, in one case, over a route of eighteen to twenty miles, and, in the other, of about twenty-five miles. The men who have these contracts are not getting rich. If it were a case where the lowest tenderer was asking too much for the service the department would be justified in investigating. But this was a case in which none of the tenderers was anything too low. If the man who sent in the highest tender had got the contract, he would only have starvation wages. I bring forward this case in order to show the fact that the object was to eliminate the Liberals. But what has been the result? No respectable Liberal would waste his time putting his name to the tender for a contract. In the first place, he knows his trouble would be wasted, for he could not get the contract, and, in the second place, he does not want to place himself in opposition to his neighbour who wants to get the contract at a paying price, so he says to himself he cannot hope to get the contract even if he were the lowest tenderer, and therefore he will leave it to the Tories. I do not often take up the time of the House; it is only when I have great reason that I speak here at all. In this case I have great reason. The reason is, to show the Postmaster General that he is destroying the essential feature of the system of tender and contract. If the papers destroyed in the great fire on Parliament Hill could be restored, I could read to the minister the names of twenty contracts, in every one of which a Liberal happened to be the lowest tenderer, and yet did not get the contract, because the patronage vendor corresponded with the department, and, by dint of time and correspondence, they succeeded in getting some Tory to take the contract at a few cents lower.	Even
in the small contracts, such a contract as that for the carrying of the mail from the station at Inverness to the post office, a distance of five or six hundred yards-even that could not be given to the lowest tenderer, but had to be given to some friend of the party in power. I must tell the Postmaster General that when my friends were in power they did not hand out to me the treatment he is handing out to his friends. When I asked to play the game that he is playing to-day-this is

open confession; I do not pretend to be holier than the rest-I was shown the door, in a very polite way, and I had to leave. The ridiculousness of such a thing was pointed out to me, and I had common sense enough to see it, and did not carry the agitation further. In every case, during the years I had to do with patronage, the contract went to the lowest tenderer, and in seventy-five per cent of the cases they went to Tories.
Mr. -CASGRAIN:	When were these five
post offices established, to which the hon. gentleman refers?


Alexander William Chisholm: It was since 1911.
These post offices spring up at the most uncertain times, but particularly if there is a municipal election or a provincial local election pending. It is consequently impossible for me to remember When new offices are opened in/ a large county such as I represent. Perhaps I discover the creation of a new post office by being told, when I go to mail a letter to a patient in some district, that he may not get it for weeks, as new post offices have been opened in his neighbourhood. Of these five post offices to which I have referred, one was opened last year and one the year before.
Post Office Department-miscellarieous, $843,838.


Alexander William Chisholm: Has the minister the information about these tenders?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have heard of a great many contracts where the lowest tenders were not accepted because somebody else tendered below the figure mentioned, but I have not heard anybody say the contracts were let out at too high a figure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We are not talking about that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I know, but there must be some public interest at stake. Surely the complaint is not simply that good Liberals like those my hon. friend spoke of did not get the contracts. There must be something higher than that; the public interest must come in.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do you think it is in the public interest to go behind tenders and award contracts privately at a figure a little below the lowest tenderer? Will the minister say that is in the public interest, or in the interest of decent administration of a public department?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was surprised to hear my hon. friend say that he knows of 20 cases in which that was done. That is not the practice of the department. The practice is that the lowest tender is accepted, and, so far as I know, no consideration is given to the question whether a man is a Conservative or a Liberal. That is the way I administer the department, and the way I intend to administer it.


Alexander William Chisholm: I am convinced of the truth of what I say and I tell the minister here, that no public consideration was brought into the decision that was arrived at respecting these two contracts and several others, because I know the parties who tendered and what they tendered for. I know that the men who tendered and expected to get the contracts came to me and told me they were surprised that they were not getting them. I told them I had a suspicion that someone else was after them. I know this is the system that was carried out with respect to these contracts anyway, and that no public interest was served by taking the contracts from the lowest tenderer and handing them over to party friends because they happened to be 75 cents or $2 or $3 lower.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think this matter is of sumcient importance to justify the committee in securing from the minister, if possible, some declaration of departmental policy in repect of the system of tender and contract. I cited a case to the House the other day in reference to which information was furnished in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll). In that case it appeared that one Donald McIntosh had tendered at $350, and Joseph Duffy at $400, for a certain mail contract in the county of Cape Breton. It appears, according to the answer furnished, that Mr. Duffy was allowed to reduce his tender to $345, just $5 under the amount of the lowest tender. Three other cases similar to this were mentioned in reference to which answers supplied by the department during the present session disclosed the same state of facts. The hon. member for Inverness has referred to two cases of a similar nature, and I am quite satisfied from what I hear in Nova Scotia that there are scores and hundreds of cases where the system of tender and contract is not respected. But the minister enunciates a very different principle, and I am seriously disappointed to hear him take that position, namely that he is justified in awarding

a contract to some person who is permitted to make secretly an offer a little below the lowest tender. The minister says that if he gets a figure below the lowest tender, he is	justified in accepting it;
that the public interest has not suffered,	and therefore his action
is not open to criticism. The administration of the Post Office Department is a very important portion of the public service of this country, and if the minister goes behind the system of tender and contract and makes it a practice of the department to receive offers secretly from persons not tendering, accepting these offers just because they are below the amount of the lowest tender, all of which is done in violation of statute, I say that the administration of the department is open to the most serious criticism imaginable, and I cannot understand anything that could be done by any administrator or any minister of the Crown that would be more censura/ble, more disreputable, and more against the public interest. I do not know how far the present Postmaster General is responsible for that. I said the other day that the administration of his department was debauched by his predecessor in office. I repeat it now.


Mr. ROGERS:: Tell us in what way?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would take too long.


Robert Rogers: It will not take long.


George Perry Graham: Oh, it is admitted.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend knows
that he and his colleagues felt the truth of my statement so much that they were very glad to get rid of their late colleague.


Robert Rogers: That is absolutely incorrect.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is the view of the present Minister of Public Works, but I think my statement is absolutely correct.


Robert Rogers: Absolutely incorrect.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Whether it is the case or not, I say it is a good thing for the country that the late minister happened to get out anyway, owing to the character of his administration of the department. The present Postmaster General does not indicate any desire in practice, although he does in profession upon the floor of the House, to reform that department. If he would frankly admit that in the cases cited to him in reference to the violation of the sacredness of the system of tender and contract, this was done without his knowledge and that he



[Stage Direction]
officially disapproved of it, and would give the committee and the House his promise that it would not occur in the future, perhaps we should be obliged to accept his statement. But he defends the practice of violating the system of tender and contract. I say that is as much a crime against the public service as is open theft, and he has no right, and his department has no right, to violate that system except under very extraordinary circumstances. It may be that this practice is more common in my own province than anywhere else. If so I am very sorry for that, and it may be due to the fact that the Government have not the right sort of political advisers in my province. If that is the case, the minister should take some warning from the facts which have been given him in this connection and refuse to have further correspondence with prospective Conservative candidates in Nova Scotia-and perhaps it would be well for him to administer some rebuke to those who are now Conservative members from that province. 'I want to hear some statement from the minister as to what will be the practice of the department in the future, and I think he should make an open confession here-whether he shall get absolution or not is another matter-that the practice of disregarding the system of tender and eontract is against his judgment and against the public interest.
Mr. JOSEPH GIRARD:: (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the discussion on the means taken by the Postmaster General to cut down as much as possible the price of contracts.
I listened quite attentively to my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) when he stated that the officers of the Post Office Department may be carrying on a kind of haggling in the awarding of contracts. I would remind my hon. friend that the present Postmaster General is not the first one to be guilty of that crime, and I myself know of many precedents. In my own constituency, the inspector of the Quebec division went from one parish to another stating that the tenders were too high, .and succeeded in getting a reduction of five or ten dollars on the price of contracts. Such a course was in the public interest and was taken because the tenders received at the department were excessive.
If, however, the same practice obtained which is criticised to-day, because it was thought to be in the public interest and because the Post Office Department had to


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
meet a huge expenditure, so that it became necessary to control those expenses, it seems to me that the present minister is not to be blamed for doing what was done by his predecessors.
As I understand it, he has extended enormously the rural mail service, which has required a vast increase in the expenditure. So, taking advantage of similar circumstances, and on account of the great expenses incurred, I think he should be allowed, as were his predecessors, to take means to reduce in every way possible the figures of mail contracts.
Personally, I do not believe that the present minister blundered any more than his predecessors, especially, as may be gathered from the public accounts, when an account is taken of the fact that the Canadian people and the Canadian farmer now have an improved mail service, the best yet established, without any undue increase in the expenditure.
Mr. ROBB:: If there is one hon. gentleman more qualified tHan another to speak of the practices of both parties, it is my hon. friend (Mr. Girard), who has just sat down. I am not going to pursue his argument that the same methods as those now practised were carried on under the previous administration, more than to point out that between the case of a renewal of a contract, where, perhaps, the old contractor was allowed to reduce his tender $5 so that he might, without interruption to the service, continue the work, and the case of where tenders called for an altogether new system and a new route in which the highest tenderer was allowed to reduce his figures, there is a great difference in principle. I will tell the Postmaster General of a case which happened in the. county of Huntingdon-I do not think it was under his administration; I think it was under that of his immediate predecessor-where some post offices were closed. The rural mail system was being introduced and the lowest tenderer was a man who for thirty years had been the postmaster at the point of departure for the rural mail delivery. He was a one-armed man, and had been given the postmastership to enable him to make his livelihood. He had acted as postmaster for twenty-five or thirty years to the satisfaction of the whole community. When tenders were asked for the rural mail delivery it was hoped that this man, who, it was known, would be out of business as postmaster, as the rural mail system was to be introduced, would get the contract.

The fact that he was the lowest tenderer did 'not satisfy the local political heelers, and they so manipulated matters that another half mile was tacked on to the route, and the contract was given to another man. The place, I may say, was Dundee. I have not a word to say against the man who got the contract; I think he is doing the work fairly well, but I submit that it was scarcely fair that the man who had served as postmaster for twenty-five years, and who was the lowest tenderer, should be set aside and not given a chance. My hon. friends from Nova Scotia are, therefore, not quite .right when they hint that there are practices in Nova Scotia that are not carried on in the other provinces. This is one instance in the county of Huntingdon where the same methods of manipulation have been practised.


Robert Rogers: It is indeed amusing, if nothing else, to listen to hon. gentlemen opposite venturing to discuss political partisanship in connection with the administration of the Poet Office Department in various parts of Canada. I would not have interrupted, had it not been for the statement made by my hon. friend, the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) in which he cast a reflection upon my late colleague, the Hon. Mr. Pelletier, now Mr. Justice Pelletier. Let me say that few men, if any, have, ever undertaken to administer any department of the Government in this country who had greater difficulties to contend with than the late Postmaster General, by reason of the fact that, when Mr. Pelletier took charge of the Post Office Department, he had to deal with an organized Liberal party within the bounds of the department through the appointment in various parts of Canada, of active Liberal workers, not postmasters alone, but officials in other important branches of the department over which he presided.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Suppose my hon. friend gives us a little evidence in support of that statement.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is anxious to have evidence. I too was anxious to have evidence in support of the statement he made that the late Postmaster General was guilty of debauching-I think that was the term he used-the Post Office Department of this country. My hon. friend is anxious to have evidence, and I am always ready to accommodate my hon. friend, or any other hon. gentleman on the other

side of the House, and I -will at once meet his wish in that connection. I hold in my hand a letter headed:
Central Information Office of the Canadian Liberal Party.
Telephone No. Queen 8700.
Rooms 606-612, Hope Chambers, 63 Sparks street.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the height of the building? ,


Robert Rogers: This central information office is under the authority of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. The letter reads:
My dear sir,-The first pamphlets issued by this office have been distributed and copies have been mailed you, and also to every Liberal worker in Canada whose name and address has been sent to this office. As you are aware we have not yet received the list of active workers, about which we have previously written you, and, consequently we are unable to extend our distribution into your territory. This means that none of the leading Liberals in your locality are benefiting by the information sent out from this office. Would you not make an extra effort and let us have your list of active workers at once.
Several other bulletins are now in the hands of the printer and are expected daily. These we also want to distribute.
Pray let us hear from you by return mail. We are now distributing these pamphlets in over 10,000 polls in Canada. Let us add your territory to this number.
Tours faithfully,
C. M. Goddard, Secretary.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is .the date
of that fetter?


Robert Rogers: January 18, 1913, and
it is addressed to the postmaster of Poplar Point, Manitoba. It is amusing to hear from my hon. friend talk of political partisanship. When the late Postmaster General took charge of this department, as has been stated by Mr. Goddard in this letter, they had probably 10,000 such men as the postmaster at Poplar Point with whom they were in correspondence in order to make more active, if they possibly could, the Liberal organization in various parts of Canada. That is one of the great difficulties that the Postmaster General of that day had to contend with and I am glad to know that he was equal to the task they had placed in his hands, and that he was endeavouring to deal with such gentlemen as were being addressed by Mr. Goddard for the purpose of advancing the political views and organization of the Liberal party. Therefore, it is surprising to me to-night to find my hon. and innocent friend, the 171*	'
junior member for ] alifax, discussing political partisanship o i the part of the late Postmaster General.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAVi: The purpose of that circular would be to build up the post office revenues because the subscribers would have to send in their subscriptions. But my hon. friend was going to give me some proof. I do not consider that letter as proof.


Robert Rogers: It is the proof you asked for.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend is not
serious in that.


Robert Rogers: The proof you asked for
was of political partisanship on the part of the late Government.	*


William Pugsley: I would say that that
shows that Mr. Goddard was a partisan but not the postmaster.


Robert Rogers: I do not think he was
nearly as strong a partisan as the Postmaster General in the late Government with whom my hon. friend was associated.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend could show a partisan reply from the postmaster that would make his case good.


Robert Rogers: He evidently addressed
this letter to the wrong man. He was sending out 10,000 of them, but he evidently inside a mistake. He evidently sent 9,999 to the proper persons but he made one mistake and sent this circular to a Tory.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That just proves that lie is no partisan.


Robert Rogers: That proves the character of the organization that was in the Post Office Department previous to the present Government taking office. I am sure my hon. friend has very little to complain of if he makes a comparison of the administration between the two parties. We cannot appreciate too highly the energy, skill and unselfish devotion of my late colleague, Mr. Pelletier, in the performance of the great task that confronted him when he undertook the reorganization of the Post Office Department.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is always humorous and to-night I really think he has excelled himself. He started out by saying that it was idle for us to accuse the present Postmaster General of partisanship and that the partisanship that existed in the department



under the late Administration had reached its highest point when Mr. Pelletier came into office as Postmaster General.
9 ,p.m. In support of that he read a letter which was sent out by the secretary of the association, Mr. Goddard, in which the request is made that certain literature will be distributed by postmasters throughout the various constituencies.


Robert Rogers: That is right.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The postmasters need not have done it unless they liked. There was nothing compulsory about it, but even tf they had been partisans to the extent of distributing the literature which had come into their offices, would there toe anything particularly harmful about that? It is a well known fact that both parties sent out literature to be distributed in all the constituencies in the Dominion, and in that respect one party is as guilty as the other, if such a word can be used in that connection. Both parties resort to those tactics in order to distribute their literature throughout Canada. To make the statement that no man had faced greater difficulties than the late Postmaster General when he took charge of the Post Office Department is to make a statement which appears to me to toe rather extraordinary. Why, Sir, in what way did he have any extraordinary difficulties to face? He came in with an overflowing treasury, he came in with everything working smoothly, and he came in with a most efficient staff. We find by reference to the reports of the Post Office Department that during the years beginning with 1902 and coming down to 1914, there were invariably surpluses in the department. In the year 1913 there was a surplus of $1,177,000. Then we see evidences of Mr. Pelletier's fine Italian hand; his policy begins to bear fruit, and in the year 1914 we find a surplus of only $134,157. But he only exhibited real statesmanship, he only showed how to run a department at the least possible expense, when he came down to 1915, because, in that year, although he had enhanced receipts from the sale of stamps, he had a deficit of $2,194,000. Surely the Minister of Public Works will not say that that deficit Was due to partisanship, to the maintenance of an organization in the Post Office Department toy the wicked Grits.


Robert Rogers: You had too many Liberal workers.	,


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Between the year in which he took office and the year in which he had
[Mr. Pardee. 1
this great deficit, he had discharged thousands of Grit employees and taken on thousands of Tories; so that, surely, the Grit organization in the Post Office Department was being moderately weeded out. There were not as many good Grits left as there should have been, and yet, with that Tory organization, during the year 1915, this statesman managed to put this country into debt to the extent of $2,194,000. To convert a surplus of $1,174,000 into a deficit of $2,194,000 may toe statesmanship, but. it is the kind of statesmanship that I am not able to appreciate. I may not be able to define just what statesmanship is, tout if that is statesmanship,'I don't know what statesmanship is.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) says " hear, hear," and I take it he agrees with me that that is not the kind of statesmanship that should be entrusted with the administration of a public department. Perhaps it means that he is wholly in accord with the methods of the late Postmaster General, Mr. Pel-letiei.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was expressing only approval of my hon. friend's statement that he did not know what statesmanship was.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: May I re-echo my hon.
friend's " hear, hear," and say that he knows little about statesmanship. I was glad to hear the Postmaster General say to-night that in future-apparently he had not done it in the past, he intended to follow the practice of accepting the lowest tender; that whether the lowest tenderer was a Tory or Grit he would get the contract, and that the contract would not be peddled around until the lowest tenderer could be found amongst the friends of bis own party. That confession of faith, which I understood him to make to-night, is vastly different from the confession he made on the 22nd of March of this year, as reported on page 2105 of Hansard. On that occasion it was pointed out by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that a Government was taking a very serious step when it departed from the system of tender and contract. If after calling for tenders, the system of awarding the contract to the lowest tenderer is not lived yp to, where is any party going to land itself? It simply means that the system of tender and contract is a subterfuge, an endeavour to pull the wool over the people's eyes. Nothing could be

more degrading than for a Government to advertise that the system of tender and contract shall prevail, and then, when the tenders have been put in, to say: " Here is a Grit tendering for $410; you, Tom Jones, are a good friend of the party, and the contract is yours if you put in a contract for $400/' I do not believe the Postmaster General has departed from the system of his own volition, but he must' admit that it is tampering with the public interest, and doing something that is not conducive to the best interests of any country or of any party. On page 2105 of Hansard the Postmaster General says:
I do not agree with my hon. friend that that is not fair, because no one could complain that the public interest suffers if the lowest tender is $500 and an opportunity is given to some one else to tender below that. My hon. friend says that is not fair. Well, I do not think so.
Then after a question by Mr. Marcil he
goes on:
If a tender has been sent in for $500, and information is received that the work can be done for $480, surely no one can complain that the public interest suffers, if, instead of the contract being, given to some one at $500, it is given to some one else at $480.
Now is it not as plain as anything could be that when the lowest tender is sent in by a man who is not a political friend of this party, the department says to its political friends in the conetituency concerned: John Jones, a Grit, has tendered for $500; if you, Sam Brown, who are a good Tory, send in a tender for $490, you will get the contract. That is simply throwing the system of tender and contract to the winds.


William Pugsley: Does the Tory get the contract without fresh tenders being called for?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes, if we can take the Postmaster General's word; and I submit that the practice is pernicious in the extreme, and ought not to be followed again. If the system of tender and contract means anything, it means that the lowest tenderer, whether friend or foe of the party in power, shall be given the contract. Imagine any one arguing that preference is given be" cause one man can carry the rural mail better than his neighbour! Why, these men are all farmers and have horses and carts; they all know the roads, and, so far as being able to do the work goes, they 'are all as good as one another. That is no argument at all, it is simply an excuse. I submit that the Postmaster General should
in future stick to the strict letter of the law, and to what is morally right, and give the contract to the lowest tenderer.


John Hampden Burnham: Like a great many
other people in this country I have been at a loss to understand how it is that the disease of political corruption should have burst forth so suddenly, and with such extraordinary vigour. It is accounted for sometimes by excessive prosperity, sometimes by a luxury which begets wickedness, or by a lapse in morality, by faulty education, an ignorance of the moral law, or by disregard of the first principles of propriety and of the common precepts of every-day decent life. But if I am not mistaken, the Liberal party in Parliament at the present moment stands convicted of having condoned, in this letter, the most monstrous instance of political and moral obliquity that I have yet seen in this year of grace -or disgrace. This letter purports to be signed by the secretary of their political society, the president of which is the right hon. 'leader of the Opposition; and it purports to be addressed to the postmaster at Poplar Point.
Mr. A. K, MACLEAN: I am not in a position to deny that statement absolutely, but I think the document carries evidence on its face that it was not addressed to any postmaster. Down in the left-hand corner of the document you will see the letters "P. M. P. Point," not in the handwriting of Mr. Goddard, or of any one in his office, but of somebody else. It is very unlikely that it was distributed among the postmasters for that purpose. The . burden is on the Minister of Public Works to prove that the document was mailed to a postmaster. I do not believe it was myself.


Robert Rogers: I am sure it was.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was an open circular, addressed to somebody not a postmaster.


Robert Rogers: It was addressed to the postmaster at Poplar Point.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It may have been inadvertently addressed to a man who happened to be a postmaster, but it was not deliberately addressed to a postmaster.


John Hampden Burnham: We need not have a herring drawn across the trail. A few moments ago, when the letter was thought to be authentic, and; it was understood that it had been written by Goddard, the secretary of the Liberal Association, to the postmas-

ter at Poplar Point, it was excused toy no less a man than the senior whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Pardee). The first man to attack its authenticity was the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). But he was too late; that objection should have been put in immediately.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I only just saw it.


John Hampden Burnham: You saw it too late.
The point is, the offence was condoned by hon. gentlemen opposite before they suggested that the document might not be authentic. Assuming that it was an authentic document, they proceeded to excuse it; and here we have the extraordinary fact that, at the very moment when they are teaching us a lesson in departmental regularity and morality in connection with the post office, we find them condoning such an offence as this, that this man can write to a man, who they supposed at the time to be a postmaster at Poplar Point, upbraiding him for not sending in a list of the active Liberal workers in the constituency, thus making of the postmaster a common political agent. How could he perform his duties; how could he be considered as the very flower of political morality or political decency, if the party known as the Liberal party, the apostles for the moment of purity, could excuse a letter like that through which the postmaster at an obscure town, and possibly the postmasters at thousands of other towns in Canada, are to be consecrated to the task of active political work, where the secret and sacred correspondence of the people is involved? I say there is no hope for the country-


George Perry Graham: Correspondence is not
sacred; it is all censored.


John Hampden Burnham: It is time for my hon. friends to interrupt; they have found out their blunder. They excuse it. If that is the condition of things in Canada, there is no need of holding investigations; we ought all to walk into the penitentiary.


George Perry Graham: Are you going now?


John Hampden Burnham: It is all very well to
laugh.


Mr. P. A. SEGUIN:: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I should like to get some information from the Postmaster General regarding the system followed by his department in awarding contracts after tenders are called. I hold in my hands the return to an order of the House, made by the Post Office Department, in renly to my question
(Mr. Burnham.]
concerning the different tenders received and the different contracts awarded for the rural mail distribution in the counties of TAssomption and Montcalm. I find that in most cases the contract was not awarded to the lowest tenderer, but was given to another tenderer after he had been prevailed upon to alter his figures. Take, for instance, rural route No. 1 in the Laurentians. There were seven tenders, the lowest being $525 by Mr. Charles Gauthier. Mr. Charles Paquin had put in a tender for $595. The latter got the contract, after bringing his figures down to $550.
I have nothing to say against Mr. Paquin, but why should other tenderers be put aside and Mr. Paquin be allowed to alter his figures and be awarded the contracts
Route No. 3 in the Laurentians: Patrick Courtemauche had the lowest tender at $350. Mr. Edmond Therien had offered to take the contract at $500; yet the latter got the contract, after changing his tender to $345.
Saint-Roch de l'Achigan, route No 1: Three tenderers, J. W. Marien, $295. Mr. Roch Vezina asked $350. The latter was awarded the contract after he had been allowed to reduce his tender to $290.
Saint-Roch de l'Achigan, route No. 2: The lowest tenderer is Mr. Pierre Perrier. Mr. Henri Magnan's price was $690; but Mr. Magnan secured the job after he was allowed to alter his tender to $495.
Sault Saint-Lin: Lowest tenderer, Mr. Vincent Pelletier, $500. Mr. Omer Beriner had put in a tender at $595; the contract went to him after he had come down to $495.
Rawdon, route No. 1: Lowest tenderer, Mr. George Kirkwood, $335. Mr. G. E. Trudeau, whose first tender was for $500, was allowed to reduce his price to $330, and was given the contract.
Rawdon, rural route No. 2: Lowest tender, $390, from Mr. George Kirkwood. Mr. G. E. Trudeau put in a tender for $600. The latter was permitted to reduce his tender to $375 in order to secure the work.
I have no fault to find with those who were awarded the contracts; so much the better for them; but I wonder what principle was followed by the minister in thus discriminating in favour of certain tenderers, and in showing such preference without a care for justice.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have often noticed that, when the House or the committee is seriously and earnestly discussing something that involves a question of principle,

the Minister of Public Works interrupts with irrelevant matter, and drags the discussion down to the plane of the ridiculous. He rose a few moments ago and said that the late Postmaster General was impeded in a fair administration of his department because he was surrounded 'by a great number of Liberal officials. I assume that when he refers to Liberal officials, he refers to officials of his department at Ottawa and in the leading postal centres of the Dominion, because it would hardly be correct to refer to country postmasters as officials of the department. In a sense they are officials, but I scarcely think the Minister of Public Works used the word in that sense. The only proof he produces of his assertion is a letter which was addressed to an unknown person, being a political circular from the Liberal headquarters at Ottawa, and which is unobjectionable in every respect. Somebody has written upon that circular the words "Postmaster, Poplar Point," and it is endorsed, I think, by the same hand on the back.


Robert Rogers: No, it is not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, I cannot tell anything about it.


Robert Rogers: I can tell. I want to correct my hon. friend. That letter was addressed to the postmaster at Poplar Point, I take the responsibility for saying that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I refer to the endorsa-tion on the back. I understand the Minister of Public Works to say that he received that document from the postmaster at Poplar Point.


Robert Rogers: I did not receive it from him, but I know it went to him.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You know it came from him; you could not know anything else. After all, is not that what my hon. friend means, that he got this document from the postmaster at Poplar Point?


Robert Rogers: I got the document; I have read it, and it speaks for itself. It is signed by Mr. Goddard.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And it came from the postmaster at Poplar Point? We are also informed by the Minister of Public Works that this postmaster is a Conservative.


Robert Rogers: I did not say so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes, you did.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. You did say so. It is just as fair for me to say that that postmaster may have abstracted the letter from the box of the addressee at Poplar Point, knowing its contents, and for a little political pyrotechnics addressed it to his political leader the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. EDWARDS:: How could he know its contents?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There might be several ways. Postmasters know the contents of a great many things which go through their post offices.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Especially in country post offices.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. Circulars are frequently opened in the post offices. That is just as rational a construction to put upon this little incident as the construction placed upon it by the Minister of Public Works. If I can prove that my construction is the correct one, the Conservative postmaster is guilty of a grave impropriety; but I thought the Minister of Public Works would be serious this evening in discussing this matter and not try to give a ridiculous turn to the whole thing by the production of some testimony which did not relate to the matter in any way whatever. The ground he takes, that the late Postmaster General was surrounded by partisan officials appointed by the late Government, is a serious statement to make, if he really meant it. I do not know whether the Minister of Public Works really meant what he said. I would say that had the late Postmaster General permitted the officials of his department to administer that department as they had been accustomed to under the Liberal Postmaster General, the department would never have got into the condition which it so quickly got into while the late Postmaster General was responsible for its administration. I wonder if the Minister of -Public Works has any greater respect for the system of contract than has the Post Office Department. Does the minister's department respect the system of tender and contract?


Robert Rogers: Always.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does he permit any one to put in a tender after the tenders have been opened and the lowest disclosed?


Robert Rogers: Never.
Mr. MACLEANj What would the Minister of Public Works think of what the Post-

master General said the other night? 1 refer to page 2105 of Hansard. The discussion will appear from the statement I shall read:
Mr. Casgrain: I do not agree with my hon. friend that that is not fair, because no one could complain that the public interest suffers if the lowest tender is $500 and'an opportunity is given to some one else to tender below that. My hon. friend says that is not fair. Well, I do not think so.
The Postmaster General is thus on record as having stated that after tenders have been received;, and it is known who is the lowest tenderer and the amount of his tender, it is perfectly right to receive secretly tenders below that figure. Will the Minister of Pulblic Works tell me if he approves of that?


Robert Rogers: That is your side of the story.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I am giving your
side of the story as related by the Postmaster General; and what the Postmaster General describes is what we are objecting to. I have never saicl a word about mail contracts being given to Conservatives. That occasions a good deal of discontent in rural communities; but after all it is not a serious matter who carries the mail, so long as the system of tender and contract is respected. I have put a question to the Minister of Public Works, a fair one; there is no disagreement as to the facts; and I would like him to answer the question. He says he would not do this in his own department. Will he tell us just what he thinks of the same thing when it is done in the Post Office Department?


Robert Rogers: The Postmaster General
will tell you.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, no, no. I am asking the question of the Minister of Public Works, who was so brave in attempting to prove something a few moments ago, but signally failed because he was talking of something that had no bearing on the subject before the committee.


Robert Rogers: I would like to know
wherein I failed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We will drop that for
the moment. I want him to say what he thinks of that statement of the Postmaster General. He came into this discussion un; invited, and unless he can contribute something


Robert Rogers: I think I have the same right to come into the discussion as my hon. friend has.


Mr. OASGRAIN:: I think I should
shoulder my own sins; I do not see why my hon. friend (Mr. Rogers) should shoulder my sins if I have any. I do not think the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) , was quite fair when he said I absolutely approved of the system by which, after tenders were asked for, any one could come in and put in a lower bid and get the contract. If hon. members will refer to page 2106, they will see that I said, " I do not think the public interest has suffered." The whole question was whether the public interest had suffered in the particular instance which we were discussing. Let me recall to the minds of hon. members how the system of tender and contract works in the Post Office Department since I have had charge of it. We are obliged to ask tenders for any mail contracts above $200, and I may say that we always have a great many tenderers. It is naturally necessary for us to ask somebody acquainted with the parties in the constituency whether the tenderer is a fit and proper person to carry the mail.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do not you ask for bonds for the successful tenderer?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does not that speak for itself?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, and I will tell my hon. friend why. Tenders are put in, in many cases, by minors, who cannot, according to the law of the province of Quebec, bind themselves.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do not the bondsmen protect you?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The contractor has to be a person capable of performing the work and assuming the obligations of the contract. In many instances, to my own knowledge, men have tendered and have given security, who are, for instance, drunkards, and not qualified or able to carry out the contracts in question. That is the reason why information is asked for. And, so far as I am concerned, I never knew what the politics of the tenderer was. My principle is that the contract must be given to the lowest tenderer irrespective of any party preference. In many cases, especially in the carrying of rural mail-

and, so far as I can tell, that must have been the case in the matters referred to by my hon. friend from L'Assomption (Mr. Seguin)-even the lowest tenderer is above the price fixed by the department for the work. The maximum which is given is $30 a mile, and in every case in which this amount is exceeded-or in some cases at least-the contract is given to some of those who have tendered and who will come down to the price set by the department, and which was lower than that of the lowest tenderer.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In that case, would not you think that the lowest tenderer should be asked first whether he could come down?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have not a personal knowledge of the case cited.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: (Translation.) Mir. Chairman, I admit that in most cases the contracts were awarded at five dollars less than the price stated in the lowest tender; but it seems certain to me that had the lowest tenderer been offered the chance to lower his tender by five dollars, he would have found it easier to do so than some of the other tenderers who, to reach the five-dollar-less mark, had to cut down their original tender $100 or more.


William Pugsley: The statement of the
minister is, that in some cases he would make inquiry as to the character and suitability of the lowest tenderer. In such cases, would he inquire of Liberals or of Conservatives in the locality?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think the hon. member is pushing the matter a little too far. If I have a man in whom I have confidence, I do not see why I should inquire whether that man is a Liberal or a Conservative, when I seek to gain through him information as to any given person who wishes to make a contract with the department. But I say quite frankly that if I have a political friend in the constituency, I would rather ask him.


William Pugsley: In every case, the hon. gentleman would naturally do so. In country districts there is usually very strong political feeling, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, a political friend of the Government would feel himself quite justified in reporting that the lowest tenderer, if a Liberal, would not be quite so suitable as a Conservative who might be willing to take it. The difficulty I see about the matter is that
the minister has laid down an entirely unjustifiable principle, upon which he felt justified in acting. He admits that in the case referred to he called for tenders, and then passed over the lowest tenderer and allowed some other party to take the contract at a few dollars less than the amount of the lowest tender. That seems entirely wrong. If it could properly be done in the Department of the Postmaster General it could be done with equal propriety in the Department of Public Works, and I am sure the Minister of Public Works will agree at once that it would be entirely contrary to the proper administration of affairs for him as minister to act in that way. I know that during the whole time I was Minister of Public Works I never permitted such a thing to foe done; it would have been absolutely improper; it would not have been permitted by my colleagues in council, even if I had suggested it to them.


William Cameron Edwards: Does my hon. friend say he never did that?


William Pugsley: Never did that, never once.


William Cameron Edwards: If my hon. friend asked for tenders for a work the estimated cost of which was $10,000, and received a tender for $50,000, that being the lowest tender, would he give the contract to that man?


William Pugsley: Not at all. I would call for new tenders.


William Cameron Edwards: Was it not the case .frequently when he was minister that he refused to receive the lowest tender because it was too high?


William Pugsley: Yes, I have done that; but I have invariably-


William Cameron Edwards: A moment ago you said you never did it.


William Pugsley: I never said anything of the kind; the hon. member must be deaf not only in one ear, but in both.


William Cameron Edwards: My hon. friend said he always accepted the lowest tender and never departed from that principle.


William Pugsley: Never.


William Cameron Edwards: The principle the Postmaster General referred to was where the tenders were on rural routes, and the limit was $30 a mile.


William Pugsley: The hon. member does
not try to understand what I say. My statement was that it was exceedingly improper;

that I was sure the Minister of Public Works felt it would be improper; that when I was minister I never did such a thing, and that I would consider it exceedingly improper, and I was sure my colleagues would not have, tolerated for a single moment that I should pass over the lowest tenderer and pick out somebody else and give him the contract. It is a very different thing to call for new tenders. I have done that very often. Where the lowest tenderer was reported to me by the engineers in my department as being too high, I have called for new tenders; and in some cases where the lowest tender had been considered too high I have offered the contract to the lowest tenderer if he would take it for smaller amount; but never did I deem it proper, never did I deem it right, that I should ask my colleagues or Parliament to permit me to pass over the lowest tenderer and give the contract to somebody else. If that is not proper in the Department of Public Works, it is not proper in the Department of the Postmaster General. But the Postmaster General argued that the country did not lose anything, but, on the contrary, saved $20. So it would be in the Public Works Department. If a minister called for tenders and half a dozen tenders came in and the lowest tender was for $10,000, then if the minister could say to a friend who was not the lowest tenderer: Now, if you will do this for $9,950, I will pass over the lowest tenderer and give the contract to you, the public interest would not suffer, because $50 would be saved. But it is an absolutely wrong principle, and something not only contrary to justice and fair play, but contrary to the meaning of the statute which declares that tenders shall be called for. The minister says that sometimes it might occur that the lowest tenderer would be a drunkard, would be incapable of performing the work. Then he would be justified in passing over the lowest tenderer and taking the next one. If a man was not qualified, if he had been unsatisfactory in the performance of a previous contract, that might be done; but in this particular case there was nothing in the world against the lowest tenderer. The minister did not give it to the other party on the ground that the lowest tenderer was not a good man, but apparently gave it to a political friend, who chose to do the work for a few dollars less than the amount of the lowest tender. I am sure that, on reflection, the Postmaster General will admit that that is entirely unfair.

Take a private individual-and surely the administration of public affairs ought to be governed by principles as high as a private individual would feel himself to be governed by-the ordinary man who wants work done invites people to tender, to make offers to him of the lowest prices at which they will do the work. There is an implied contract, an implied obligation, on the part of the man calling for those tenders, that he will award the contract to the lowest tenderer, provided his price is fair and reasonable. If it is not he will call for tenders again, or offer the contract to the lowest tenderer if he will reduce his price. But to go through the farce of calling for tenders simply to enable him to give the contract to a political friend, or to some friend whether political or otherwise, at a slightly lower price than that of the lowest tender, is entirely wrong. When men tender they go to a certain amount of work; they figure up with care what they can do the work fox, they arrange for their bondsmen, and put in a tender, having a right to believe that they will foe treated fairly, and that the lowest tender will be accepted. Then the minister says it is right to ignore altogether his public call for tenders, to ignore altogether any obligation he is under to the man who has gone to trouble and expense and has put in his tender to the department. He says that he is entirely justified in picking out a political friend and giving the contract to him for a few dollars less than the amount of the lowest tender. I am sure that is a view which will not commend itself to any member on either side of thi^ House.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The point raised by the member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) seems to be a very important one for the committee to consider. The Postmaster General the other day said that he believed in the system that has been followed; he believed it was perfectly proper, after the tenders had been received, to communicate with gentlemen who had tendered, and if they were in a position to reduce their tender to a certain amount, a few dollars or cents less than the lowest tender, to give them the contract. I am sure from the statements made by my hon. friend to-night that he has changed his mind in regard to that being a proper system of letting mail contracts in his department. I wish to cite to my hon. friend an instance which bears out exactly what the hon. member for Halifax was

arguing during this discussion. Down in my province a short time ago, I think about the time when the public were calling in tones louder than thunder for an election, it was proposed to inaugurate a rural mail route in a certain portion of the province. When they started to inaugurate this new rural route, a gentleman came to my office, a man who had been maimed in one hand and was not able to work. He wanted to get this contract. He had the form of tender and wanted me to show him how to fill it out. I said:	"Sit down and I will
fill it out and you can sign it right here." He said: " I do not want to sign it, I only want to find out how to make this tender." I said, "What do you want to do about it?" Hie reply wias that he had been to see the dispenser of patronage. My hon. friend the Postmaster General would have this committee believe that politics are not taken into consideration in the letting of contracts for the carrying of mails, but that man said: "I have seen the dispenser of patronage in. the county where I live, and he says it will not do for me to put in a tender, because I am not on the right side of politics." He was not allowed to tender at all, and a strong Conservative in the locality, who did not have a horse, or a vehicle of iany kind put in a tender in his own name and sub-let it to the man who is doing the driving to-day.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Will my hon. friend give me the man's name?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will give it to my hon. friend privately. The man consulted me in private, and I would not like to make his name public. That is what took place. If my hon. friend and his predecessor did not take politics into consideration in letting those contracts at any rate the dispensers of patronage in different localities look after the political end of matters, and my hon. friend is being deceived by these dispensers of patronage, at all events, by the dispenser in the locality I have mentioned. I merely cite this case in support of the argument of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) that the principle adopted by the Postmaster General is wrong, and that a man who is the lowest tenderer should not have to go to the dispenser of patronage or to any other1 person. If he puts in a tender and names his bondsman, and his is the lowest tender, he should get the contract, and he should not have to go to any dispenser of patronage
to get a recommendation on the strength of his politics.


William Cameron Edwards: How long has my hon. friend held that view?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have always held that view, and, so far as I have had anything to do with patronage, I have always followed that principle.


William Cameron Edwards: For how long has my hon. friend expressed that view?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have always expressed that view, and I am sure that any hon. gentleman who has any pride in his honesty as a politician would express that view, and put it into practice. If it is a view foreign to my hon. friend and to other hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, I regret it very much. In my locality the Liberal party at all events hold that view and give effect to it. I have not any fault to find with the appointment of political friends of the Government to positions in the public service, but, as my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) pointed out, if the Minister of Public Works calls for tenders for a public work in any portion of the Dominion, surely the Government is not going to say that only a man of a certain political faith can tender and get a contract. A man's politics should not be a consideration in matters of that kind, and surely my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) is not indirectly suggesting that it is a practice which should be followed in letting contracts for the carrying on of the public service of this country.


James Alexander Robb: What is the maximum per
mile allowed for rural mail delivery?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Thirty dollars.


James Alexander Robb: Does that apply to all the
provinces ?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, except that in some very extraordinary cases where the roads are too bad, another rate has to be fixed. But that is done in very few cases.


James Alexander Robb: A few moments ago the minister laid down the principle that in the consideration of tenders for rural mail delivery the tenderers might sometimes be found to be minors, or persons not of sober habits, and unfit to carry the mails. So far as sobriety is concerned, I think every person will agree that the minister has a responsibility, and that he must see to it that the person who gets the contract is a fit

and proper person to carry the mails. But in a return submitted to my hon. friend from L'Assomption (Mr. Seguin) I find that out of eleven routes in his county, in only one case did a minor tender. The tenders in each case numbered from five to seven or eight, and invariably the contract was awarded to the person who had originally been the highest tenderer, but who was allowed to reduce hie tender below the amoiint of the lowest tenderer. In view of the fact that there was only one minor among the tenderers for those eleven routes, we must infer from the minister's statement that all the other tenderers were persons unfit to carry the mails and that they must have been tipplers or drunkards, according to the minister's own statement. He laid down another principle, that the maximum allowance for carrying rural mails was $30 per mile, but in this return, which was laid on the table on the 2nd of March, I find that on one route the successful tenderer was allowed almost $35 per mile; that was on Route No. 1 L'Epiphanie. On Route No. 1, Mascouche, he was allowed almost $37 per mile, and on Route No. 2, Mascouche, he was given $33 per mile. I think we should1 get another explanation from the minister.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Can my hon. friend give me the dates on which these contracts were granted ?


James Alexander Robb: The dates do not appear to be given- in the return.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When I.took charge of the department the rule was that, except in extraordinary cases, the maximum allowance was to be $30 per mile, and that rule has been adhered to except in exceptional cases where, on account of the nature of the route, or of the state of the roads, a higher allowance was considered to be fair. But the rule is $30 per mile.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is a serious charge that almost invariably the highest tenderer got these contracts.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He did not say that.


James Alexander Robb: The highest tenderer was allowed to reduce his tender.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But the man who was allowed to reduce his tender was the highest tenderer. That is a serious charge, and there must be something wrong.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I see that no dates are given in the return, and I will have to look into the matter.


Mr. THORNTON:: With respect to the question under discussion, I wish to say that in my county the officials of the department frequently find that the lowest tenderer is physically and mentally unfit for the service. In cases of that kind, what can the department do but reject the lowest tender, and choose a person fit to- perform the service. I would also like to say that, so far as my knowledge goes-, in every case where the lowest tenderer was a Liberal, he got the contract.


John Howard Sinclair: These difficulties could be avoided if the minister would run his department on business and not on partisan principles. That is what prevailed before the change of Government. I am talking now in the presence of the deputy minister, who kno&s very well that he did not even disclose the name of the lowest tenderer to the member for the constituency if he happened-


William Cameron Edwards: Did you try to get it?


John Howard Sinclair: I was not able to get the name of the lowest tenderer. I was told after the tender had been awarded, but before that I could not find out who the lowest tenderer was. I was many years supporting the late administration, and that was my experience all through; I was not allowed to interfere in that matter. Although people wrote me on a great many occasions to ascertain how the tenders were sent and who was the lowest tenderer, in not a single instance that I can recall was I allowed to have the information as to who the tenderers were until the contracts were awarded. That is the proper policy for the minister to adopt.


William Cameron Edwards: Would the hon. gentleman mind stating why he tried to find out who the tenderers were?


John Howard Sinclair: Certainly, because I was asked by parties who were interested. My hon. friend has been long enough in public life to know that his constituents write him letters and ask who is the lowest tenderer in a certain -case. The hon. gentleman is aware that a member very often has to go to the deputy minister, or some other official of the department, and ask fox information. The answer I was compelled to give was that as the contract had not been dealt with the lowest tenderer could not be disclosed, nor could the other tenderers be disclosed. The minister intimated that he submitted these cases to some friend in the constituency. I pro-

tested against that system. The minister has an inspector in every division in Canada, that inspector has a staff of officials, who axe there for the purpose of giving him such information as he requires in regard to people who put in tenders. If a man is a minor it is the duty of the inspectors to find out and not the duty of some political heeler in the constituency. These questions should he submitted to his officers in that particular division, and they should discover these facts for him. That is the system that prevailed formerly and I am surprised to hear the minister admit that in place of submitting the question to his inspectors he submits it to some political friend in the district in whom he says he has confidence. The moment he submits it to his political friend the whole thing is out; everybody else knows that so-and-so is the 10 p.m. lowest tenderer and manipulation begins. If the minister would manage his department' on business principles he would do away with all these troubles. That is one of the reasons why the expense of managing the department has so enormously increased. An attempt has been made to throw the blame on the rural mail delivery but that argument has fallen through because, according to the statement which has been submitted to the House, rural mail delivery does not account for anything but a very small part of the enormous increase that has taken place in the expenditure. The increase is so large that it has not been explained and I venture to say that the minister is not able to give an intelligent explanation of it. The year 1910-11 was the last year for which my hon. friend the late Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) was wholly responsible because a part of the following year was under the administration of the late Postmaster General, Mr. Pelletier. Since 1910-11 the expenditure has increased enormously, as the following figures taken from the public accounts will show:
1910- 11	$ 7,954,222 79
1911-	12	
9,172,435	471912-	13	
10,882,804	571913-	14	
12,822,058	441914-	15	
15,951,191	47
We are asked to vote, for the year 1916-17 the sum of $17,486,727.75, an increase in the expenditure of the Post Office Department under the present Administration of $9,932,504.96. We were told the other day that the administration of the rural mail delivery
system had amounted to something like $800,000, covering a period of three years, whereas we find that there is an increase of about $10,000,000 for the current year over 1910-11. The minister has to find some better explanation of that increase than to tell us it is due to the rural mail delivery system. The minister gave us a statement of the increase in the staff of officers two years ago which to my mind gives the explanation. The statement as to the number of officials in the department is as follows :
Dismissed	 1,507
Resigned	 3,806
'Appointed	 9,900
, This shows an increase in the staff, in a little over two years from the time these hon. gentlemen came into office of 4,533. I do not know how much salary to allow to each of these officers. I would suppose that they do not receive a very large salary but if we were to give them $500 a year on the average, that makes $2,266,500 of an increase to pay for the additional staff. The minister might as well be frank, and in place of telling us that this enormous increase is the result of the adoption of the rural mail delivery system, he might tell us what the real trouble is. If he did he would tell us that the action of his predecessor in debauching the Post Office Department by the appointment of his friends had been responsible for the enormous increase in the expenditure of that department. The main thing I want to impress upon the minister is the importance of consulting his officers in the various districts in regard to the question of letting contracts rather than submitting these questions to his political friends. If the minister will say that he will do this business in a business way and that he will submit these questions to his officers instead of to politicians he will administer the affairs of his department in a much better way than they have been administered in the past.


Mr. BOULAY:: (Translation.) Mir. Chairman, I wish to put a question to tny hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). He stated a moment ago that under the Liberal rule he had never been able to find out what was the price paid previous to the awarding of the contract. I would like to know whether he is in a position to name a single Conservative in his county to whom a contract was awarded while the Liberals were in power and he occupied a seat in this House.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the minister give us a promise to do better?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I gave my hon. friend a promise just now; I am sorry he did not hear me, but I want to say a few words in reply to what my hon. friend from Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) has said.
I do not think my hon. friend represented exactly what I said the other evening in regard to the expenditure of the department. He tried to make the committee believe that what I said was that the increase in expenditure was due solely to the establishment of the rural mail system. Now, that is not what I said at all. What I said was that the increased expenditure in the fiscal year 1915 over the year 1912 was $6,789,156, accounted for as follows:
1.	Accumulative effect of the establishment of rural mail service during the three years	J
2.	Yearly increase owing to the higher
scale of salaries allowed the Outside service by Bills passed since 1912	
3.	Amount paid railways on account of
increased rates allowed from 1st February, 1914	
4.	Salaries of letter carrier staffs appointed between 1912 and 1915..
5.	Salaries of staffs of offices that were
put on the civil service basis between 1912 and 1915, whose salaries have to be paid out of Parliamentary appropriation instead of revenue	
6.	Amount paid for rural mail boxes
in 1914 in excess of the amount paid in 1912	
7.	Average increase for three years
preceding 1912 was about 11" 65 per cent; adding this percentage to the expenditure for 1912 would amount in the following three year to about	 3,205,000
Total	$6,430,000
Besides, there are other smaller items which bring the total up to at least the amount of the difference between 1912 and 1915.
That is the explanation I gave the other day. The increase is made up by expenditures not only on the rural mail system, but on all these other items that I have detailed.


John Howard Sinclair: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend the other evening. At all events the increase is $10,000,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The increase in 1915-16 over 1912 was $6,789,156.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who has the contract for the Transatlantic mail service?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Canadian Pacific. They are the only ones running boate at the present time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it is a. yearly contract, and ends about the let of April.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes. This matter really comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce. They make the contract for subsidizing these lines, but a clause is always inserted that the boats shall carry our mail.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What railway carries the mail from Ottawa to Woodstock?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Canadian Pacific railway to Toronto, and the Grand Trunk from there to Woodstock.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have complained to the department two or three times that the Woodstock mail is carried through to London and then hrought back on the afternoon train. That is a great nuisance to the people of Woodstock, and, as far as 1 can see, totally inexcusable. Would the minister explain how this happens?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: My officials tell me that the train stops at Woodstock and the mail is put off there.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not wish to contradict the minister, but, for instance, it would be folly for him to tell me that I was not standing here to-night, wouldn't it?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Woodstock is an important place, and I will look into the matter.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Letters are sometimes important to me, and very frequently they are carried through to London. I think they come back on the afternoon train, arriving in Woodstock about four o'oloek. They are not distributed until about five. It is nonsense to say that this is not true.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not say that. There must toe some misunderstanding. My officials say that the mail is put off at Woodstock. It may happen that sometimes it goes through to London. My hon. friend's complaint is reasonable, and I will look into it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The trains always stop at Woodstock. I would like the minister to make the same inquiries with regard to the Montreal mail.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Does not the post office enter into a contract for the carrying of the trans-Atlantic mail ?
855.000
630.000
1,180,000
92,000
163,000)
305.000


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does not the post office stipulate what ports the mail shall be received and deposited at?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We discuss the matter with the Department of Trade and Commerce, but they make the contract; it has been under their control ever since I have been Postmaster General.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Which department pays for it?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Trade and Commerce.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Post Office Department pays nothing at all?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Nothing at all.


George Perry Graham: Is the minister sure the Post Office Department pays nothing at all for the Transatlantic mail service?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Quite sure.


George Perry Graham: The deficit would be even greater if they paid for that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not by comparison.


George Perry Graham: Not by comparison, no. There was no deficit before when we were in power; you cannot compare a deficit with [DOT] a surplus. Originally, I think one company had the contract for carrying all the ocean mail, but as the result of an agitation a change was made, and different companies were paid according to the mail service they performed. What is included under "Miscellaneous?"


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The following: Commission to postmasters in savings banks and annuities business, travelling charges and expenses of inspectors and other officers on duty; stationery, printing afid advertising; manufacturing of postage stamps, post cards, envelopes, post bands, etc.; hand stamps, scales, and weights for post offices and for other miscellaneous items of post office charges and equipment; expenses of administering the Act respecting Annuities for Old Age; a telegraphic news service for the Magdalen Islands during the winter months; salary of Mr. Alexander Lang as representative of the Canadian Government on the Pacific Cable Board at the rate of $1,000 a year. These are items which have appeared in the Estimates for a long time.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Will my hon. friend furnish a statement to the House of the Annuities Branch?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There has been some
progress in that branch?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: While his officials are looking up that information, will the minister give the figures which he was to give me in a little while?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The estimated revenue will be $18,693,165, and the estimated expenditure $16,677,000. In answer to my hon. friend from Rouville, the total number of contracts issued to date is 4,022, of which 654 are contracts on separate lives for annuities now being paid, 63 are contracts for immediate annuities on the lives of two persons to be paid only on the death of the last survivor, and 3,305 are contracts for annuities to become payable at some future date. The number of males who have purchased is 2,392, and the number of females 1,630. Between the 29th of September, 1908, when the first payment for annuities was received, to the 31st of March of the present year, there was paid to the Government for the purchase of annuities the sum of $2,884,364.25. The number of contracts issued during the year just entered was 325, being an increase of 62 over the number issued in 1914-15, and an increase of 7 over the number issued in 1913-14. The receipts for the year were $441,677.54, being the largest of any year since the establishment of the branch. The Government, through the annuities system, is obtaining the use of money at a cost of not more than 41 per cent, 4 per cent being the rate allowed on payments made and 1 per cent being the cost of obtaining the business including the salaries, printing, stationery, etc, or 1 of one per cent less than it is paying for money in the open market.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the department employ any lecturers in connection with this excellent idea of life annuities?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No. The department came to the conclusion after 1911 that the cost was too great and so the propaganda was abandoned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You rely on the post-masters to obtain business?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, and on some advertising also.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do you pay any commission to the postmasters who secure annuities?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes, we pay a commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Three per cent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can the minister state the number of annuitants in Quebec province?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I have not the information here; I can furnish it.


Mr. GEAHAM:: That is 3 per cent on the premiums?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is plain to be seen that it is not included in the f of one per cent for management.


Duncan Graham: Has the department during the past year used any advertising, if so, what kind of advertising, posters, newspapers or what?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Not during the past year.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the lowest
amount of annuity that the department issues?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Fifty dollars.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is a wonder that more advantage is not taken of the annuities system.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The business is increasing.


Duncan Graham: Are the officials that you have with you to-night experts in connection with annuities?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am sorry to say that the expert is not here.


Duncan Graham: Supposing a man were forty-five years old and wanted to secure an annuity of $5,000, could he get it?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: $1,000 is the highest.


Duncan Graham: Supposing a man were 45 years old and wanted to secure an annuity of $1,000 for the balance of his life, how much would he have to pay down?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I will furnish that
information.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish my hon. friend would give the actuarial tables, and also a statement showing how many annuitants there have been since the establishment of the annuities system. I would like to ask the hon. minister if, under this item

"miscellaneous," comes the various things which are involved in the department, such as sacks, bags, locks and boxes?


Duncan Graham: Surely not locks.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand there is quite a job-lot of locks; are there any tenders called for those?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The sacks, bags, etc., are paid out of the regular expenditure for mail service, and is not under this item.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the parcel post system a profitable branch of the service, and is it patronized generally by the public?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It is. The business is increasing all the time, especially in Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How profitable is it? Are the accounts kept separately?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The accounts are not kept separately.


Mr. SINCLAIE:: Would the minister entertain a proposal to make a special rate for fresh fish to be sent by parcel post to the inland cities?
Some hon. MEMBEES: Oh, oh.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am not joking about this. I think fish could be sent by parcel post, and that the business would grow up to be a very important branch of the service and promote the sale of fresh fish in the towns along the railway.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It is done.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am told it is possible to do it in some kind of a package that would, of course, protect the other parcels and would be air-tight so as to keep the fish in good condition until it was delivered. We have a very poor express service for fresh fish, and, if the minister would undertake to give a special rate without surrounding it with those zones that make the parcel post of very little use to people who live in a distant province, I am sure the business would grow to be a most important branch of the service. It would also be profitable to the department, and it would be a great advantage to customers along the line, and to the fish trade.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The proposal of my hon. friend is well worth looking into, but the maximum weight at present is eleven pounds.


Duncan Graham: Every fisherman catches a fish that big.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: To provide for that trade we would have to change the whole system, not only as to weight, but as to zones.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In regard to the zone system of parcel post, I am informed-I may be wrong-that one firm in Toronto has the privilege of using a car which is filled with goods that have been solid to its clients in various parts of Canada, and as the car travels from one zone to another that firm pays only the rate in that zone, thereby saving large amounts of money, but at the same time not giving the department the benefit of the distance. Does the minister know of any such case?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No. I am aware of a certain firm sending its catalogues by express to certain points and then distributing them by parcel post. It may also be that they send parcels by express to certain places outside of the zone and then send them by parcel post from the points where they arrive at, thereby saving a good deal of money. I cannot understand how we can prevent that, because any one is perfectly free to use the express companies, or even to hire a car to go from one zone to another.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will tell my hon. friend that, in my judgment, he, as a lawyer of eminence, must know that a party cannot evade tl^e law in that way. Yo.u have created certain zones and you havie stipulated that in each zone there will be a certain rate, and from one point to an extreme point there will be a certain rate. If you give a big firm in Toronto or Montreal the privilege of using a car-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. We do not give them that privilege; they have taken it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know, the car belongs to that firm, or it is rented from the railway company, and that firm uses that car to carry its catalogues and even its goods from one zone to another, and it distributes them in that way, the department thereby losing the benefit of the long distance rate to which it would toe entitled if the parcels were sent, say, from Montreal, or Toronto, to Winnipeg.
I say, that is evading the law. What would the hon. gentleman say, for instance, if, with the present war tax on letters, a resident of Niagara, Ontario, should cross the river and mail his letters from the United States, at the rate of two cents 172
instead of three cents? He could not say otherwise than that this was an evasion and violation of the law, and he would not allow such a thing. Is not that an analagous case to that of a firm which carries its goods by private car, thereby paying the rate of the local zone at each point? The department loses an enormous sum of money. I am informed that a certain firm-I will not name it, because I can only offer hearsay evidence- is sending its car from a certain point to the extreme boundaries of Canada, distributing its catalogue and its goods. That is not fair to the local merchants, and it is not fair to the department and the exchequer.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The problem is one that is engaging the attention of the department, but we find it impossible to check this action unless we amend the law. The law with regard to printed matter and parcels is not the same as with regard to letters. We have a monopoly in the sending of letters. A merchant cannot send a parcel of letters by express or by freight, but must use the mails, but we have no such monopoly in regard to parcels or printed matter. I may say that this same difficulty presents itself in the United States and in England, and they have not been able to solve the problem in either of those countries yet.


George Perry Graham: Has the hon. minister seen complaints that Canadians do what the ex-Postmaster General ,(Mr. Lemieux) lias stated with regard to posting their letters ?	I


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We have had complaints of people distributing their own letters, and we put a stop to that.


George Perry Graham: Some yeare ago, when the letter rate in Canada was three cents, a good deal of the postal business that ought to have been done at the border towns was carried to the other side of the line in handbags. It struck me that unless some arrangement were made with the United States, possibly with the war tax imposed, that practice might be renewed. I have some slight recollection of the department taking some action on that line.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We had some complaints of people who carried mail across the border, for instance, from Windsor to Detroit; but we charged a double rate when the letter arrived at its destination and put a stop to the practice. It is now almost completely done away with.



Mr. McCRANEY ; I would suggest to the Postmaster General that he should have the railway companies submit the proposed names of stations to his department before they are adopted. Some time ago, in my own riding, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company put in a station within the municipality of Asquith, which was the name also of the post office, and gave it a different name; and it is only with some considerable trouble that we had the name Asquith adopted as the name of the station for the Grand Trunk Pacific as for the Canadian Pacific. There was another instance in my constituency. The Canadian Pacific Railway had established a station under the name of BrodeTick. The village municipality, the school district, and the local telephone station have that name, and the merchants were accustomed to receive their mail under that name. The Canadian Pacific changed the name to St. Aldwyn's without conferring with the citizens of the town, and we had a great deal of trouble and correspondence with the Canadian Pacific-in fact I was obliged to bring it up in the House-before the company would adopt the name which they had at one time given and which the citizens themselves used. The railway companies seem to think they have the right to name communities, but, as a matter of fact, they have not; a community has the right to its own name as much as an individual has. I think the proceedings of the Grand Trunk in one case, and of the Canadian Pacific in the other, was of a very high-handed order. If the Post Office Department assumed the authority to name the stations- because the station later becomes the post office-it would 'be a very salutary change. Just to show the necessity for something of that kind, let me refer to the Canadian Pacific time-table, which bears every evidence of having the names of stations prepared in the land department of the railway itself at Montreal or some other point. I am bringing this to the attention of the minister just to show how little imagination can be shown in giving names to places. Before I went west I lived in the county of Halton and that county is only typical of the other counties in eastern Canada where there is some relation between the names of places and events and local conditions. We had four townships. Two of them were named Nelson and Trafalgar, and that naming was done, of course, during the Napoleonic wars. The two others bore 
Indian names, Esquesing and Nassagaweya. Oakville, where I used to live at one time, of course showed that the town was built up in the oak forest on the lake shore; and the town of Milton, I suppose, was named after the founder's favourite poet. In Saskatchewan, between Kerrobert and La-combe, there are stations named Rural, Onward, Superb, Major, Fusilier, Court, Composer, Monitor, Concord, Loyalist, Veteran, Throne, Coronation, Federal, Fleet, Castor, Veldt. Those are all on one little line. I read some other names: General, Zenith, Unity, Provost, Czar, Horizon, Amulet, Viceroy, Landscape, Velor, Aneroid, Admiral, Consul, Senate.


George Perry Graham: Is Senate an old station.


Mr. McCRANEY:: Well, it is not a big
place. Other names are:	Expanse, Archive, Converge, Vantage, Holdfast, Liberty, Stalwart, Imperial, Amazon, Renown, Marquis, Conquest, Bounty, Sovereign, Fortune, Plenty, Druid, Primate, Vanguard, Success, Pennant, Sceptre, Empress, Majestic, Princess, Duchess, Countess. I cannot conceive the imagination of a man who would call places by such names as these. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister and suggest that when railway companies are adopting names for their stations a list should be submitted to the Postmaster General or to his department, where it could be gone through, because no community should be saddled for all time to come with such names as these, which show no more acquaintance with affairs than is to be found between the covers of a dictionary.


George Perry Graham: How many post offices
are there in the Yukon territory?


Mr. THOMPSON:: Quite a few.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have not an enumeration of the post offices here. I see nine post offices in Yukon which are money order offices. I shall furnish my hon. friend with a list at a later date.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Are the regulations for local post offices prepared by the inspectors of the different provinces or in the department here?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: All regulations are
made by the department, not by the inspectors.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In post offices where boxes are provided for patrons, and the boxes are rented, the patrons paying so much a year for their use, if you go to the post office and happen to have left your key be-

hind you, some postmasters refuse to give you your mail. Are they within their right in that or not? That has happened several times in a post office which I know.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If a postmaster refuses to give the mail, he is not doing his duty. He is certainly 'doing, something that shows he is not accommodating.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There have been numerous
complaints made to me, and I know personally of a postmaster refusing to give the mail; saying that he was under no obligation to do so. I wanted the absolute assurance of the minister that it was his duty to do so.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should think that is not right. I should say that the postmaster was certainly obliged to give the mail. I will make him do it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I wish the Postmaster
General would look at the box for the reception of letters in the city post office in Ottawa. .It is a most abominable contrivance, because it is almost impossible to get the letter into the box. Generally there is a drop in such boxes, but this one rises up, and I imagine that most of the letters go on the floor, which is rather an encouragement of blasphemy. I cannot imagine anything more stupid than that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I will have a look at it, and I will speak to the Minister of Public Works about it.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the session, I asked the Postmaster General what practice was followed by his department in advertising in the newspapers. Here is the answer I received:
The practice of the Department is to ad-, vertise in newspapers which are published or have considerable circulation in the districts concerned.
Do I understand that it is the system followed by the Department?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: (Translation.) Yes.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) How comes it then that papier,s published in rural districts as, for instance, the Echo des Bois Francs, with .scarcely a circulation of five hundred get those advertisements. I took the trouble of running over the whole file of that weekly for over a year, and I found that in order to secure the advertising of the Department, all the paper had to do was to publish the picture 172}
of the Postmaster General. I found that to be the case seven or eight times. I recall one particular date. On the 3rd of (September last, the picture of Mr. Casgrain was printed over a flaming biography, and immediately appeared in that newspaper advertisements galore; seven or eight advertisements from the Post Office Department at five dollars each, or a sum of $35. It is certainly a good price for the picture and the biography. But a remarkable coincidence is that during all those months when the picture of my hon. friend was not inserted no advertisement can be found. So as not to take up the time of the House, I shall merely state that during the same year, that paper printed this picture at least ten times; and one day, it undertook to defend the minister's stand in the Riel matter. But I do not wonder at that so much as when I ,see in that paper which is published in the Eastern. Townships advertisements calling for tenders for rural mail delivery and other contracts of the department, to be performed in the most remote parts of the province of Quebec. Thus my hon. friend from Rimouski may be surprised to hear that Mr. Bourbeau's paper published a notice for the rural mail route at Mont-Joli, in the county of Matane. and I am quite positive that the paper is not read by a single elector of his. I find that another contract is advertised for rural route No. 2 ,at Tiquapa. I should like to know in what county that is. The paper even advertises a rural mail contract for Les Squatecks, in the county of Temis-couta. But, more than that, the notices do not even mention the counties. Thus I see Sainte-Th&cle, No. 2; Sainte-daire, No. 2; LouiSeville, No. 2; Sainte-Felicien; Caus-apscal, St. Bruno, Les Grandes Bergeronnes, Fleury, Les (Petits Bergeronnes. In most cases, the county not indicated. How can t'he people tender, when the place where the. delivery is to be made is nor indicated? It is worth While for the Postmaster General to note that omission. It will be seen how unusual it is for a paper with a circulation of less than 500 to reap $595 in advertisements from the Department, during wartime, when strict economy should be the watchword. Sdrely the Government must have a weak spot for the owner.
1 have no complaint to make against Mr. Bourbeau. I quite understand that the paper may be of some use to its party by publishing information of its own, but

I say it should not be done at the expense of t'he public Exchequer.
I make this criticism without intending any malice, and I hope the minister will not impute wrong motives and will put a stop to the practice.
Hon. 'Mir. (CA8GRAIN: ('Translation.) I am surprised to hear that the Echo ^des Bois Francs has published my' picture. It must doubtless be a very bad picture.
I wish to say to my hon. friend that his disclosures certainly show a had state of things, and I shall see to it. If that newspaper has printed advertisements as mentioned by my hon. friend, I can assure him that it will not occur again.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) They should at least name the county.
Mir, LEMTEUX: (Translation) Did they state the age of -rthe Postmaster General?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) His picture gave him a very youthful appearance.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Mr. Rogers for the adjournment of the House:


George Perry Graham: What business will be taken to-morrow?


Robert Rogers: I would draw the attention of my hon. friend to the fact, which he very well knows, that we have been in session now for three months or over, and we have all worked pretty hard. We had a certain understanding, at all events, it was hoped that we would prorogue at Easter. I am satisfied, if hon. gentlemen are willing to be diligent, and to facilitate the balance of the business that has to be brought down to the House, that that is still possible. I am sure that a great number of hon. members on both sides of the House are very anxious to get away. I hear that desire expressed every day; it is,common to members on both sides of the House. So far as the Government is concerned, we are willing to facilitate the business in every possible way, either by having morning sessions, or in any other way that will be convenient to members, in the hope of reaching prorogation, if not before Easter a very few days later.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any new business to be brought down?


Robert Rogers: There is nothing new other than what the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition has had notice of.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a rumour that there is to be same railway legislation of an important character, but the Prime Minister has not, so far as I knpw, announced it to the House. If the Minister of Public Works will say there is to be no such legislation, we will be glad to hear it.


Robert Rogers: I am not in a position to say. I understand that the Prime Minister and the right hon. leader of the Opposition have discussed in detail the legislation that is to be brought down, and if my hon. friend wants information along that line, I am satisfied he can get it from his leader. I sincerely hope that hon. gentlemen will be willing to facilitate the business of the House, in the hope that we will be able to reach prorogation at an early date.


George Perry Graham: In reply to my hon. friend I may point out that there was a notice of motion on the Order Paper to-day, that on and after Wednesday next morning sessions would be held, but, when that notice of motion was reached, the Prime Minister asked that it be allowed to stand, which was notice to the House that the Government did not think it possible to prorogue before Easter. I do not know whether it is possible or not; my judgment would be that, in consideration of the business yet before the House, and in view of what has taken place, and of what is likely to take place, it is improbable that prorogation could take place before Easter. In fact, it was rumoured in the corridors to-day that the Government was considering a proposal that the House adjourn on Friday next and stand adjourned until the Tuesday following Easter. I would ask my hon. friend if that is the decision which the Government have arrived at- Another question I wculd like to ask is: would it mot be wise to postpone even adjournment for the Easter recess until the Minister of Militia has been given an opportunity to make a statement before the House. I think it is his right to do so, as it is our duty to allow him that privilege. If there is to be a lengthy adjournment at Easter, it is hardly fair that the minister should not be given that opportunity, after all that has been allowed to go on Hansard.
The question raised by my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) is very important. I have not had any information that there was to be legislation brought down as coming from the right hon. the Prime Minister or any member of the Government, although I am not saying that it has not been given to my

right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. It is rumoured, however, that the Quebec and Saguenay railway expect to get aid of some kind and details of that aid have been given in certain places, s* that the matter must have been discussed at considerable length by the Government. There is also a very lively rumour that a Bill is now being prepared granting certain aid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. If that be true the Government ought to give the House its programme. It has also been stated that legislation is to be brought down in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific. I do not know whether these things are true or not-the Government know-but if these large measures are to be brought down they will certainly cause considerable discussion, and that being the case, I think the Minister of Public Works can hardly be serious in thinking that they can be jammed through before Easter.


Robert Rogers: I am sure that the Government have no desire to jam through any legislation.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps that was the
wrong word; rush through would be a better word. It would probably be jam for us.


Robert Rogers: I do not think there is
any possible chance of an adjournment for any extended period at Easter, unless there is a prospect of getting the business closed at a very early date, because hon. members who are here and who come from a distance, are most anxious to remain at their work until the business of the House has been completed.
In respect to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes), I believe, from information I have, that he will probably be in his seat on Friday of this week. If the boat on which he sailed makes its usual connections the minister will be here on Friday and I am sure that he will be prepared and willing to answer anything that he may be called upon to answer as to the administration of his department. With respect to legislation, an announcement will be made almost immediately by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister as to what additional legislation is to be brought down, and I am sure that it will not be of such an important character that it would not be possible for this House to give it all the consideration that was necessary and even then, if we were diligent in our efforts, be able to prorogue Parliament o* Thursday night before Easter Sunday. However, if that is impossible, we will have to keep on and in that case it will not be possible to have an extended adjournment during the Easter holidays.
_ Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Tuesday, April 11, 1916.