1917-07-20

BOARDS OF TRADE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 115, to amend the Boards of Trade Act. He said: This is simply to make provision enabling a group of Boards of Trade in a municipality, for instance, to co-operate.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read .the first time.	.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 113, for the relief of William Henry Bishop.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill No. 114, respecting The Montreal Central Terminal Company.-Mr. Girard.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I beg leave to lay on the table of the House a memorandum submitted by the Southern Slav Committee to the representatives of the British Dominions. No particular mode of communication is .suggested in the memorandum, and I therefore thought it best to lay it on the table of the House.



PRIVILEGE-HON. MR. PUGSLEY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege concerning a matter to which I referred when the Military Service Bill was in committee. On the 6th day of June of this year, as reported on page 2149 on Hansard, at a time when I did not happen to be in the House, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in connection with an Order in Council which had been passed providing for the appointment of two judges to inquire into the report of Mr. Justice Galt in a matter which concerned my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, made use of these words:	-
My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) challenges the action we have taicen and challenges the reflections which have been made

upon Mr. Justice Galt in the letter written to me from the Minister of Public Works. I should like to remind him that on a certain occasion one of his colleagues who sits beside him used infinitely stronger language, if my memory is correct, with regard to Mr. Justice Landry of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, and he did so without any reproof from my right hon. friend. I am perfectly willing to contrast the action which we have taken in this matter with that which my right hon. friend took on that occasion. Findings had been made by a commission of which Mr. Justice Landry was a member. Those findings reflected seriously upon a member of my right hon.. friend's Government. The matter was brought to the attention of Parliament, and it was urged by a motion in this House that such a finding should he disregarded.
I think the word "not" has been left out there.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.
Mr. PUGSLEY>
It goes on:
My right hon. friend ignored the whole matter and voted down the motion, the precise words of which I have not before me; no consideration to the finding was given by him, and the then Minister of Public Works retained his position in the Government and continued to administer the affairs of his department. It seemed to me, when the matter was brought to my attention by the present Minister of Public Works, that such a course as was on that occasion pursued by my right hon. friend could not be followed or sanctioned with advantage to the public interest.
The statement of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is contrary to the facts in two most important particulars. I would not bring this matter up were it not for the fact that the statement of my right hon. friend deeply concerns my honour as a member of this House, apart altogether from the reflection upon the attitude of my leader. I think that members of this House ought to be very careful in making aspersions on the character of other hon. members of this House. We ought not to attack each other as if we were wolves anxious to destroy each other's reputation.
I think my right hon. friend ought to have been more careful, and to have looked into what took place when the matter to which he referred as affecting myself was before the House. He should have satisfied himself as to what took place on that occasion before so reflecting on me.
Just for a moment I will call attention to the statement which my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works made with regard to Mr. Justice Galt in his letter to the Prime Minister, which will be found on page 2147 of this year's Hansard. These are his words:
It was manifest from Mr. Galt's demeanour_
fMr. Pugsley.]
Mr.' SPEAKER: I do not desire to restrict unduly the hon. member, but I hope he will confine his statement directly to the matter of privilege as affecting himself.


William Pugsley: I will do so. The reason I propose reading this is that the Prime Minister says I reflected upon Mr. Justice Landry in infinitely stronger language than was used by the Minister of Public Works in respect to Mr. Justice Galt. I therefore think I am in order in quoting the language used by the Minister of Public Works. He said:
It was manifest to me then from Mr. Galt's demeanour and remarks that he purposed sparing no effort and rejecting no means, however unfair, of doing me all the injury in his power. I therefore, from that point forward, took little or no interest in the proceedings of his Commission, being absolutely certain not only that my own conduct in the premises had been straightforward and in the public interest, but that, though it would be a waste of time to make any attempt to influence the purpose of Mr. Commissioner Galt, there would be no difficulty later in exposing and establishing before any fair and competent tribunal both the true facts of the case and the malice of this commissioner.
A little further on he said:
It is quite true that no explanation or defence, however complete or however substantiated, would have affected in the least Mr. Galt's determination, but this fact cannot be offered as an excuse on his part for abandoning and indeed prostituting the most elementary principle of British justice-that it is a fact, however, does, I think, fully establish the predetermination and malice of the Commissioner.
I will deal first with the second charge that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister makes. He says that there was a motion in 1909 for an inquiry in respect to myself and the Central railway. He must have absolutely forgotten what took place upon that occasion, for there was no motion for an inquiry. The motion was that I had been found by the report of these commissioners to be guilty of misconduct-of conduct not worthy a public man-and a demand was made that I should be retired from the Government; that was the motion.
It is important to see how the matter got before the House. There are four gentlemen, members of this Parliament, who took an active part in the attempt so to drive me from the Government at that time. One was my hon. friend Colonel Fowler who is now a member of the Senate.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. member is going rather far afield now. On a question of privilege it is competent for him to deny statements reflecting on himself, but

I hope he will not bring into his explanation other hon. members of this House, and other matters.


William Pugsley: I shall have to do that to a certain extent in order to show how the matter came before this House, and to prove that the statement made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister the other day: that the leaders of the party at that time asked for an inquiry, is incorrect. What was demanded was that I should be forced from the Government.


Robert Laird Borden: What were the
exact.terms of the resolution?


William Pugsley: I will come to that in a moment. My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) was then leading member of the Opposition, and he requested the then Premier of New Brunswick, now the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), to send the report of this commission here ' for the purpose of being acted upon. He referred to the fact that I might seek to rely upon the evidence to show the report was fal-se, but he said that they proposed to get after me before I would have a chance to get the evidence. Now let me read the letter. This has been brought down in the Legislature of New Brunswick. The letter reads as follows:
House of Commons, Ottawa, April, 14, 1909.
Dear Mr. Hazen :-
I telegraphed you this morning re the Comm. Reports and trust you have sent me a number. As to copy of evidence I put that in in case you have it printed which probably you have not. It is, I suppose, voluminous. Why I did so was for this reason. Pugsley so far as now appears will try to bluff the matter out of the House here as not pertaining to Federal affairs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: The letter continues:
He will say that' the report is not based on evidence and that he will, after getting a copy of the evidence issue a statement showing this to be so. That will be his defence. We propose to get after him here before he gets a copy of the evidence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: The letter concludes as follows:
But if by any possibility he does get it then we need the evidence to meet him here.
I presume the evidence will not be available in printed form for some time. If he gets a copy I hope you will see that several copies are made at the same time and that we get one or two here.
I have not seen full report but what I have seen is pretty straight goods.
Tours very truly,
(Sgd.) G. E. Foster.
That is the letter written by my highhanded friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When the matter came before the House it was on a motion made by my hon. friend, my Christian friend, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers). He brought the matter before the House, and if any hon. gentleman has the curiosity to read what took place, I would refer him to Hansard of 1909, at page 5645, and so far as my reply is concerned, concluding upon page 5755. I assure the House that I am not going to read the hundredth part of what took place on that occasion. My hon. friend the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) proceeded to remark that this report had been made, and it seriouisly reflected upon me, and at page 5655, referring to the evidence which was then under consideration by the present Minister of Labour, I made these remarks:
Mr. Pugsley:	I wish to correct the statement of my hon. friend. I was not the managing director of the company.
Mr. Crothers:	I am simply making my
observations based upon the judgment of this court.
Mr. Pugsley:	My hon. friend must pardon
me. I say that there is nothing whatever in the evidence which would justify a statement of that kind, and the statement is absolutely untrue.
Mr. Crothers:	I am not here for the purpose of discussing the evidence in this case.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. Crothers:	Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to discuss the evidence in the case.
Mr. Pugsley: I am not surprised at that.
Mr. Crothers: I am here standing on the judgment of a court.
Mr. Pugsley: If my hon. friend can find anything in the evidence which will justify some of the statements in the report, I shall be greatly obliged if he will refer to them.
Mr. Crothers: As I said a moment ago, I am not here for the purpose of discussing the evidence in this case. I am standing on the judgment of a court.
Further on he said:
Mr. Crothers: I submit, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with well established practice in English speaking communities, that the first thing for the hon. the Minister of Public Works to have done, when that judgment- was pronounced against him by a court so constituted, was to step aside and resign his position as Minister of Public Works.
Now you sbe by that, Mr. Speaker, that leaders of the Conservative party at that time were seeking to drive me from the Government, without any opportunity of discussing the evidence, or having this

House pronounce upon the evidence. I, desire to say, Sir, that I appreciate to the fullest extent the desire of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) that he shou.ld not be condemned upon the judgment of Mr. Justice Galt, without some opportunity being afforded, either to this Parliament or to a committee of this Parliament to review and to consider the evidence upon which that report is founded. That is the right of the present Minister of Public Works. He has a right to demand'-[DOT]


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is surely exceeding his right. He must confine himself to a denial of the matters complained of, but I shall not be unduly restrictive.	-	'


William Pugsley: I will endeavour to do so. What I say is that the Prime Minister gave to this House the impression that my leader and I were seeking to prevent an examination of the evidence.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: That is what he told this House, and I see the report in Hansard puts it beyond the shadow of a doubt that the hon. gentleman was mistaken in that assertion.


Robert Laird Borden: Which assertion?


William Pugsley: That we were seeking to prevent an inquiry.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: In which case?


William Pugsley: 

'JO, 1917

[Stage Direction]
without an opportunity to go fully into the evidence and form my [DOT] wn judgment with regard tp it.
Mr. ROGERS:: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: I am free to say that,
I do not hesitate to say it. Perhaps it was because my experience was so painful that I entertain .strong views upon it. The only safe thing to do is to look to the evidence and see whether it forms a proper foundation for the report and, as I said, when we came to the examination of this report and evidence, I was able to show that in twenty important particulars there was not a shadow of evidence to support the findings.


Samuel Hughes: Does my hon. friend refer to the commissioners in his particular case, or commissioners in general?


William Pugsley: My hun. friend, I trust, will be able to draw a reasonable and proper conclusion from what I have said.
I have had a sorry experience. Whether all commissioners might act in the same way I would not say but, if there is danger that they might, the only safe thing in my judgment is to have the evidence and to investigate the whole matter before the high court of Parliament, or before a committee of Parliament, or in some other way. There is no appeal from the court; it is not a judgment in the sense in which the Minister of Labour. sought to put forward that it was a judgment, and it seems to me that this Parliament would have the right and would be the proper tribunal to investigate the evidence as was done in 1909, a fact which my right hon. friend must have forgotten when he made the statement which he did. He must have forgotten that the evidence was fully gone into in this Parliament in 1909 with the full consent of my right hon. friend and leader and entirely with .my approval, and against the suggestion of the Speaker that it was hardly the proper time to take up the matter or to enter into the motion proposed by the Minister of Labour.
When the Prime Minister states that I referred to the Hon. Mr. Justice Landry in infinitely stronger language than the Minister of Public Works reflected on Mr. Justice Galt, my right hon. friend is wrong. The reflection that I made upon that occasion was upon the report, not upon the individuals. I took up the report, and from the fact that it disregarded the evidence in many particulars, from the fact that it was absolutely contrary to the evidence in many particulars, I argued that it showed
partisanship; it showed a reckless disregard for the truth; it bore upon its face evidence of a determination to drive me from public life if it were possible to do so. The strongest language which I used-and I had a right to use it, just as every litigant who has a case before a court has a right to criticise in very strong language the judgment if it is absolutely contrary to the evidence, or if it ignores the evidence.
Of course, it is one thing to characterize a report as unsupported by evidence and as evidently showing a lack of desire to get at the truth, and it is quite a different thing to criticise the judge individually. The strongest language which I used will be found on Hansard, page 5700. That is the only one of the twenty instances in respect to which the report was false with which I desire to trouble the House. That had reference to a matter of the greatest possible consequence. It had reference to the guarantee by the province of $250,000 of bonds for the New Brunswick Railway Company. By the statute power was given to guarantee on behalf of the province these bonds as each section of the railway, if I remember rightly, was completed. The Royal Trust Company were the trustees for the bondholders. The bonds were deposited with the trust company of which Mr. Shad-bolt was manager, and from time to time, as the company became entitled to have them guaranteed, the secretary would endorse the guaranty upon the bonds. Up to a certain period there were $111,500 of bonds guaranteed for which there was provision by Act of the Legislature. These commissioners made a report-and this is what I referred , to in very strong language on Hansard, page 5700-that it was conclusively proved that $250,000 of these bonds had been guaranteed by the province without any legislative authority.
If that had been done every man connected with the provincial government, myself included, was liable to criminal prosecution and might have been sent to the penitentiary. It was of the most serious character. Yet that report was absolutely contrary to the evidence. Those commissioners say in their report it was conclusively proved that this guarantee h.ad -been made. Surely characterizing that part of the report as false, and characterizing it as made with a reckless disregard of the truth, was not making a charge against the commissioners any stronger than that which my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Robert Rogers) made against Mt. Justice Galt. His charge against Mt.

Justice Galt was against him personally, not showing it by the evidence, but expressing his belief that the report was made with malice, etc. Let me read the language which I used:
I wish to invite attention to another s'.ate-ment which I think is of great importance/ and which no member of this House should have been prepared to practically support by bringing this matter before the House unless he had made some inquiry and satisfied himself of its truthfulness. I find, on pages IS and 19 of the report of the commissioners, a very important statement, and I am going to press this with a great deal of force if I can press any point with force. I am going to urge upon the consideration of this House, the fact that not only is the statement to which I am about to allude false, but that it is, I am obliged to say, either knowingly or recklessly false. It has been made either knowing that it was false or with an utter disregard of the facts of the case. On page 18 they say:
"Notwithstanding this fact, it appears conclusively from the evidence that the whole $260,000 par value of these 3 per cent bonds had been guaranteed and delivered to the company up to the 6th day of August, 1903."
That is a charge of the most serious character to make against the provincial government. That is a charge that we, in violation of the statute, in violation of our duty, when1 we had no legislative authority to do it, prior to the passing of the Act of 1904, which extended the powers as far as the guaranteeing of bonds was concerned, prior to the 6th of August, 1903, guaranteed the whole of this issue of $250,000 of three per cent bonds and that they were delivered to the company. They say that that appears conclusively from the evidence. I say it does not appear, not merely conclusively from the evidence hut* that it does not appear at all from the evidence and that the evidence is entirely contrary to that statement. So far from the1 whole $250,000 having been guaranteed prior to the 6th of August, 1903, the total amount which was guaranteed was $138,500, a difference of $111,500, between what was actually guaranteed and the statement which these commissioners make as the amount having been guaranteed. There is no excuse fori that and it cannot be a typographical error either.
As I have said, taking up that important item, and sho wing that it was mode without any evidence whatever to support it, I think making the charge which I did against 'the commissioners is a very different thing from the charge which my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works makes. Yet because I used that language with reference to the report, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has asserted in this House that I made a charge against Mr. Justice Landry infinitely stronger than that which the Minister of Public Works made against Mr Justice Galt.
I will detain the House a few minutes longer while I call attention to the fact 
that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), who sent these reports to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to be acted upon by this Homse, knew from the report of the Government counsel that that statement was- .false and that when this report was presented here-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must ask the hon.
member to desist from pursuing his present line of argument. The hon. gentleman has made his denial very fully, and has been given ample opportunity to do tso. I think he is going too far on a question of privilege. -


William Pugsley: I have made the statement that there was no evidence to warrant those commissioners making the report they did in reference to the guarantee of those $250,000 of bonds. Do you not think, Sir, that it would strengthen my position infinitely if I were able to show from the report of the Government counsel, Mr. Powell, that it was unsupported by the evidence, and that it was in that respect a false report, and that my hon. friend the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) knew it was false? Some people might doubt as to whether I was right or whether the commissioners were right, but if I can show from an official document transmitted to the Premier of New Brunswick that this report of the commissioners was false, surely my position is stronger. If you will let me do that, I will drop the matter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman has made his denial, and ha-s stated his position very fully. To bring evidence from another person to support his denial would not be permissible on a qiuestion of privilege.


William Pugsley: But, how many people
might say it was just the statement of Mr. Pugsley against the report of Mr. Justice Landry. If I corroborate my statement by showing that the Government's own counsel, Mr. Powell, reported to Mr. Hazen before thi-s report was sent here and before it was acted upon, and before this Parliament was asked, to approve it, that the report was wrong, surely it is only fair I should be allowed to do so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On a question of privilege, the hon. member can only deny, as he has done so elaborately in this case, certain statements made by the right hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member -should not try the case ex-parte, which is what he now purposes.


William Pugsley: In the first place, this
report was sent for 'by m-y hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who wrote to my hon. friefid the Minister of Marine and Fisheries-who was then Premier of New Brunswick-and asked him to hurry along these reports, telling him they proposed to get me before I could get a copy of the documents. The Minister of Marine knew there was accompanying this report, and had in his possession at that time, an official document from the counsel of the Provincial Government telling him that this report was false.


Mr. HAZEN:: Does the hon. gentleman
say it was an official document?


William Pugsley: Yes.
\Mr. HAZEN: It was nothing of the <sort, it was not intended as an official document.


William Pugsley: If it was not it was an informative document anyway, and it told the Prime Minister that the report was false. It told my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that in regard to the $250,000 of bonds there was not a particle of evidence to support it. Whether it was official or unofficial, I care not. It gave the information to my hon. friend that the report was false, yet he sent it here to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce to act upon it, and the Minister of Labour was put up to act upon it and to thrust me from the Government upon a report which the Provincial Government's own counsel told him was false. Have I not the right to read that letter? I have it before me, certified under the hand of the Clerk of the House, and I wish to read it. The letter reads:
Powell & Harrison,	St. John, N.B.,
Barrister, Solicitors,	March 31/09.
Notaries, etc.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that my hon. friend has already far exceeded his right on a question of privilege. His complaint, as I understand it, was with regard to myself, in two respects: one, that I had' suggested that an inquiry had been denied, and the other that I had attributed to him language stronger than that which had been used by the Minister of Public Works with respect to Mr. Justice Galt. I must confess my own. belief that about two-thirds of what my hon. friend has already alleged is altogether outside the question of privilege upon which he undertook to address the House. If we are to have a debate upon the merits of Mr. Justice Landry's report, that is one thing; if we
are to have an explanation from my hon. friend on the matter of privilege which he desires to bring to the attention of the House, that is quite another thing. In the first case, my hon. friend is quite at liberty to go ahead and read letters or discuss the report to the greatest possible extent, with the understanding that the right of reply be admitted. In the other case, 1 submit that he has already gone much further than he has any right to go under the rules of this House.


William Pugsley: I have no objection whatever to the fullest reply. I think it is only fair to public men that these matters should be dealt with.


Robert Laird Borden: If we are to have a discussion of that, I suggest, with all deference to my hon. friend, that we appoint a day for that purpose. I will then move the House into Committee of Supply and we shall have a discussion on the subject. But it is not desirable to do that in contravention of the rules of the House upon a question of privilege that does not bring the matter into debate.


William Pugsley: I will just read the letter, and then I will stop.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. member say that the letter concerns his statement, that he had referred merely to the evidence and not to the commissioner? If so, there can be no objection to his reading the letter. The Prime Minister has pointed out the difficulty that I had in mind all the while. While I desire that on a question of privilege the hon. gentleman shall have the widest opportunity of making his defence, I do think that there must he some limitation,


William Pugsley: I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the letter will show. The letter will concern my statement that I was thoroughly justified in criticising Mr. Justice Landry, because the statement of the Commissioners that $250,000 had been guaranteed without legislative authority was absolutely false.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Will the hon. member read that portion of the letter?


William Pugsley: Yes. This is a letter
dated March 31, 1909, addressed by H. A. Powell, of Powell and Harrison, barristers, etc., to Hon. J. D. Hazen, Attorney-General, Fredericton.


Robert Laird Borden: Whether the letter does or does not concern what my hon.

friend hag stated, I cannot see that it has the slightest relevance. Whether Mr. Justice Landry's report is correct or incorrect is not the question of privilege that the hon. gentleman was raising. He raised the question of privilege that I, in characterizing his criticism of Mr. Justice Landry and his report, had gone further than the facts warranted when I compared his criticism against Mr. Justice Landry with the criticism of the Minister of Public Works against Mr. Justice Galt. My hon. friend is perfectly at liberty to go into that; he is also at liberty to show that what I said with regard to the inquiry on that occasion was not justified. These are the points to be brought to the attention of the House, and no others.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Prime Minister has raised a point of order, which I have no doubt in my mind is well taken:


William Pugsley: I feel that I have been treated very unfairly; therefore I must insist upon reading the letter. Of course, I respect Your Honour's ruling, but I shall leave it to the good judgment of the House-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I rule that the hon. gentleman cannot read the letter. I do so as the point of order has been Taised.


William Pugsley: Without knowing what the letter contains, or what I propose to show?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. I rule that the hon. member cannot proceed to read the letter.


William Pugsley: Before the point is put to the House, I wtnt the House to understand clearly what the point is.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member may, in a limited way, discuss the point of order, but I rule that he may not read the letter.


William Pugsley: What I propose to Your Honour is to read a portion of a letter from the provincial Government's counsel, H. A. Powell, in which Mr. Powell states that this statement in the report was absolutely contrary to the evidence. That is what I want to show.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has already made that statement, and he has given the gist of the letter.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not want to question the ruling of the Chair, even if in my humble judgment the ruling is not right. But if the Prime Minister will say 
that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter, say, on Monday, my hon. friend will abide by the ruling.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot say that we shall do so on Monday. I understand that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will not be here on that day. I will see, however, that opportunity is given.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then we will
say Wednesday.


John Douglas Hazen: I am leaving for St. John, to-morrow afternoon at four o'clock. While there is a possibility of my being back on Wednesday, it is not a probability; I do not think I can get back before Thursday.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: It will keep.


Wilfrid Laurier: It will keep, but in the meantime my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) Is under a misapprehension on the part of several people, and he is anxious to clear his name, which he has a right to do at the first opportunity.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that the hon. member for St. John has gone fully into the matter so far as the point of order is concerned. I should like him to believe it is not and never has been my intention, in any observations which I address to this House, to do him or any other hon, member anything short of the fullest justice. My hon. friend has not examined the remarks which he made'in 1909 as fully as I could have desired. I understand him to say to this House that his criticism on that occasion was directed against the report, not against the commissioned, and he repeated that. I must ask the privilege of refreshing his recollection in order that I may do myself the justice of showing to the House that I did not speak without some warrant. On that occasion my hon. friend said this-


William Pugsley: I assume that we shall have opportunity of replying to my hon. friend.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The very difficulty which I feared has arisen because of permitting to the hon. member undue latitude in hi3 remarks.


Robert Laird Borden: I am confining myself entirely to the point of order which my hon. friend raised.


William Pugsley: That point of order was decided against me.


Robert Laird Borden: No; this is with regard to what my hon. friend said on that

occasion. He states that he used no language which would justify me in the observations which I addressed to the House and he quoted just one portion-by no means the strongest portion-of his remarks. I desire to point out that he used much stronger language, and that when he stated to this House that he did not attack the commissioner, but only attacked the report, his examination of the speech he made on that occasion was not thorough.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order. The point of order raised by my right hon. friend was settled by Your Honour, my right hon. friend stating that he would appoint a day next week when the whole matter would be discussed. At that time, it would be quite open to my right hon. friend to take up the evidence, but it would not be fair now to make a speech to which I could not properly reply.


Robert Laird Borden: I will rise to a question of privilege myself. I desire to point out-


William Pugsley: Will my right hon. friend pardon me? I am not quite through with my remarks.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The Prime Minister has the floor.


William Pugsley: No, Mr. Speaker, I have the floor. The point of order having been settled, I was going to continue my line of argument.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for St. John made a statement to the House and he concluded by giving the gist of a letter. I ruled that he could not read the letter. I assumed then that he had concluded his remarks.


William Pugsley: I was not permitted to continue. I wanted to conclude in some other way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would be more in order if a day could be appointed when the matter could be discussed in conformity with the rules of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good. I am content, except that I desire to say that my hon. friend's examination of his remarks on the occasion referred to has evidently been so exceedingly superficial that he has had his attention entirely diverted from those portions of his remarks which justify the observations I made in the House on June 6, and I further say, so far as the rest is concerned that his own statement this afternoon is absolutely in accord with the description I gave in my
remarks on that day of what took place .in May, 1909.


William Pugsley: I can only say in answer to my right hon. friend that he has a strange conception of the difference between attacking a judge and taking up his judgment, and showing that it is not based on evidence, or is entirely contrary to the evidence, and charging that this shows a reckless disregard for the truth.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope I have a better appreciation of that than my hon. friend has of the remarks he made in May, 1909.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must ask that this discussion cease.	[DOT]
PRIVILEGE-Mt. MICHAEL CLARK.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. A paragraph appeared in the Journal-Press of this city yesterday, and I am told that a similar paragraph appeared in the Globe of Toronto and other papers -I do not wish to read any of them-purporting to give an account of what took place at a meeting of Liberals who voted for the second reading of the Military Service Bill, purporting to give that account as an account endorsed by my hon. friend from Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt) who was the chairman of that meeting. I have the liberty of my hon. friend from Saltcoats to say what I am now about to say. I read the paragraph from the Journal-Press to my hon. friend from Saltcoats, and with his bluff honesty, he characterized the writer of that paragraph by a very strong substantive. I do not care to repeat it, but it indicated an emphatic belief on the part of that hon. member that the paragraph in question was not only highly coloured, but untruthful. The sub-
4 p.m. stantive was further emphasized by the use of an adjective. My hon. friend from Saltcoats asked me not to repeat the adjective as it might reflect on his character as a good Presbyterian. I wish to say, on my own account, that my impression of the paragraph in question is exactly the same as that of .the hon. member for Saltcoats.



LABOUR STRIKE IN WESTERN COAL MINES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. Mr. CROTHERS (Minister of La-[DOT] bour):: Perhaps the House would be glad
to hear read a telegram that I just received

from the Director of Coal Operations in District 18. The telegram which was sent yesterday says:
District eighteen produced on eighteenth instant fourteen thousand tons of coal and seven hundred tons coke. Production daily increasing but seriously retarded by lack of ail classes mine labour. All mines working excepting Pocahontas, which I expect to have operating to-morrow. Railways are heartily co-operating in matter of car supply.
(Sgd.) W. H. Armstrong.



THE SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. W. J. Roche, (Minister of the Interior) the House went into committee to resume, from May 7, the debate on the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to establish a Board, to be called "The Soldier Settlement Board," consisting of three commissioners, and to provide for salaries and expenses in connection therewith, and to empower the Minister of the Interior, at the request of the Board, to reserve such Dominion lands as may be required, and upon the recommendation of the Board, to grant a free entry for not more than one hundred and sixty acres of such reserved lands to any person who has served in the , naval or military expeditionary forces of the United Kingdom or of any of the self-governing British dominions or colonies, and who has left the forces with an honourable record or who has been honourably discharged, and the widow of any such person who died on active service, subject, to such conditions as in the opinion of the Governor in Council are necessary to secure the use of the land for the purpose for which it is granted; and further to provide that the Board may loan, upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, to any such settler an amount not exceeding two thousand dollars for acquiring land for agricultural purposes, payment of encumbrances on lands used for agricultural purposes, improvement of agricultural lands, erection of farm buildings and purchase of stock, machinery and equipment, the money to be expended under the supervision of the Board, and all expenditure made under the terms of this resolution to be paid out of such moneys as Parliament may appropriate for the purpose.
Mr. B'lain in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN (Mt. Blain):: On the
26th of Tune, the Minister of the Interior moved:
That the following proposed amendment be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the proposed resolution to establish a Board' to be called the Soldier Settlement Board:-
"That the proposed resolution of the 23rd' April, last, to establish a Board to be called the Soldier Settlement Board and to effect the other objects set out in the said resolution be amended and that the maximum amount that the Board may loan to settlers be increased from two thousand dollars to two thousand five hundred dollars." '


Hon. Mr. ROCHE:: When this resolution was up some time ago, I explained the

nature of the proposed legislation of the Government, and the leader of the Opposition asked that a map be prepared showing the available 'undisposed of Government land within easy transportation distance, for the settlement of the soldiers. I have had a map prepared for each of the three provinces-I have just laid them on the Table-showing the acreage of the lands and whether the same are within ten, fifteen or twently miles of transportation facilities. The amendment that I proposed later on is to increase the amount of the loan to a maximum of 82,000, and to make the terms of repayment to extend over twenty years instead of fifteen years.


William Pugsley: I do not want to say
anything that might be deemed at all as opposed to granting every possible assistance, aid and encouragement to returned soldiers; but if I have any objection' to offer, it is that this resolution does not go far enough. It proposes simply to deal with homestead lands. The Minister of the Interior will agree with me that it is not very much encouragement to a .returned soldier to say: You may go out into the growing West and search for a free homestead, which you are not very likely to get unless you go quite a long distance away from settlement, and then give aid by lending some money foT the purpose of putting stock upon the place or of giving money to enable the soldier to buy land from somebody else. What seems to me ought to be done would be to endeavour to get land in blocks near the settled communities in good localities, and give to the soldier the opportunity of buying, extending the loan over a long term Of years, but taking care that he would be settled where he would have the comforts of communal life near at hand. He should not be on the lonely prairie, at a remote distance from any community, where he would very likely become discouraged. My hon. friend knows that the best homesteads are pretty well taken up in the more settled parts of the country, and I am afraid it is nothing but a gold brick which is being held out to the returned soldier by this Bill. It is nothing more, than that; it is doing nothing more than the provincial governments have been doing in times of peace in the way of loaning money to settlers for the purpose of enabling them to buy farms and build homes for themselves. It seems to me that for the soldiers something better should be done. I have not the same personal knowledge of conditions

in the West as my hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen have who represent that section of the Dominion, bnt I have a knowledge gathered from reading and from seeing resolutions that have been passed in favour of giving encouragement to the returned soldiers, and I am led to the conclusion that in order to produce results of any great importance a broader scheme than is proposed in this resolution should be adopted. I do not believe the present scheme will produce any very encouraging results.


William Roche: I think the hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken in thinking that we are here handing out a gold brick to the returned soldier. As a matter of fact, when all the British dominions submitted their land policies at the recent Imperial Conference in London it was admitted on all sides-so it has been reported by our Canadian representative at that conference- that the most generous and practicable offer made by any British dominion was that made by Canada.


William Pugsley: What does the minister think of my suggestion?


William Roche: I think the hon. gentleman is quite mistaken in his premises. In the first place lands that a few years ago were very far removed from transportation facilities are now being brought within easy reach of the railways by extensions of lines up in the north country, and there is a large amount of available Dominion lands in those western provinces.
The hon. member says that this policy is not very generous. Of course, I expected some criticism along that line, no matter how generous the assistance we proposed, because this is a matter that lends itself to catering to the soldier's sympathies. It has been represented to us by the Land Settlement Committee of the War Veterans' Association that the soldiers who will be likely to settle on the land will be provided with but very little money. The hon. gentleman has suggested that instead of allowing the soldiers to settle on our free Dominion lands, we should purchase lands, which would mean, of course, that we would have to re-sell them to the soldier. Now, I fear there would not be many soldiers who would have sufficient capital to purchase those lands.
We are doing something more than simply granting 160 acres of free homestead lands to the soldiers; it is true we grant him that. There is no interference with his ordinary homestead rights; that is to say,
if he has not exhausted his homestead privileges already, he can take up 160 acres of free homestead land by complying with the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, which are most generous in their terms. But we are doing more than that for the soldier. We are offering him an additional 160 acres under the conditions provided by this legislation. So the soldier can take up 320 acres, one-half of which is to be earned under the Dominion Lands Act, and the other half under the provisions of this Soldiers' Settlement Scheme. Under this scheme we are granting a further 160 acres free to the soldier. We also supply the inexperienced man with agricultural training at the expense of the Government. We also grant him a loan to a maximum of ,$2,500, which is the largest amount granted in any of the British possessions, this loan being secured by a lien on the land.
I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me, when he reconsiders what he has said, that it would not be the wisest policy or the most acceptable to the soldiers themselves if the Government purchased lands for them in any particular province. Suppose, for instance, in the province of Alberta we bought lands adjacent to the more thickly settled communities, and said to the soldier. "Here is 160 acres of land, and you must settle- there if you wish to settle at all." That would be practically dictating to the soldier where he should locate, and if we adopted a policy of that kind in Alberta, every other province would have an equal right to demand such a policy for itself. The Government would then have to buy lands in provinces where the Crown Lands are owned by the provinces themselves. Under our policy, if the soldier wants to settle near a city or town, he has the privilege of purchasing the land where he wants to locate.


William Pugsley: Is it not true that there is comparatively little land available for free homesteads in the West, except in that territory north of the Saskatchewan?


William Roche: Yes, but the hon. gentleman overlooks one of the very best portions of this Dominion. I refer to the Peace River country.


William Pugsley: That is a long way off.


William Roche: It is being brought very much nearer by the extension of transportation facilities to that section. British Columbia is still further away.


Mr. MARCIL:: On an average, how near are these lands to a railway?


William Roche: The map shows the land within 10, 15 and 20 miles of a railway. I will give the area in a statement I have had prepared. I was saying that we are granting this financial assistance to the soldier, no matter in which province he desires to purchase the land.


Charles Marcil: Can the soldier purchase anything he likes with the money loaned by the Government, or has the Government supervision over his purchases?


William Roche: This Act will be administered by three commissioners, and loans will be made on their recommendation. They will naturally see that the security is good. If a soldier in Ontario, for instance, does not want to go to the West, but would rather purchase land in his own province; he can still receive this financial assistance from the Government. It is true the Government of the province of Ontario have a Soldiers' Settlement policy, but the land is up in the north part of the province, and the soldier .might prefer to settle in a more thickly settled section. We are giving him the same financial assistance as we give to the soldier who settles on the Dominion lands in the Northwest.
I have here a statement showing the available undisposed of agricultural lands in the province of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There is still a very large acreage available. In the province of Manitoba there are within ten miles of railway facilities 1,486,176 acres.


William Pugsley: Good land for settlement?


William Roche: I will come to- that later. In Saskatchewan, 917,952 acres; in Alberta, 4,100,736 acres. These lands- are reported by our department as the approximate areas of undisposed and available Dominion lands suitable for agricultural purposes within ten miles of railway lines. Then we have within fifteen miles, in Manitoba, 2,144,256 acres; in Saskatchewan, 1,407,728 acres; in Alberta, 5,696,512 acres. The acreage within twenty Iniles in Manitoba is 2,552,736 acres; in Saskatchewan, 1,802,416 acres; in Alberta, 6,891,008 acres. The acreage over twenty miles in Manitoba is 492,864; in Saskatchewan, 1,627,584; in Alberta, 5,580,992. I do not mean that this land is at the present time all prairie land. Much of it is heavily timbered, some of it is scrub, other portions are open prairie.


William Pugsley: And a good deal swamp land.
[Mr Roche.]


William Roche: No, it is all suitable for
agricultural purposes. Some of it will require drainage, and a certain portion will require the expenditure of some money. It is reported to me by the Surveyor General's Department that we have within ten miles of railway facilities about 500,000 acres, near Lesser Slave Lake, a portion of which is small scrub at the present time. If a soldier desires to locate upon other lands he has the option of doing so, but the hon. member for St. John will admit that unless he has some capital the land will be out of his reach at present prices. It has been stated that certain Indian reservations should be reserved. There was a sale of a certain acreage in the Blackfeet Indian reservation about three or four weeks ago, and it was said that the Government should have purchased those lands from the Indians and sold them to homesteaders or soldiers. I pointed out at the time that those lands would bring, as a minimum, $15 an acre, which would have been $2,400 for a quarter section. If in addition to that the soldier got a $2,500 loan, he would be starting out under a mortgage of $4,900 against his property, and I feared it would take the average soldier a long term of years to clear off that debt. As a matter of fact, .some of that land sold as high as $47 an acre, and on the average for over 50,000 acres it brought $23 an acre.' I claim very few soldiers would be in a financial position to undertake the purchase of this land and to avail themselves of the loan and make it profitable. We leave it optional with the soldier who desire's to locate upon our free lands to take 160 acres first and secure the other 160 acres under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, giving him 320 acres, unless he has already exhausted his homestead rights. Then he may get his loan of $2,500 on this land. If he desires to locate in a more thickly settled part of these provinces, or in any other province in tha Dominion, we will grant such financial assistance as may be recommended by the commission which will have charge of the administration of the Act. I think, therefore, it cannot be truthfully said that this is a gold brick which is being handed out to the soldiers. I have met many of them and discussed the matter with them. Many of them have admitted that it is much better, instead of the Government buying the lands and reselling them, to allow the soldier to buy the land himself and make his own location in any part of the Dominion he wishes.


William Pugsley: I did not intend to suggest that the soldier should' be forced to [DOT]settle in any particular place. My idea was that the Government having the power of expropriation for public purposes, could acquire tracts reasonably well situated upon which settlers who for the sake of their families might like to locate, keeping comparatively close to civilization. The Government proposes to lend up to $2,500 to a soldier for the purpose of enabling him to buy land. If he desires to settle upon Government land, the loan would be for the purpose of paying off the Government, and should be for a long period of years, say twenty, twenty-five or even thirty years, at a rate of interest not exceeding four per cent. I think the hon. minister will admit that while this land he speaks of is available in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, until you go north of the existing settlements, there is very little desirable land left for homesteading. The best land in that part of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which is south of the North Saskatchewan river, has been pretty well taken up by settlers. Now if the settler is left to buy land, the landowner will take advantage of it, and the soldier will be at a very great disadvantage. It seems to me it would be much better if the Crown would exercise its right of expropriation and obtain certain land.s in well selected localities where those who do not desire to go as pioneers may be able to settle.


William Roche: You would confine the 'settlement, then, to the western provinces?


William Pugsley: No, I do not say that. I do not see why land should not be obtained in the eastern provinces as well. This is a new departure caused by the war, and it will be a great advantage to the country if the returned soldier can be settled in comfortable circumstances where he and his family will have an opportunity of making a good start in life under, in most cases, entirely new conditions. I have had a little experience with the West. I remember pretty nearly forty years ago people came out from England and went upon the prairie. Everything looked beautiful and enticing to them, but it was not long before their hearts were broken, and they left the country and all they had put in it and went away to seek life in the cities. Remember, you are n<5t dealing altogether with practical farmers. You are not even dealing largely with practical farmers. You are dealing with soldiers whom you want to encourage to create homes for themselves.
230i
If they go to the West as pioneers and take their families with them beyond civilization it is not unlikely some of them may become disheartened before very long and will leave it. I should think you ought to have two kinds of land, land available for the pioneer-the man who wants to get beyond civilization and look to the advance which will come in the future, and who is prepared to wait for a number of years- and land in other localities where the returned soldier who does not want to go off as a pioneer may settle with his family, near a village where his children may have a reasonably good school, where there will be a church, and where there will be the advantages of village life so attractive to the ordinary man who does not like the life of a pioneer.
I think the country would sustain the Government in a very generous and very broad policy for the returned soldier, so far as settling on the land is concerned. My criticism of this scheme is that it is not broad enough to encourage the great body of soldiers to settle on the land. Not one man in a thousand would be attracted by an invitation to settle on nand in the Peace river country, six hundred miles north of the American boundary, wheie there are no settlers, no schools, churches or doctors.


Charles Marcil: I would suggest to the
minister that Canadian British subjects who left Canada to serve in the armies and navies of the Allies and who return after the war should be embraced in this scheme. This might be accomplished by inserting after the words "self-governing British dominions or colonies" the words:
Or to any other person who has served during' the war in the armies or navies of the- ' Allies of Great Britain, who were British subjects and who left Canada for such purpose.


William Roche: I shall be quite willing to take those representations into consideration when the Bill is under consideration. Our legislation is broader than that of New Zealand, Australia ot any other British possession. In New Zealand the original legislation included only those who joined the New Zealand expeditionary force. The following session it was made to include those , who were resident in New Zealand at the outbreak of the war and had enlisted in the British expeditionary force. The Australian law includes those of the British expeditionary force but not those who joined, for instance, the Canadian expeditionary force. Our proposed legislation will include not only those who enlisted in the Gana-

dian expeditionary farce but those joining the farce of any British dominion. I see certain difficulties in the way of adopting the suggestion now made.


Charles Marcil: Has any arrangement
been made with the provinces in connection with the settlement of soldiers on lands in eastern Canada?


William Roche: We had a talk with the
provincial representatives before we 'finally decided on this policy. It was decided that, inasmuch as the eastern provinces were the owners of their Crown lands, they should be left to dispo.se of them, as they deemed best'to the returned soldiers. Some of them have already passed legislation of this kind. This legislation will permit any returned soldier to acquire land in Quebec or in any other province that is not Crown land.


Charles Marcil: I understand that if a
soldier takes up land in Quebec the province takes the first mortgage.


William Roche: That is Crown lands.


Charles Marcil: The province then having the first lien, what will the Dominion do?


William Roche: Our legislation does not
contemplate our coming in on a second lien. It is only right that we should protect the people of Canada and have ample security for any loans we make. I take it for granted that in the case of Crown lands owned by the provinces the provinces themselves will want the first mortgage.


William Pugsley: Really all the Government is doing for the soldier is to lend him money and charge interest. What is the rate of interest?


William Roche: Five per cent. That is less than we can borrow for.


William Pugsley: That does not strike me as doing much for the soldier. You give him, as you give every one else, the opportunity to pick out a free homestead, and in 'addition to .that all you do is to lend him money for which you charge him five per cent. Interest is high just now, but a few years ago it was only three per cent, and in five years it may again come down; yet for twenty years the soldier must go on paying five per cent.


William Roche: Ontario charges soldiers
six per cent interest and Australia lends at cost .price plus a reasonable allowance for running expenses.


William Pugsley: We profess to be doing something splendid far the returned soldier

but are really not doing anything fo.r him. The country is getting a settler on the land, which is a benefit to the country at large because the soldier is expected to work hard developing the land and creating business, assisting in contributing to the revenues of the country. We .are charging him higher interest than he would have had to pay before the war broke out, and higher than the Government will have to pay two years after the war closes. That does not seem to me to be doing very much for the soldier. I think the policy of the Canadian Pacific is far better, although it has been carried out in times of peace.


William Roche: What are they charging?


William Pugsley: The Canadian Pacific Railway are charging 6 per cent interest, but they were selling land which was irrigated, in a well settled section of the country in southern Alberta. In addition to settling the land, they lend up to $2,000, to enable the settlers to buy stock, horses, and cattle, and engage in all active work of farming. They build a house for the settler, plow up for him and prepare for crop ten acres of land.


William Roche: And charge him for all that.


William Pugsley: Quite so, and that is what gives the foundation of a start for the settler. During the first two or three years of life on a prairie the settler's heart is apt to be broken in many cases. As I understand what the Government propose to do, the policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway, not for the soldier alone, but far any good industrious man who wants to go upon the land, is far better than the Government's proposition. The Government gives nothing to the farmer to buy stock.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman is wrong.


William Pugsley: Suppose a soldier wants to build a house, $2,500 does not go very far. The minister says that, if he wants to buy a piece of land, the Government will not lend him $2,500 to pay for improvements, but they want a first mortgage for any money they lend.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman is wrong. He can equip his farm with stock, and can utilize the money for that purpose. The hon. gentleman has not read the resolution, nor has he read the details of the Canadian Pacific Railway scheme. While not desiring to knock any other scheme, I have heard a criticism of that scheme quite

the opposite of the hon. gentleman's statement to-day:


William Pugsley: I have heard it spoken of very highly,


William Roche: The provision in the Bill reads:
The Board may lend to a settler an amount not exceeding $2,500 tor any of the following purposes:-
(a) The acquiring of land for agricultural purposes.
Ob) The payment of encumbrances on lands used for agricultural purposes.
(c)	The Improvement of land for agricultural purposes.
(d)	The erection of farm buildings.
(e)	The purchase of stock, machinery and' equipment.
(f)	Such other purpose or purposes as the Board may approve.


William Pugsley: Suppose a returned
soldier selects land in a good locality, where he would like to be able to make a comfortable home for himself, and it costs him $2,000. He wants to buy stock. He wants perhaps to build a house, and to buy farming implements. He goes to the minister and says, "I want you to lend me, under this Act, $2,500." The minister says, "Have you paid in full for your land?" And the soldier says, "Oh, no, I have paid $250, but I have given a mortgage for $1,750 on the land, and I want this money for improvements; I want to break up my land and plough and harrow; I want to get a couple of harrows and some general farm implements, and I want the Government to give me a start." The minister says, "Oh, we cannot lend you on your land; we have a mortgage already for $1,750 against it; we cannot lend you anything for these improvements." Is that not the case?


William Roche: No.


William Pugsley: The hon. minister said they could not take a second mortgage. If there is a mortgage on the land, you cannot lend him the $2,500 to build his house and buy horses and stock, which he requires in order to give him a fair start in the world.


William Roche: You can take a chattel mortgage on the stock.


William Pugsley: Without a mortgage on the land?


William Roche: Yes.


William Pugsley: Where do you find that?


William Roche: The provision is:
No loan shall be made until the Board is' satisfied that the additional security offered' is sufficient to justify the loan.	,
That is in the Bill.


William Pugsley: I am discussing the resolution.


William Roche: I am discussing the policy of the Government, and the hon. gentleman is discussing the matter with imperfect knowledge.


William Pugsley: I resent that remark.
The resolution is supposed to contain the terms of the Bill.


William Roche: Not necessarily all the
terms.


William Pugsley: 
William Roche: I have only a confidential copy.


William Pugsley: How can we discuss it
without a copy of at?


William Roche: It is not usual to put in
the resolution all the terms embodied in the Bill. The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity on the second reading, hr when in committee, to discuss the various provisions, but the Bill itself amplifies the resolution. There is nothing contradictory to the terms of the resolution. It is a little fuller, and there nothing in the policy as set forth in the Bill that would prevent the commissioners loaning the money on stock by taking a chattel mortgage on the stock. When I referred to the Provincial Government loaning money on their Grown lands, probably they would ask for a first mortgage, and we would not want to come in as a second mortgagee. They might utilize a portion of the money to pay off the original mortgage, and our security would stand first.


William Pugsley: In New Brunswick, while the Bill provided that; if a returned soldier has purchased his land in one of the eastern provinces, without taking any security for

the land the Government will be able, under this Bill, to lend him money to buy stock, and farm implements and to make improvements and develop his property, and take security on personal property for it. I have no doubt our legislation will cover that.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: The hon. gentleman says that under the resolution the Government would not be permitted to lend money to pay off the first mortgage. I do not see how he comes to that conclusion, from the wording of the resolution itself.


William Pugsley: I did not say that. I understood the minister, in answer to my hon. friend from Bonaventure, when the question with regard to assistance in the eastern provinces was discussed, to say that the Government could not lend the soldiers money on land which had been bought from the Provincial Government, because they would have to take a second mortgage, and they could not take it.


William Sora Middlebro: My hon. friend knows that is not true, according to the resolution itself.


William Pugsley: The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) is authority for that.


William Sora Middlebro: My hon. friend knew, when he made that statement, that it was not true, according to the terms of the resolution itself.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order. I think the hon. gentleman has no business to tell an hon. member of this House, when he makes a statement, that he knew it was untrue. I ask the ruling of the Chair?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Chair, chair.


William Pugsley: There is too much of that from the other side of the House.


Richard Blain: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Middlebro) should withdraw that remark.


William Pugsley: Withdraw.


William Sora Middlebro: I have nothing to withdraw.


William Pugsley: Withdraw.


William Sora Middlebro: I have nothing to
withdraw. I am simply saying that the hon. member must have known from a reading of the resolution in his handiMr. PUGSLEY: Mr., Chairman, I call for your ruling on the point of order. I think that you should insist upon the hon. gen-
CMr. Pugsley.]
tleman's withdrawing his remarks before he proceeds.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) ought to withdraw the remark.


William Sora Middlebro: I say that the hon.
member must have known-


William Pugsley: Chair.


William Sora Middlebro: I want to state my
point of order first. The hon. gentleman must have known from the terms of the resolution which he had in hie hand that it was possible for the Government to pay off a prior encumbrance, because the resolution distinctly says so.


William Pugsley: That is not what the
hon. gentleman said. He said that I knew it. was untrue when I made the statement.


William Sora Middlebro: I said that the hon. gentleman must have known, .from the resolution in hie hand-


William Pugsley: 
Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I must ask the member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) to withdraw the remark.


William Sora Middlebro: If I said what the
hon, gentleman said was untrue, I withdraw. What I did say was-	.


William Pugsley: I accept my hon. .friend's statement, but I am very sorry for his weakness of memory.


William Sora Middlebro: And I am very sorry for my hon. friend's apparent lack of intelligence if he came to the conclusion from the reading of this resolution that the Government would, not have the power to pay off a prior encumbrance of $250, becau.se the resolution distinctly says that the Government has the right to pay off prior encumbrances.


William Pugsley: I wish to correct my
hon. friend. I said nothing of the kind. What I referred to was the fact that the Minister of the Interior had told the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) that the Government would not be able to lend money on .second mortgages.


William Sora Middlebro: Did my hon. friend believe from a reading of the resolution that that wa6 the case?

3S25


William Pugsley: I was bound to accept
the statement of a gentleman so truthful as the Minister of'the Interior.


William Sora Middlebro: I shall read the resolution to see whether the member for St. John was justified in coming to that conclusion, or whether there was an attempt to give a wrong impression to the committee. The resolution says:
And further to provide that the Board may loan, upon such terms and conditions as may he prescribed, to any such settler an amount not exceeding two thousand dollars for acquiring land for agricultural purposes, payment of encumbrance* on lands used for agricultural purposes.
They do not even have to lend the money upon the security of the land; they may lend on any security and upon such terms as they deem prudent; and they may lend the money for the purpose of paying off a prior encumbrance. So that in the case cited by my hon. friend, that of a man who had a farm worth $2,000 against which there was an encumbrance of $250, the Government would be justified, under the terms of the resolution, in paying off the first mortgage and in that way granting a loan, or they could pay off the first mortgage and take a loan for $2,000. . The resolution, therefore, outlines clearly the powers contained in the Bill as read by the Minister of the Interior.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has attempted to answer something which I never said and which I did not dream of saying. I was pointing out that in the eastern provinces, where the Crown lands are owned in the right of the provinces, it might be desirable to buy land-which, 1 understand, can be obtained at a low price -and agree to pay the Provincial Government for it an amount running over a period of years. I thought it would be a great advantage to the returned soldier that he should be able to borrow money from the Government upon second mortgage on his property, farm implements or stock. The minister stated that the Government could not take a second mortgage under those circumstances. I was suggesting that it was desirable that that should be done, if the Board were satisfied that a settler of reasonable energy and thrift wanted the money for productive purposes-perhaps to clear the land, perhaps for drainage purposes, the erection of buildings, or the purchase of stock. I think it is a great mistake that the Government should not be able under those circumstances to take a second mortgage upon the property, in addition, of course, to security that might be taken
upon personal property. Notwithstanding the great ability of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Middlebro) who is the Chief Whip on the other side; who, when he rises in his place to speak about anything which the Government has done, uses the word "we," never forgetting to convey the impression that he is an adjunct to the Government-notwithstanding what he says, I prefer in this case to take the statement of the Minister of the Interior as to the real intent of this legislation	-


Mr. McCRANEY:: When this resolution was before the House on a previous occasion I mentioned the case of Private Baldwin of Saskatoon. Private Baldwin is a returned soldier who lost his leg. He had been a homesteader before the war; he left his homestead to enlist, and he now wants to go back to his land. I hope that the provisions of the legislation which will be introduced by the minister will apply to land which had been already homesteaded or purchased as well as to land which will hereafter be taken up by returned soldiers.


William Roche: It is broad enough for that.


Mr. OLIVER:: The homesteader who is now on service will, on his return, be able to take advantage of this loan?


William Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The provision for the reservation of land is somewhat questionable. In the first place, reservations are in themselves an impediment to the general settlement of the country. In the next place unless there is some reason why the Government, for the sake of supervision, desires to keep a number of homesteading soldiers close together, it will be a very serious drawback, not only to the settlement of the country, but to the soldiers themselves, if the soldiers are to be allowed to exercise this privilege only within reserved areas. I do not object to a provision for reservation, so that in extreme cases action may be taken to give the ^ soldiers the first opportunity of obtaining a desirable piece of country. But if the Government put in reservation, say, in the Peace River district, a desirable piece of country for the purposes of this Bill, ordinary settlement might be prevented from coming in and the soldiers themselves might not come in in the end. The Peace River country is a very large country, but it is what we might call spotted: certain areas are very desirable, and other large tracts are very much less desirable. So that when we speak of the great area of the Peaoe

Eiver country and then speak of the advantages of that country, there is apt to be confusion of ideas.
There are exceedingly good portions of the Peace river county, but the land is not all of the same character, and so in dealing with the Peace Eiver country, it is quite possible that the Government might do both the development of the country and the soldiers themselves very great injury by applying a policy of reservation. I am, therefore, going to ask the minister: What is the proposed policy of the Government in that particular? Is it considered to be desirable to keep in certain localities the soldiers, who are to get the benefit of this section and who occupy homestead lands?


William Roche: The commission is given the power to inspect the land and to recommend to the Minister of the Interior the reservation of any particular area suitable for the location of returned soldiers, and in whatever locality they deem best suited for the purpose. I quite agree with the hon. member it would be impolitic to retain that for permanent reservation. That would prevent, as he has explained, ordinary settlers coming into the country from locating in that reservation, and at the same time, the soldiers might not take as great advantage of the reservation as we would hope. But we are limiting that reservation. The legislation will provide for the reservation to last for a maximum period of three years after the close of the war. We thought that surely within that time any soldiers that were going to locate upon the land would do so. The reservation may be lifted on the recommendation of the commissioner sooner than that. But the soldier is not confined to that reservation; he can go beyond it and select any homestead land he desires, and he will get the same privilege as he would receive on those lands that are reserved.


Frank Oliver: The important point is that the soldier may locate anywhere he pleases and still receive the benefit of this legislation.


William Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: That is entirely satisfactory. This authority of reservation should be exercised with a fair regard not only to the interest of the soldier but to the development of the country. It will not . be to the interest of the soldier settler that the development of the country be retarded, and if it is the intention of the Government to hold land 
under reservation for three years after the war, that would be a huge mistake, to the detriment of all parties concerned. My suggestion would be this, that a reservation be not made unless and until it is expected it will be brought into use, and then notice should be given that that reservation is for the benefit of the soldiers; that it will remain for so many months for their benefit, and that after that time it will be open to general settlement. I certainly will not favour the closing of land from settlement for any considerable period, or 5 p.m. except under circumstances under which it would be understood it was going to be required and desired by the soldiers. I would be glad to endorse the suggestion of my hon. friend from Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) in regard to the settlement of Canadians who, by reason of being reservists of allied countries, left Canada to serve in the armies of those countries. They are our citizens, and it would be a gracious and just act that they should be given the same consideration as though they were fighting in our own armies, because we are all fighting in the one cause.
I would follow the suggestion made only so far as it refers to citizens of Canada at the time of their call to service in their home countries.


William Roche: Would the hon. member include in that list, for instance, the Japanese who were Canadian citizens before going over to engage in the war?


Frank Oliver: It would be very hard, of course, to refuse them consideration if we included the others. That would be a matter for consideration.


Charles Marcil: I have here a newspaper published in Montreal, and called La Vic-toire, which is a good name. It is the organ of the French people settled in Canada. I see m it an article signed by Mr. Chevassu, a French reservist, a British citizen, a former member of the press gallery here, and a former secretary of the mayor of Montreal. He was one of the first to go to the front, and, I understand, he was wounded at the battle of the Marne. His article, which is a strong one, is headed, "Shall we have the same rights and the same privileges?" He claims that the Frenchmen and Belgians settled in Canada, British citizens, who responded to the call of duty as soon as that call was sounded, and who comes back to this country, should be given the same opportunity of settling on the land as our own returned soldiers. The minister knows how valuable the French and Belgian farmers are and

how difficult it is to get them into this country in amy large numbers, as they do not emigrate so freely as the farmers of other countries do. The writer of this article hopes, and he says it is almost a conviction on the part of these people, that the Canadian Government will not refuse their request. On the question of settlement in the provinces, I would not like to have any misunderstanding. Suppose the province of Quebec gives a grant of land to a returned soldier, will this Government Supplement that by a Dominion grant to enable him to work the land? If so, will the Government take a mortgage on the property, or how will it give such a grant?


William Roche: Under this legislation there is nothing to debar that man from receiving the monetary assistance provided by the legislation so long as the commission can get similar security. The security has to be agreed upon to the satisfaction of the commission.


Frank Oliver: Will the Bill set out the terms and conditions under which the settler will acquire his grant and also the terms and conditions on which the loan of money will be made to him?


William Roche: The Bill deals in general outlines and will deal with the principle, but it is intended to have the administration of the Bill carried out under a set of regulations by the commissioner. This is the policy that has been adopted in Australia and New Zealand, where, I understand-, it has thus far been found to operate well, and we thought it would be a good idea to follow out the same policy.


Charles Marcil: Is there a time fixed when this Bill goes into operation and when the soldiers begin taking up the land, or is the Government going to wait until the war is over?


William Roche: As soon as this legislation comes into force the land will be available for the soldiers.


Frank Oliver: While it is very desirable that aid should be given in this practical form to returned soldiers as an inducement to them to occupy land and take up cultivation, I have seen a great deal of discussion on the matter that seems to me to have been based on a misunderstanding of the situation. In many cases the discussions that I have read have appeared to assume that this Bill was intended to deal rather with the disabled or partially disabled men. That, of course, is a mistake. Other provision would have to be made for the disabled man. This only applies to the man who comes back in the full exercise of his faculties and abilities,, ani who has the enterprise and desire to establish himself on the land.
I do not think this measure will be taken advantage of to nearly the extent that many people seem to think; in other words, I do not think it will solve the problem of the returned soldier, or even measurably solve it. So far as this Bill will attract our returned soldiers1 to the land it will serve a good purpose, but it will not -solve the problem of the returned soldier. It is a help towards a solution, but the problem is very much larger than this Bill will by any possibility solve. I should like to follow what my hon. friend from St. John has said, that of the vast number of millions of acres of available free land there is very little, except in some portions of the Peace River country, that is not covered with woods and is more or less difficult to bring under cultivation. So that while the financial assistance that is proposed here is substantial, and of great advantage to the man of ability, industry and enterprise who desires to establish himself on a farm, even in that wooded country, it could not really bring the 160 acres under cultivation. I am not suggesting for a moment that this assistance is not desirable, or that it will not be useful; it is desirable, and it will be useful, but conditions in our western country to-day are not as they were ten years ago, when millions of acres of -prairie land were available for homesteading, when the question of roads hardly came up at all because there was the prairie to drive over, and when the -question of clearing did not exist, because there was nothing to clear. But now we have to deal with a country that is very largely of a wooded character, and bringing a country of that kind under cultivation involves a very large expenditure of labour or cash, or both, and the lapse of a considerable amount of time, for wooded country cannot be brought under cultivation like prairie land, in a year or two; it takes years to do it. So we are dealing with different conditions in the West from what prevailed in former years, and that fact must be taken into consideration in any problem of settlement. The problem of settlement in the West to-day is a different problem from what it was ten years ago, and it must be approached in a different way. So I say there is very great force in the argument of my hon. friend from St. John. I myself

saw the statement made by the President of the Canadian Pacific railway some months ago when he suggested that land not now being used for a beneficial purpose, good land conveniently situated, which would cost a minimum of expenditure to bring under cultivation, should be expropriated- I think that was his suggestion- at a fair valuation, and should be brought under cultivation and placed at the disposal of the soldier.
There is a good deal of merit in that suggestion, because the cost of acquiring the wooded land and bringing it under cultivation practically amounts to the value of the prairie land that is now under private ownership apd is not being benefioiaily used. It would, as the minister has said, mean a larger investment,; but, on the other hand, to bring the wooded land under cultivation an investment has to be made in some form or another-either by lapse of time, or by a greater expenditure of effort, or by the actual expenditure of money. The isoldier might very well spend the greater part of the $2,500 that he borrows in merely bringing his land or a part of it under cultivation, and then have no team or implements or stock with which to .go on with and bring in returns. I think the Government might very well consider the suggestion made by Lord Shaugh-nessy. I would not suggest that this land be bought at an extortionate price, but it is just as cheap to buy good prairie land that is well situated and sell it to the soldier as it is to lend him money to cultivate wooded land that is not well situated, where roads have to be made, and where other great difficulties exiist. On the wooded land the soldier's time, money and energy has to be expended in bringing nature under subjection, whereas on the prairie the same expenditure of time, energy and money would be producing actual monetary results. By utilizing this prairie land that is not now being cultivated, and of which it is to be regretted there is such an enormous amount in sight, we will be securing production to a greater degree and in a very much shorter time than lif we make provision for assisting the soldier who is going on land that for the most part is wooded, and which will cost time and money before it can be made productive.


Mr. LEVI THOMPSON:: I do not know what the Government think of the suggestion of my hon. friend from Edmonton, but I think it would be well to give power to

the commissioners to expropriate land where they see fit, or let the Government do it themselves. I presume the minister is so well acquainted with conditions in the West that it rs unnecessary for me to 'remind him of the tremendous amount of vacant land that is held out there-and more so in Alberta and Saskatchewan than in Manitoba-for speculative purposes. The owners buy this land without any intention of working it, in the hope that as the surrounding land is cultivated their property will increase in value. Now, although every citizen is entitled to some consideration, I do not think very much consideration should be shown to a citizen who does that. I think his land should be expropriated. I think there is a great deal in what my hon. friend from Edmonton says on this point.
Let me add this: there is a public interest to be served as well as the interest of the returned soldier. All of us in this House realize, I think, that at no time was the world ever so close to starvation as at present. Our crop reports for this year are not very encouraging, and that does not promise well for next year, because whenever there ris a great shortage one year, conditions are unfavourable for the following year. On the virgin prairie a man could get a crop the first year, even if he only started to cultivate his land in the spring. He could groiw oats and flax at least, particularly flax, and that would relieve the situation to a great extent; I admit that he would not be able to grow wheat successfully. Of course, it is now too late for this legislation to be of any assistance in bringing land under cultivation and increasing production this year. That would help for next year's crop, because there is any amount of land actually lying idle on which returned soldiers might be placed, and so help out the situation, not only for themselves and for*Oanada but for the whole world. We who have some experience with western conditions know that the farmer feels he should have -more than a quarter-section for a successful farm. He feels he should have at least a half-section, and from my own observation and experience in farming I believe that is right. A farmer to carry on his work in the most successful manner should have 320 acres to work on


Mr. BURNHAM:: Is not intensive farming possible out there?


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: It may be possible later on, but I think my hon. friend will agree with me that intensive farming is

not just the thing for a new country. Intensive farming is proper and advisable where the land is scarce and dear. There are other conditions in older and more settled districts which make intensive farming very successful. My hon. friend lives in the province of Ontario, and knows that intensive farming is practically confined to the raising of potatoes and other vegetables. The market in the West is very limited and uncertain for that class of produce. If my hon. friend means by "intensive farming" that a man's land should be farmed in such a way as to yield heavier crops, I agree with him that it should be done, but I do not see how we can deal with that phase of the question.


John Hampden Burnham: You certainly cannot encourage it by advocating farms of 320 acres instead of 160.


Levi Thomson: I will not enter into a long argument on the point, but if I had an hour or so with my hon. friend I think I could convince him that I know a .little more about the subject than he does, and perhaps persuade him that he is quite wrong and that I am quite right. I believe the hon. minister (Mr. Roche) will agree with me that the most successful farmers in the province of Saskatchewan are the men who have about 320 acres. That being so, let us suppose we have a man prepared to take 320 acres; 1 am afraid the amount suggested will not be sufficient, if he has not a fairly large capital to start with, unless the Government advances him the necessary funds on the security of a second mortgage, and I am not in favour of that. Whatever power may be given to the board with regard to the lending of money, I think the Government should have a first mortgage unless there be some very exceptional circumstances. It may be a very serious proposition to say that the amount (Should not be limited to $2,500, but I think the board might be allowed to exceed this figure, or it might be arranged that there should be a limited sum for a quarter-section, and a proportionate increase for a half-section.
The matter of wooded lands is another important subject which should not be lost sight of. I have already spoken to my hon. friend personally about this, and he was very ready to consider any suggestions. This is a question, however, on which it is hard to miake intelligent .and useful suggestions. About a year ago I had occasion to examine some land along the Saskatchewan river, directly north of Tisdale. On the south side of the river was practically bare prairie land, although I .saw some very fine pieces of wooded land left. The north side of the river was almost entirely covered by the finest growth of poplar I ever saw. I was told that the land on the .south side was very heavily wooded some years ago when the homesteaders went there first, and in the natural course of events the homesteader had gradually burned it clear. I should be very sorry to see the poplar on the north side of the river destroyed, because it is extremely valuable, and I think it would be advantageous if some means were devised *by which say one-half or three-quaT-ters of this land could be burned or cleared for homesteading and' leave the balance in wood as it is. I have not a very clear suggestion to offer to my hon. friend as to just how it could be done, but I would like to see the board given sufficient power to deal with it.


William Roche: That is one of the benefits of having the Act administered under regulations which may be changed from time to time, according to the judgment of tiie commission.


Mr. WRIGHT:: May I .ask whether it is
the intention to acquire land in .the different provinces of the Dominion under these regulations? No doubt the attention of the Government will be largely directed tow.ards the West for the settling of soldiers on the land. At the same time, I would like to- point out that there are large stretches of territory in the other provinces which, while they might not be quite as desirable as some p.arts of the West would 'be equally .as desirable as the wooded lands spoken of by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle ('Mr. Thomson). In the northern part of Ontario, for instance, there are large stretches of land, not very valuable, financially speaking, but- which could be used to great advantage by returned soldiers. In the districts of Mmskoka, Parry Sound and Nipissing, and down through the east, they have large stretches of land which the farmers find it almost impossible to work because a great many of the young men had gone off to the West and the few that were left have been drawn off to the army by the recruiting officers. The old men and women who are left upon the farms have not, for the most part, the means of getting help, and they cannot work	the farms. These old people
- would like very much to dispose of their lands and to join their young folk in the West or in the cities. The lands may not be as desirable, but

they can be acquired at a moderate price and can be used to very great advantage for the production of dairy produce, sheep, cattle or anything of that kind. They will produce enough feed for large numbers of stock and make equally desifable homes with anything in the West, or anywhere else, for the average comfort of life. There is plenty of fuel, and work all through the winter, while prices for all produce are equal to those in Ottawa or anywhere else. I hope that these sections will not be overlooked in connection with the settlement of soldiers. We require more settlers and more farm help, 'and the settling of soldiers on these lands would be for the benefit both of that section of the country and of the soldiers. We can make good, comfortable homes for them with a small investment of money.


John Hampden Burnham: If this were merely a question of farming in the West, I should perhaps not venture to enter the discussion. But there are two elements connected with it which perhaps justify my saying a word upon it. In the first place, this is a matter of the expenditure of public money, and therefore it is open to discussion by all members. In the second place, I have listened this afternoon to a repudiation of intensive farming, something that I must confess has amazed me. Intensive farming, of course, is not truck farming, it is farming; it is making the land grow twice as much as it did before by introducing the equivalent in nitrates or general fertilizer. The growing of crops of various sorts on land spread over a large area entails a vast amount of work. It does nothing whatever to relieve the help problem, and, in addition to that, it means the tying up of a vast lot of capital in the purchase of land which otherwise might be used for other purposes. If, for instance, a man, instead of having 300 acres of land and presently raising from 15 to 18 bushels an acre-and in many cases, after a few years, less-had 100 acres and raised 35 or 40 bushels an acre, he would be doing vastly better and would very likely be able to farm his land, and' we should not hear these complaints. But, in any event, speaking upon general principles, this extensive farming has ceased to be considered reasonable and sensible farming in any well settled country. The Americans have abandoned it, and we find that in Belgium, before the war, the people were devoting themselves to enriching the land and raising large quantities of produce upon it. They were not attempting to run all over the face of the earth raising

sparse crops and complaining about help and wondering where they ,conld get money to buy more land. That kind of thing is out of date and I certainly hope that the minister will take into consideration advanced or scientific farming and not this commonplace style of spread-eagle farming of which we have heard so much and which, very strangely, has been so advocated this afternoon.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend reminds
me of the late Mark Twain who on one occasion explained that the less he knew of a subject the more fluently he could speak on it.


Charles Marcil: 
William Roche: It is a loan. They have no free lands there. Their public lands are the property of the State, not of the Commonwealth, and the State Governments supply the lands on the long term lease or by saile. The Commonwealth Government borrows -money and -lends it to the State Government who in turn lends to the soldiers, charging cost price of the loan with a reasonable amount added for working expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.
Mr. Roche thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 116, entitled "An.Act to Assist Returned Soldiers in Settling Upon the Land, and to increase Agricultural Production."
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. C.J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 98, to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Exchequer Court Act, was read the second time and

the House went into -committee thereon, Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On section 1-Crown entitled to costs notwithstanding solicitor, etc., is -salaried officer.
Wilfrid Laurier: Will the hon. minister explain this?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The purpose of this section is to place the litigant who has litigation with the Crown in the same position, with regard to liability for cost, in the case where the Crown conducts its proceedings through the law officers in the Department of Justice, who are all salaried officers, as in the case where outside counsel are employed. As the law stands at present, where the cases are conducted by lawyers outside the department, and the Crown is successful, costs are always taxed, of course, against the losing litigant, in favour of the lawyer conducting the case, and include fees to that lawyer. Where, on the other hand, the Crown conducts its case through the law officers of the department, it has been held that, inasmuch as these officers are salaried officials, and the Crown does not pay special fees for the particular case, they are not entitled to have their costs taxed. It seems anomalous that the position of a litigant, with regard to liability for costs, should be different, in the case where the Crown conducts its business through its own officers, from the case where the Crown retains counsel specially for the purpose. I think it will be acknowledged that it is desirable, as far as possible, and it certainly is in the interests of economy, that the cases on behalf of the Crown should be conducted by the law officers regularly employed. That, of course, takes their time away from other duties, and the Crown pays them for that work, through their salaries. Where their time is so occupied, and where the Crown succeeds in its litigation, it seems but fair that the unsuccessful litigant should pay the costs, just as he should pay them if we employed some other lawyer. I do not think it is desirable that the unsuccessful parties, who, in many cases at all events, are conducting the litigation quite without foundation, should escape from the ordinary penalty that attaches to the unsuccessful litigant with regard to the liability for costs.


Wilfrid Laurier: If this be not intended to add to the salary of the official of the department who acts as counsel, I can see no very serious objection to the proposed change.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not so intended.


Wilfrid Laurier: But if it is intended to add to the fee, or salary, or remuneration of the officers of the Crown, I think it will be very objectionable.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It provides that the money so paid shall go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Exclusive original jurisdiction.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I desire to move an amendment to this section, I might point out that the purpose of this section, as I explained when introducing the Bill, is to rectify the consequences of the interpretation that has been placed upon the subsection of the present Exchequer. Court Act. The section, as it stands, gives the Exchequer Court jurisdiction in respect of every claim against the Crown arising out of any death or injury to the person, or to property on any public work, resulting from the negligence of any officer or servant of the Crown, while acting within the scope of -his duties or employment. That section -has been interpreted-and I think the wording fully justifies the interpretation-as limiting the liability of the Crown under it to the case where the death of or the injury to any person or property occurs on the public work; that is to say, all cases where the individual who is injured or killed is at the moment actually on the public work, or to cases where the property damaged is, at the time that it is damaged, actually on the public work. Giving it that interpretation, it has produced this result: that you may have two persons, one of them standing actually on the public work, the other one standing, say, on an adjoining street. By some negligence of the employee, the officer or servant of the Crown working upon that public work, say, for instance, handling explosives, injury is caused to these two people. The one who is standing actually on the public work will, under the section as presently interpreted, have a right of action against the Grown. The other one, because he wa>s standing on an adjoining street, perhaps ten feet away, and receives much more rerious injury, has no recourse, because he was not injured on the public work. While I think this interpretation is a perfectly proper one of the section as it now stands, I do not think that the intention of the law is thereby realized, and the present amendment leave-s the law as it stands, except that we do away with

the requirement, where the injury is the result of the fault or negligence of the officer or servant of the Crown actually within the scope of his duties on a public work, that the victim should also actually be on the public work-the victim himself, where it is a matter of personal ' injury, or the property itself, where it is a matter of damage to property. The wording, perhaps, goe-s a little further than the intention; at all events, it is subject to the criticism that more words are used than are necessary. I beg to' move to amend section 2 of the Bill by striking out the words "during the course of his employment on any public work," in lines 3 and 4 of paragraph (c) of clause 2, and adding the words "upon any public work" at the end of the paragraph. The section [DOT]sought to be substituted for the present provision of the Exchequer Court Act would then read:
Every claim against the Crown arising out of any death or injury to the person or to property resulting from the negligence of any officer or servant of the Crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment on any public work.


Wilfrid Laurier: Would my hon. friend read section (c), which he intends to repeal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section (c) reads:
Every claim against the Crown arising out of any death or injury to the person or to property on any public work resulting from the negligence of any officer or servant of the Crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment.
Under that section it is required that the victim of the accident should be on the public work at the time of the accident, whereas I think the intention was to limit the liability to cases where the servant who is responsible for the negligence is engaged in employment on the public work, and to attach responsibility to the Crown even if the accident resulting from that negligence happened off the public work. In some eases where the cause of the injury was negligence on the part of the Crown's servant engaged on the public work, the individual hurt did not happen to be actually on the public work. A sample case would be the one that I mentioned. Suppose the Crown is excavating for a canal and I happen to be standing on the canal bank or upon anything that can be construed as part of the public work. If, through negligent blasting operations, I am injured, under the section as it now stands I will have an action, because I was on the public work. But if another gentleman standing

ten feet away, beyond the limit of the property which can he considered as part <jf the public work, receives absolutely similar, or, pbrhaps, more serious injuries from the same cause, the court would hold that that gentleman had no action. I think it is quite clear that the trouble comes from the words "on a public work" being in the wrong part of the section and being made applicable to the victim and not to, the servant of the Crown who causes the damage.


John Hampden Burnham: Very recently there was a case in my own riding in which property was alleged to have been injured by the improper raising of the water. Because the property was many miles away and was not on the dam-of course, it could not be-the case was ruled by the judge as not coming within this Act, and the man had no redress. It is a matter of question whether another section of the Act did not allow this man to bring an action against the Government, but the Exchequer Court ruled otherwise, holding that the action must be brought in under subsection (c). Of course, you could not have hundreds of acres of property on the dam; therefore, in all cases where property was damaged under such circumstances, no recovery could be had. I ask the Minister of Justice whether such cases have been provided for?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This legislation will meet precisely that case. If this legislation had been enacted and were in force at the time of the case in question, any objection to the recovery of damages based upon the fact that the property was not on the public dam would disappear. Of course, I am not in a position to say whether there was any other reason why the Crown should not be responsible in that particular case, but in so far as the hon. gentleman has stated the case, this amendment will meet it., It is quite unreasonable to say that while there is liability if your property is actually on the public work, you may with impunity commit precisely the same fault and produce precisely the same damages if the property damaged is not on the public work.


Charles Marcil: I think that this section is identical with Bill No. 49, introduced by the member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe).


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know that it is in the same words, but it is designed to attain the same purpose.


Charles Marcil: Many years ago the late Mr. Monk brought up a case that occurred

in the county of Jacques Cartier: that of a man who was shot on bis farm while volunteers were firing at ia target. It was found afterwards that the boys who were firing were not authorized to do any shooting, and the fanner never got anything.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At the time that case occurred I was not in a position to bring in an amendment to the law. Since the hon. gentleman mentions the fact, I have some recollection of their being such a case. I think it would have been desirable if this anomalous condition of affairs had been earlier corrected. The matter had been brought to my attention this year, in connection not with the case that the hon. gentleman mentions, but with one or two other cases that occurred in the province of Quebec. At that time I rather came to the conclusion that the law ought to be amended; the member for Kamouraska very likely had similar information and entertained the same view of the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
AERIAL LEAGUE OP THE BRITISH EMPIRE.	.
House in committee on Bill No. 84, to incorporate the Canadian Division of the Aerial League of the British Empire.-Sir Herbert Ames.-Mr. Blain in the Chair.
William Pugsley: Perhaps the promotor
will explain the meaning of the Bill.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: This league is a branch of the Aerial League of the British Empire, which is a very important organization across the seas, and is in close relation with the British War Office. It has rendered very great service in aerial training. The organization in Canada has taken a large part in the same work here, acting in co-operation with the authorities. The Bill has been very carefully considered in the Private Bills Committee. Some amendments have been offered, which have been accepted, and as I understand the matter, the Bill is now satisfactory to all parties concerned.
On section 9-Real property.


Mr. STEELE:: The Private Bills Committee added several subsections to this section. Subsection 2 limits the annual value of the real estate to be held by the association to $50,000. The other subsections are the stock clauses which have been inserted in all similar Bills in the last two years providing for the disposal of property which is not required for the purpose of the association at the end of ten years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Borrowing powers and investments :
Michael Steele: There is added to this section, subsection (2), providing that:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the association to issue any note or bill payable to bearer thereof, or any promissory note intended to be circulated as money or as the note or bill of a bank, or to engage in the business of banking or insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12:
Michael Steele: This section is the usual one inserted in similar Bills providing that the association shall take over all the exiisting assets, interests, rights, credits, effects and property movable or immovable, held and enjoyed by the existing association, and also take over all the liabilities of the existing association before it shall be allowed to do business.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, amendments read the first and second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 109, for the relief of John Newton Salter.-Mr. Northrup,	,

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blain in the Chair.
Post Office-outside service-salaries and allowances, $8,447,263.26.
William Pugsley: I notice in the newspapers that a body called the Public Service Committee has recommended that a large number of civil servants should be dismissed from office. Perhaps the minister would state whether the Government has given any consideration to that subject, and whether there will be any reduction in the staff of the Post Office Department, and if so, to what extent. I see that the minister is asking for an increase of half a million

dollars on account of salaries, which does not look much like a reduction in the staff;


Charles Joseph Doherty: These salaries are for the Outside service.


William Pugsley: I think the recotmmendation of the Public Service Committee referred to the outside service as well as the inside.
/Mr. DOHERTY: I did not understand it to refer to the outside service. I am not in a position to give my hon. friend any information on this subject because I have not prepared myself on it, as I did not think it particularly pertinent to the Post Office Department. I am informed by the Deputy Minister that the recommendation has been called to his attention, and that it will receive his consideration. He will ascertain whether there is occasion for such reduction in the Post Office Department, and whether it is possible to effect the same without detriment to the public service. The increase an the amount asked for this year is made up practically in its entirety of the statutory increases.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I wish to call the attention of the Acting Postmaster General to a matter which I have on more than one occasion brought to the attention of former Postmaster Generals. I realize that it is not a very easy matter to deal with, but nevertheless justice and fairness demand that it should be dealt with. It must be apparent to every member of this committee that the inauguration of parcel post and rural mail delivery has imposed a great deal of extra work upon the country postmaster. Many post offices have been cut off entirely owing to the establishment of rural routes, and this has necessarily increased the work of the post offices that are left. In many cases the country post office has become the distributing point for rural routes within a radius of 15 or 20 miles. That means a great deal of extra work and longer hours for the country postmaster, for which he is not adequately paid. His remuneration is certainly not in proportion to the extra work that has been thrown upon him by these changed conditions.
There is another point. Many of the men who have submitted tenders as couriers on the rural routes .are not receiving the remuneration they should receive, having regard to the. extra work that the parcel post has thrown upon them. Previous to the establishment of the parcel post, the courier added to his salary by charging 10, 15 or 25 cents for carrying parcels, but now he has

to take all the parcels that come by parcel post as part of his day's work, and he is frequently obliged to use a two-horse rig where formerly a one-horse light rig sufficed. Parcel post has thus put him to extra expense and deprived him of the little revenue :he formerly received for carrying parcels. I think I am right in saying that after parcel post was established the railway companies represented that they should receive remuneration for the extra work that parcel post threw upon them, and I think their claims were satisfied to a certain extent, and quite properly so. Now if the railways can Teceive extra remuneration, /surely the rural mail carriers are entitled to extea pay. I have taken this matter up with two or three Postmaster Generals, and in every case they have agreed that the matter was worthy of serious consideration. But it is not -an easy matter to adjust. They could hardly be paid on a mileage basis, but there ought to be some way of dealing fairly with these men, and at the present time I do feel that they are not being treated fairly in view of the extra work they have to do. I have been told in one or two cases to instruct the parties who claimed that they should receive more money, to keep an account of the number of parcels they carried -and of the number of trips on which they had to use .an extra rig for earring the mail, and that each case would be dealt with on its merits. If the department is prepared to do that, I shall be in a position to tell the couriers of my county to keep an account of the extra rig for carrying the mail, and that each numerated accordingly. Where a country postmaster has given up his office for one reason or another, I am beginning to find a good deal of difficulty in getting any one to take his place. They say there is nothing in it, that they are tied down to certain hours, that there is no such thing as a holiday for them, and that the remuneration is very small
I am sure the people of the rural districts appreciate very much what the Government has done in the way of extending postal facilities, and anything that can be done along that line will be borne out by the best judgment of everybody regardless of party. When the Post Office Estimates have been before the House, some members have spoken of the cost of this department.
I want to state again that if there is any department of the Government which is justified and which will be justified by the people of this country in having a deficit it is the Post Office Department. Its revenue is derived entirely from the people, and in

my judgment it should not have any surplus, and it certainly should not have a surplus so long as. any member of this House can point to places where the people are net being properly served with postal facilities, or where they could be better served than at present. As to this department we should not be very censorious about expenditure. The public chest is pretty well protected in providing rural routes and rural mail service. Competition is so keen in many cases that the men must be performing the service at a loss. In any event, the country is not being robbed in regard to the amount paid for mail service.
We should take into consideration the fact that cities, towns, and centres of population call upon the Government of Canada for the expenditure of money in many ways, such as the improvement of harbours, public works, and so on. These are of course a benefit to the country, but they are especially beneficial to the particular town or city which obtains the grant. The strictly rural sections do not get such grants, and about the only way the Government can really be ' cf service to the people in the country districts is by giving them the very best possible postal facilities. I maintain that in so doing, even if the Post Office Department should show a deficit, this Government or any Government is justified in having that deficit, if they can show that it has been produced by giving the people proper postal facilities-a daily mail service, so far as it is possible to give a daily mail service.
Once more I want to ask the acting Postmaster General (Mr. Doherty) to give his serious consideration to the question of an increase in pay to the men on the rural mutes, because of the increased work those men have to do, which in many cases obliges them to place an extra horse or an extra vehicle upon the route, involving, particularly during the last year, a very great increase in their expenditure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With reference to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) has said concerning the remuneration of country postmasters, I quite appreciate that there is a good deal of force in his representations. The subject is not entirely new to me-although moist things connected with the Post Office Department are new to me. Quite recently I have had put before me by the deputy minister representations made by a considerable body of the postmasters looking to an increased remuneration. So far as I was able to go into the matter, it seemed to be quite fair
that if any means could toe found toy which a reasonable increase in their remuneration could toe granted, we should be glad to do it. The question of rural mail routes is, I must confess, quite new to me. Increased work will very naturally call for increased remuneration. I shall take the matter up and shall be glad if I can find a method toy which this work may toe better remunerated.


William Pugsley: I would like to ask the minister if generally the department allows the exercise of patronage in connection with the awarding of contracts for the carrying of the mails. The reason I ask the question is because it has quite recently come to my notice that where tenders were called for carrying the mails, the tenderer who had offered to do the work for the lowest amount and who naturally expected to receive the contract was disappointed. There was political interference and the contract was given to a political friend of the Government, whose figures were higher than those of the other tenderer. It seems to me that should not be so, and in connection with services of this character the department should be left absolutely free to secure the performance of the work at the lowest price, because if there is political interference and the contract is given to a higher tenderer, it necessarily means the paying out of more public money to mail carriers than would otherwise have been the case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no knowledge
of any practice prevailing other than that of dealing with tenders upon their merits as they come in. For the .short time I have been in charge of the department, I have observed that that was the method in which they have been dealt with, and such cases as have come under my supervision have been awarded to the lowest tenderer. Of course, one can see there might toe circumstances which would justify the acceptance of a higher tender. I do not know that I can go into the question, however, because the contracts I have had to deal with have all been awarded to the lowest tenderer.


Mr. BICKERDIKE:: I would like to ask the minister in regard to the dismissal of a man named Dufbreuil. Perhaps this is not the time to bring the matter up, but I would like the information. I have written several letters about it, and I presume it has not been attended to because the Postmaster General has been away so much. Probably the Deputy Postmaster Gen-



eral will remember the case. Dubreuil claims he was dismissed without a hearing. I asked that the man should have a trial and that he should be present at the en-quete. I do not think it is British fair play to deal with charges against a man unless he has an opportunity of being present and hearing them.
I simply bring the matter to the minister's attention so that the deputy minister may know that we should like to have the matter inquired into, and have the man present.


Mr. KYTE:: In awarding contracts for the carriage of mails it is sometimes found that, owing to the increased cost of living, plant etc., the lowest tender received is somewhat higher than the former price. The department in such cases does not always enter into a contract with the lowest tenderer, but, after consultation with party friends in the constituency, enter into negotiations with some friend of the Government who is asked if he will not put in a tender, and an intimation, I have no doubt, is given to him of the amount of the lowest tender that has been received, with the statement that the amount is too large and that the department is unwilling to enter into a contract. Then this party friend makes an offer slightly lower than the lowest tender, and the contract is given to him. I asked for correspondence relating to the contract for the carriage of the mails between Grand River and Fourchu. I am unable to understand why I have not yet received that correspondence. If I had it I. might be able to illustrate the point I am endeavouring to make.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have a number of similar returns in preparation, and hope to have them ready almost immediately. I am not familiar enough with the work of the department to say more than I have said to the hon. member for St. John. I was not aware of any other method of dealing with tenders than upon their merits.


Richard Blain: I would ask the minister to consider the desirability of making more frequent paymehts to the rural mail couriers. I understand they are paid once - a month, but with the higher cost of living they would greatly appreciate more frequent payment.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: May I point out to the minister that in some districts during the winter the rural inail couriers at a good many points have no places in which to keep their horses while awaiting trains, which may be several hours late, the horses

having to stand outdoors during that time. When some of these men entered into contracts several years ago the prices of commodities were not as high as they are to-day. That applies particularly to horse feed, and men who put in very low tenders now find that it is very hard for them to get along. I have in mind one man who was most anxious to get a contract and whose tender was $100 lower than the next lowest tender, $450 for a twenty-mile route. I believe the rule of the department is not to pay in excess of $30 per mile. The repairs to rigs have become a very heavy item as compared with five years ago, and many of these couriers have open rigs, in which the mail is exposed to the feather, and which are quite unsuitable for the purpose. It is not to the credit of the country to have His Majesty's mail being carried about the country in rigs of that kind, and I think it would be advisable for the department to furnish rigs for rural mail couriers. This would remove some of the expense under which they are now placed. Many of them are not renewing their contracts; new tenders are being called for, and they are much in excess of those sent in three or four years ago. I understand that in the United States they furnish rigs to the couriers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As to the more frequent payment of rural mail couriers, my information is that the work is done under cop-tract and the times of payment are fixed by the contract. At the same time one realizes that there might be substantial advantages to the contractor from more frequent payments, and if arrangements could be made to obviate the difficulties which I am told exist in getting these accounts in so as to permit of their more frequent payment, I should be glad to consider the possibility of meeting the suggestion.
It looks to me as if it might not be easy for the Post Office Department to undertake to afford accommodation for the horses and rigs of the couriers at railroad stations. I shall enquire as to what can be properly done. This remuneration is a matter of contract, and no doubt the department would find itself open to criticism if it undertook to raise the rates which were to be paid for this work. A change of conditions might justify an increase. As to the suggestion that the department should furnish vehicles for the carriage of mail, whether there would be any advantage to the public by the adaption of a general system of that kind, is a matter which is

worthy of consideration. I suppose if vehicles were furnished for the carriage of the mail, contractors would not expect the same rate of remuneration that would otherwise be paid. I shall be glad to consider the matters referred to and see if the suggestions can be met.


Mr. McKENZIE:: 
William Cameron Edwards: What is the amount of the contract?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is only $69 a year or something like that, but I am not talking about the amount. It is the question of principle. There should be a fair deal of this kind, and we on this side are accused, even by our own friends, of not being high minded enough, and not big enough, and that all our energies and thoughts should be devoted to the winning of the war, wjiich is true, but it is surprising that, in the midst of the great burden on the department now, that small petty connivance of this sort should be engaging the attention of the head of the department, taking a $60 contract from one man and giving it to a Tory. We are justified in refusing to believe that the department are regarding the war as serious, as they want us to, when such small matters are engaging their attention. I wish to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister, so that he will not be encouraging such conduct. I have the documents here, and the proof is conclusive. The
8(i3B

amount is small, but the principle is the same as if the amount were large.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad to look into it. Was the cancellation subsequent or anterior to any offer that was made?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The correspondence is no doubt available. The letter of the department making the offer was dated the 23rd April, and the man replied immediately, stating that he would accept. Then on the 7th May he received a letter stating that the offer was cancelled, and that the contract was given to the other man, commencing on the 1st July. The cancellation was on the 7th May.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall look into the matter. My hon. friend speaks about tenders not having been called for. I understand the law is that contracts for amounts 1 less than $200 are awarded by the department, as a rule, without tender.
If the department is subject to reproach for offering the contract without tender in one case-, it must be equally subject to reproach for ofiering it without tender in another. I do not suppose that it is any more wicked to offer it to a Tory without tender than to offer it to any other man without tender. However, if the contract was offered by the department to the gentleman referred to and was accepted by him, it is a matter that ought to be inquired into, and I shall certainly look into it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is an old established * practice in the department, particularly in respect to small contracts, that upon expiration of contract the contractor is asked whether he will continue the contract at the old figure. That is the practice that was followed in this case. The letter of the inspector says: "The service will have to be put up at tender if you do not care to accept." He did accept, they refused to give the contract, and they did not put it up at tender. If that is a square deal, I do not know what a square deal is.


Frank Oliver: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not the information with me, but I shall see that it is furnished to my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: Peace River town now has a railway service twice a week. During the summer season there is steamboat navigation down the river three hundred miles to Vermilion and up the river about two hun-
dred miles t;o Hudson Hope. I think that there are three steamers running on both those routes. If the department have not done so, I suggest that they take advantage of this steamboat service for the purpose of giving mail facilities up and down the Peace river as frequently as the boats travel. That may be a little outside the ordinary system of the department, but the distances are so great, and, now that the steamboat and railroad are running, the conveniences are so ample, that there is no reason why the people there should not have mail facilities while the steamers are running, because the expense to the country would be only trifling. As to the winter service, the stretch of country up and down the Peace river is now open to settlement and occupation by reason of the railroad and steamboat service, and there is a greater demand for mail service during the winter now than there was a [DOT] year or two ago. Three yeaTS ago the Peace river was practically a closed country; to-day it is wide open, and people are coming in with considerable rapidity and scattering to all points. The service, therefore, that was quite adequate two or three years ago is inadequate now during the winter and still more inadequate during the sum-
9 p.m. mer. In the summer the needs can be met at a trifling expense to the department if arrangement is made with the steamboat companies. The increased service in the winter will cost money, but the circumstances justify that increase of cost.
I wish to draw attention also to the conditions at Fort McMurray on the Athabaska. Fort McMurray is three hundred miles north of Edmonton. It is the terminus of the Waterways Railway, and is at the head of steamboat navigation on the lower Athabaska. The rails are laid to within twenty miles of Fort McMurray; there is not as yet a regular train service. I' do not know how soon the train service will be established, but there is such communication at the present time as can be carried on by gasoline speeders on the railway. Fort McMurray is reached by a Government telegraph line. Being the head of navigation on the waterways of the north, and being the terminus of the rail-*road, it is a permanent point, and, naturally, such business as there is in that country centres	there. The department may say, of course, that when the railroad is completed it will do business	with	that	railroad. The
railroad is not completed, but there is

means of communication measurably better than the means of communication on the river. I would suggest therefore, that advantage be taken of the facilities that are now available for the purpose of giving suitable mail advantages to this important stratagetic point in that part of the north country. There shou'd not be delay until the regular service has been established on the railway. t


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will ask the Deputy Minister to look into both cases mentioned by my hon. friend. I shall be glad to take any means that may be proper to afford suitable service, as far as that is possible.


Frank Oliver: In the country lying west of Edmonton, from Edmonton to Resplendent on the British Columbia side, there is a train service on the Grand Trunk and on the Canadian Northern. I would judge from what the Minister of Railways said that there is no mail service on the Canadian Northern, because points on the Canadian Northern are served (by mail from the Grand Trunk. There is a regular service of three through trains a week on each line, in other words, a daily service from Edmonton west, but the people got their mail only three times a week. When there is a daily train, I think that the pople ought to have a daily mail and that the Canadian Northern trains should carry mail and distribute it to the post offices as well as the Grand Trunk trains. That would give the whole of that system, about three hundred miles, a daily mail service-and I think the people are entitled to it. I hope that the minister will consider that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall have a note made of it and see what can be done.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I desire to call the attention of the department to a resolution forwarded to the Postmaster General four or five weeks ago by the Board of Trade of. the town of Edimundston in thp province of New Brunswick. There is a mail sevice on the Transcontinental railway between Levis and Monk, half the distance between Levis and Edmunston, and the people on the line between Monk and Edmunston are desirous of having a mail service on the train. Along that line of railway a good deal of business is being done. Very often the mail car attached to the express, instead of being left at Monk, comes as far as Edmunston. The mail clerks remain on the car, and it would be an easy matter for them to sort
the mail all along the line. I hope the acting minister will take the request of these people into consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad to look into the matter.


George William Kyte: Has the department in contemplation any increase in the salaries of letter carriers and postal clerks? Representations have been made to the department from time to time by employees in those branches in the mail service, and communications have been forwarded to members of this House. I speak more particularly of the letter carriers in the city of Sydney and the postal clerks in the Nova Scotia division. I am not going to argue why increases should be made, but some weeks ago the Minister of Finance brought down legislation providing for substantial increases for employees in the Inside Service, and there is no apparent reason why the Government should be absolved from paying similar attention to the necessities of the employees of whom I speak more particularly.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite appreciate the claims of the class of employees of whom the hon. member speaks, and when the Supplementary Estimates are brought down, I expect to make provision for an increase in the salaiies of the employees of that class analagous to the increase made to the employees in the lower grades of the Inside Service. What is in contemplation is, in the Supplementary Estimates, to provide for an increase under the guise of an allowance to meet, in some way at all events, present conditions.


George William Kyte: Has the Government considered the desirability of making some allowance to the mail couriers for services rendered by them in connection with parcel post? That matter has also been brought to the attention of the Postmaster General from time to time. When parcel post was inaugurated in Canada isome years ago, substantial allowances were made to the railway companies for the additional carriage imposed upon them in respect of that service. I, as well as several hon. members on both sides of the House, have called the attention of the Postmaster General to the fairness of making some allowance to the mail couriers throughout this country. I refer more particularly to the mail couriers in Nova Scotia. I cannot say that a definite promise of an .allowance was made by the predecessors of the present Postmaster General, but I would like to hear the acting
30 ft)

s.
Postmaster General state whether or not the mail couriers throughout the country are entitled to some consideration in respect to the extra work entailed upon them Nby the parcel post >service.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I had occasion to
say earlier in the evening, when the bon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) raised the same question, it came to me then as a new question. I quite realize that there probably would be an increase in the work imposed on the (mail couriers by the establishment df parcel post, and it seems reasonable that an increase in work ought to call for an increase in remuneration, i took the matter up with the deputy minister, and the suggestion is that it is not quite clear how we can arrive at a basis for making an increase. I (have asked him to look into the matter, and I shall be glad to give it consideration and to see if we can find a way to make such compensation for increased work as will be reasonable.


Pius Michaud: Is the minister in a
position to give me an answer in reference to applications which have been made during the past few years to establish a mail service on the railway operated between Campbellton and St. Leonard in New Brunswick? There are many settlements along that line, and there is a large business being done by lumbermen and merchants. The people need a daily mail service. A daily train has been operated during the last few years.
Mr."DOHERTY: What is the service at present?
Mr.. MICHAUD:	There is a bag left on
the train, and it takes about three days to get a reply from a distance of five or ten miles from where a letter is mailed. The mail bag is often l^ft on the train, and the service is certainly very poor.


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski) (translation) :: Mr. Chairman, I believe I should endorse the remarks just made by the hon. member for Madawaska (Mr. Michaud), though it may not be very agreeable to my hon. friend, the member for St-. John (Mr. Pugsley) when I trouble myself a little about New Brunswick.
As my county is somewhat close to that of Restigouche, I have many an occasion to travel through that district inhabited by people who come, for the larger part, from the counties of Rimouski and of Matane. So I take a permanent interest in the welfare of that community whose members are
[Mr. Kyte.l
anxious to find in their new abode a few of those advantages we enjoy in the province of Quebec. These people, for the past six years, have had to be content with a very poor mail service. At the outset, when the railway line was first established, they got their mail only as a matter of courtesy on the part of Mr. Malcolm who was the owner o'f the road, and when the line became a part of the Intercolonial, the Government gave them a tri-weekly mail service. There is already, all along this line, a population of some ten thousand souls, most of them new settlers. In their midst there is much business going on, and the fact of having the mail service only three times a week and of not having any mail clerk, is most prejudicial.	[DOT]
I had, almost two years ago, drawn to this fact the attention of the Postmaster General, the late Mr. Casgrain, and he had promised to attend to it. I do not see why that section of our country should be more neglected than the others. I realize that there would be no money in it, that the Postmaster General's Department would be out of funds by appointing a mail clerk for this section. That cannot be gainsaid. However, there are many other localities, throughout the country, where the Post Office Department makes no money, but just the same provides a good service, with a view of fostering the industries, helping the trade and assisting the people who go into these new townships. Naturally, it takes more heart to go into the forest, as those brave settlers have been doing for the past six years, than to continue labouring in the old settlements. I believe it to be the Government's duty to give them a daily mail service and also a mail clerk.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I admit the importance of the remarks just .made by the hon. members, and inasmuch as the limits of a wise economy will not be exceeded, we will see that the present conditions be properly attended to.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the acting Postmaster General kindly repeat what he _ said a moment ago about his expectations in regard to the increased salaries of city postmen? I could not quite catch what he said.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is in contempla-. tion is to provide in the Supplementary Estimates for an additional allowance to the employees generally whose salaries are of the lower class. I understand that would cover letter carriers and employees with salaries under $1,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: It -would cover
.postmen of the various grades?
(Mr. DOHERTY:	It would cover letter
carriers.


Herbert Brown Ames: A supplementary
grant towards living expenses will be made?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Mr. ROBB:: In the fall of 1916 the Government established rural mail delivery from Glenelm in the township of Elgin, and closed some of the post offices. As a result of the change a number of families, a3 I represented to the department on the 2nd of January this year, living along the first concession of Elgin, which is the main road running through the whole county of Huntingdon, were deprived of their post office and also of rural mail delivery. They think it most unfair that they should not be served toy rural mail delivery now that the post office at Powerscourt has been closed. I -should like a statement from the minister as to whether he proposes to give these f-armers the service they are entitled to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: _ The Deputy Minister explains to me that'the parties living along this mile of road are within half a mile of a rural mail route on either side of them, and I understand that under the regulations if the route is -within a mile that is * all that can properly be expected. Under these ,circum-stan-c-es, unless there is some - special reason why the rule should be departed from, there -would hardly seem to toe justification for providing for the carrying of mail between the two routes I have referred to. I understand that the parties complaining desire a -connecting route, so to -speak, between the two present existing routes, -and I am informed that none of them are more than -half a mile distant from one or other of the existing rural mail routes.


James Alexander Robb: What I want to make clear is that this mile of road deprived _ of rural mail service is the main road running through the whole county of Huntingdon from Hem-min-gford to Dundee. The rural route is run up a side line. Wnat I want from the minister is a direct statement whether the department will take into consideration the rights of the families living along this mile of main ro-ad.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would not like to say absolutely that I will not take into consideration anything that the hon. member
represents, but I am informed by the Deputy Minister that to meet the wishes of those on whose behalf he is speaking would involve a departure from the general system of laying but the mail routes, which he assures me has been followed in laying out the routes in this particular section. The hon. member speaks about the rights of the people who live on this strip of road. I do not understand that everybody has a right to have a mail route pass his front door. There has to be some limit as to distance, and I am informed that the parties in question are well within what is considered under the general rule to be such a distance from a mail route as to give rise to no ground for complaint. If I understand the hon. member correctly the basis of his claim that the mail route ought to follow this road, is that it forms part of the main road running through the county of Huntingdon. On the other hand it is represented to me that the present disposition of the mail routes in that section is -more generally convenient to the public than if one of the routes were to be sacrificed, so that the mail could be carried along this strip of road. However, I shall be glad to look into the matter to get a clearer comprehension of it myself, and to see whether there is reasonable ground for complaint.


James Alexander Robb: This matter has been before the department since last January, and I wrote the Deputy Postmaster General that I would bring it up again when the Post Office estimates were under consideration. Has the ins-pect-or reported against giving these people this service?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Deputy Minister informs me that he is not in a position to speak positively, but he believes there, must be a report from the inspector on the subject. I cannot undertake to say off-hand whether this service will be granted, nor would I give an absolute refusal, but I shall certainly look into the matter and if it appears that there is a grievance I shall be glad to try and find a remedy.


James Alexander Robb: Will the minister give us the assurance that he will have another report made on the matter? This is a matter which has been before the department since early in January, and complaint was filed by the secretary-treasurer of the municipality, and representations have been made by people who live there, and who should know, that the route could have

been laid out more economically for the service.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I certainly shall get the facts and give them my best consideration.
In offices such as Almonte, Carleton Place, Clayton, Appleton, Paltenham, etc.,__
These are all towns in the county I have the honour to represent.


Charles Marcil: Does the department
undertake of its own volition to institute a rural mail service in a particular locality, or ,does it wait until the people ask for.it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand as a general rule-in fact, I may almost say as an absolute rule-it is done upon the request of the parties interested.


James Alexander Robb: Following the question of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), I would like to ask if the department has organized rural mail delivery along routes where two-thirds of the people have protested against it and have stated they wei'e better satisfied with their post office service.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand from the deputy minister that there have been rural mail deliveries established after some portions of the people along the routes had objected to its being done. They were established because it was found that the service could be more economically and advantageously carried out by the establishment of the routes, and because it appeared that the people who objected did so through caprice. There have been cases where rural routes have been established although the desire of a portion of the people was to adhere to the post office system, but I am told that was done because it was believed to be in the best interests of the locality.
I understand that unless one-half of the people interested purchase the boxes the route is not established, and the fact that the route is established indicates at all events the consent of at least one-half the persons interested.


Mr. THOBURN:: I have a communication from a postmaster in the county I have the honour to represent, which I would like to place before the committee. The member for St. Antoine division (Sir Herbert Ames) drew attention to the small salaries paid the city postmasters. This communication deals with the very small salaries paid to postmasters in towns and villages, and if the statements made are correct, I think the poorest paid officials in the employ of the Government are the postmasters in the towns, villages and rural municipalities. This communication is headed, "Compensation of Country Postmasters." It says:
After Confederation the scale of commission on which postmasters' salaries was fixed 
-was torty per cent on first $800 of postal revenue, and twenty-five per cent on amount of revenue in excess of $800.
Some years ago (probably ten or fifteen) it was felt that this scale ought to be made more favourable to the postmasters, so a new scale was adopted under which the postmaster received fifty per cent on first one- thousand dollars of postal revenue and thirty per cent on ^ amount of revenue in excess of $1,000. This scale was used, without any suggestion that the postmasters were being overpaid, until the introduction of the war tax on letters. Then the' department thought that the increased revenue by reason of war stamps would give the postmasters too much on that scale. So, some Inside Service man who finds he cannot live on his 1914 salary, figured that the proper thing was to go back to the Confederation scale of forty per cent to $800, and twenty-five per cent on excess above $800, and this has been done. Please note that the postage rates to-day (including war stamps) are still lower than at Confederation; please note that the cost of living to-day is about double what it was at Confederation; please note that the country postmaster does a much greater volume of work to-day which does not produce revenue to the credit of his office than he ever did; and please note that the scale on which the country postmaster is being paid to-day is the same as at Confederation.
I say that the country postmaster does a greater volume of work to-day which does not produce revenue to the credit of his office, than he ever did. The enormous increase in the circulation of daily newspapers of late years, and especially since extension of rural mail system, involves a burden of daily work, 310 days in the year, which does not increase his office revenue by a cent, and the extension of the parcel post system has had the effect of bringing into his office for distribution the departmental store shipments which pay their postage to the city officers ; and his work in the distribution of parcels, which produces no revenue in his office, is out of all proportion to what he collects on parcels despatched from his office.
A single illustration will show the weakness and shortsightedness of the action taken in pitchforking us back into the old Confederation scale. Take Pakenham post office as an example. I have not the exact figures, but approximately the postal revenue used to be about $1,000, which gave the postmaster a salary of $500 a year under the old higher scale. In order that he may get a salary of $500 under the present scale, he has to increase his office revenue to $1,520, and he can then meet the increased cost of living' out of the savings he has laid aside out of his salary in previous years.


Charles Marcil: Does he have to employ an assistant?


William Thoburn: I will come to that a little later on. (Reading):
It was quite right that the scale should be modified to make adjustments for the war

stamp addition to revenue, but the rule-of-thumb way they jumped at the thing was inexcusable. Confidentially, I may say-
-and this is the part to which I want to draw the attention of the Acting Postmaster General-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But, it is confidential.


William Thoburn: It will work out all right.
-Confidentially I may say that my own salary warrant is $214 per month, out of which I pay three assistants. I have had girls in my employ, who are now in the Civil Service. Those in this post office are just as intelligent and industrious and work longer hours. I give full time to the work myself.
$214 per month means $2,568 per year, and allowing, say, $1,200 salary for himself, there is the enormous sum of $1,368 to pay three assistants. So I think I was justified in saying that the poorest paid officials of the Government are in the Post Office Department. There is no doubt as to the truth of what this postmaster says with reference to the increased work devolving upon them on account of the rural mail and parcel post. They get little or nothing from the sale of postage stamps for parcel post as the parcels are all sent from the cities into the towns and villages. They have to handle all the parcels and get no extra revenue. The same thing applies to the mail going out into the rural districts. It has increased very materially. If there is any department of the Government that needs special care it is the post offices in towns, villages and rural districts.
I have been repeatedly asked, but have been unable to explain, the difference in postage on a parcel to a Canadian soldier in England and in France. The rate from Canada to England is the same as the ordinary parcel post rate before the war, 12 cents per pound. To the Canadian soldier in France or Belgium, the postage on a three-pound parcel is 24 cents. The same parcel to a soldier in England would cost 36 cents. Can the Postmaster General explain why the rate to England is exactly 50 per cent higher than to France or Belgium?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the convention with regard to the postal rate to France and Belgium, Canada receives a certain portion of the postal rates for parcels transmitted to those two countries, and to her own soldiers Canada has thrown off ner part. That makes the< rate cheaper to these countries. The rates between England and Canada are adjusted by arrangement between these two countries. The deputy informs me that although negotiations have been attempted
looking to some arrangement on the subject, nothing has yet been concluded. I have no doubt they have bigger things to attend to over there.
As to the remuneration to country postmasters, I certainly must concede that my hon. friend's correspondent writes a forcible letter. It is exceeded in cogency only by the arguments of the hon. gentlemen in support of it. The subject has been engaging the attention of the department recently. We have had representations by a number of postmasters and an intimation of what they considered would be the proper way to deal with the question. I do not know whether we shall toe able to do quite what they suggest, but I do hope we shall be able to do .something in the direction of improving the condition.


Charles Marcil: What is minimum paid
to country postmasters?
(Mr. DOHERTY: $50.


Charles Marcil: We all remember when
the minimum was $10 a year. There has bean a great change in fifteen or sixteen years.


Mr. CURRIE:: May I add a word on behalf of rural mail carriers? The current impression through some articles that have *appeared in the press is that the carrying of the rural mail is not a matter of contract and that the Government could either increase or reduce the remuneration of the rural mail carrier without any regard to any contract, that the whole thing rested entirely with the Postmaster General. Of course the rural mail carrier takes a contract to carry mail at a certain price for a certain term of years and he gets that amount of money. He cannot secure an increase without the route being once more put up to tender. Since many of the existing contracts were entered into, a great deal of additional work has been .imposed on the carriers through the parcel post system; there has been an increase of perhaps 40 per cent or 50 .per cent. There is general dissatisfaction among the carriers, who think they should get .something additional for this work. It would 'be invidious to grant an additional sum to any special route, but owing to the increased cost of living and the additional cost of carrying the mail, the higher price of horse feed, etc., and the higher cost of labour, if any is employed, there is not much profit left for the rural mail carrier to-day, and I think the department would be justified in giving an increase of 10 or 15 per cent to all rural mail carriers. The rural mail system probably

pays the country as well as the old system of having little country post offices with couriers carrying the mail to these offices a,nd postmasters paid for attending to the offices. I wish to put in a special plea for the country mail carrier. I trust the minister will remember it and that when the Supplementary Estimates come down we shall find that the rural mail carriers will receive a flat increase of 10 per cent or 15 per cent. That should be done in justice to these men, owing to the great increase in their work through the establishment of the parcels post system. The Government must have a very large increase in revenue from parcel post. The figures have not bfeen given to the House. Are they available?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am told there is not
any separate accounting.


John Allister Currie: How much is the general increase in post office revenue from the sale of stamps since the parcel post sy.s-tem was instituted? Will it be 20 per cent?


Charles Marcil: You will have to eliminate the war tax.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am informed it is safe


Charles Marcil: You will have to eliminate tne war tax.


John Allister Currie: I think five per cent of
that increase should go to the rural staff. A number of these local carriers were paid for handling local express. A woman, for instance, would give a man a parcel of eggs and perhaps give him ten cents, but now that is all done away with, and the carriers receive nothing in that way. I think the Government should increase the pay of these men at least 10 per cent. Referring to the soldiers, I was on the Board of Inquiry on the postal question in England and I gained some knowledge there. I ascertained that the British Government handles all the mail to France free. I will be corrected if I am wrong. Therefore, the French Government gives us nothing, as the statement was made. When a parcel is sent from here to a boy in France, it goes to England first, and from there to France., It goes from England to France free, there being one consideration, namely, that that parcel virtually becomes military property the moment it leaves England. If a mother sends a pair of socks to her boy in France, it -goes to England and from England to France, and if the boy happens to be killed or wounded in France, the parcel is expropriated by the military authorities in France, and those socks

go into, a general fund with other articles, the idea, being that it is not fair that these parcels should be returned, but that some use should be made of them at the front. Every mother in England who sends a parcel to her boy knows that that is the rule. I do not think the Canadian women know, and notice of that fact should be given. I might say, also, that all the mail from Canada is handled free by England, and I cannot understand the Postmaster General putting up a story to the effect that he had to pay a large sum for that postage over there. I do not think we have to pay anything for it. That is my own opinion, formed from what I ascertained over there.


William Pugsley: When did they put up that story?


John Allister Currie: The statement was made last year, and repeated again to-night. I think a certain weight of parcel should be permitted to be sent to the soldiers at the front by the mothers in Canada without any postage, as is the practice in England.
Mr.,MARCIL: How about letters?


John Allister Currie: I would not make that applicable to letters, because the girls would write too many lettei' to the boys at the front.


Charles Marcil: I asked about that, and they said the Union Postal Regulations were against it.


John Allister Currie: That is a fallacy. All those regulations fail in time of war. A soldier in the field writes his letter. It is franked by his officer and the letters pass through France, and through the British post office, and come here, and the Post Office Department here places a stamp on them; I do not know why.


Charles Marcil: I got a letter from the front bearing two Canadian stamps.


John Allister Currie: They are put on by the postal authorities here. I think the postal regulations, as far as letters and parcels sent to England and France are concerned, require revision. I do not want to attach any blame, but I think the people in this country have been mulcted in large sums for postage on letters to their boys in England, which sums they are not entitled to pay, and that has been an added source of revenue to the department here. The people understood the money had to be paid to England, which I do not think is a fact. I think we would be justified in making some change in the regulations.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to question the accuracy of what has been said, but I am informed by the deputy minister that on the cost on parcels from here to France, Canada gets absolutely nothing. With Tegard to parcel post, the rate stands as it stood before the war.


John Allister Currie: England carries free for us? Mr. DOHERTY: Yes.


John Allister Currie: Why do we have to pay large sums of money?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I suppose we could stop charging anything at all, but England will not consent, or has not as yet consented, to the collection u\)on her side, and ft is a matter of arrangement between the two countries.


John Allister Currie: The minister does not
seem to understand. There is a postal union between the various countries, and under that union each country carries the other's mail free. I speak subject to correction. When we send parcels to France, when they reach England they carry them free. When there is no charge for carrying parcels in England, why do we not follow suit and make no charge? Why do we collect a revenue on parcels here and let the people think we have to pay the money to England? I do not see any items in the Public Accounts showing that there is anything paid for that.


William Pugsley: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say it costs less to send from Canada to France than it does to send to England? .


John Allister Currie: Yes.


William Pugsley: I understood that was the case. The mother- of two boys, who happened to be very closely connected with myself, told me that in respect of one boy who was in France, the postage was less than it was to her boy in England, both sons serving in the expeditionary force. That seemed to me pretty strange, and certainly it requires explanation. I could not believe it to be true, but my hon. friend from West Simcoe corroborates the statement?


John Allister Currie: Yes.


William Pugsley: What is the reason for that?


John Allister Currie: There is no charge on these parcels once they land in England, whether they go to England or France, but we are
making a charge on this end, on the understanding that there is a charge on the other end. There is no such chafge. If there is no charge in England, there should be no charge here. I claim the people are paying all that postage to the department here, thinking they have to pay large sums to send things to England and France.


William Pugsley: It would look as though somebody ought to study this matter.


John Allister Currie: I have not heard an explanation yet, and having gone into the matter a little bit, and having been, interested in the matter over there, I ascertained that there was no charge for parcels in England. I went into the matter wihen I was over there and I was given'to understand that there was no chargfe for parcels on the other side. I cannot understand, therefore, why this country is charging for carrying those parcels from inland villages, towns and cities to the coast.
I think it is only fair that a more lucid explanation of the whole matter should be given. If the thing is justified by the old regulations of the Postal Union, then those regulations should be abrogated during the war. Surely Canada can carry parcels for her hoys free if England and France are willing to carry them free.
Mr. LEVI THOMSON': If the hon. member i-3 right, it is an outrage that we should have to pay more for the carriage of parcels to our hoys when they are in England than we have to pay when they are in France. When sending parcels to my boy,
I have often wondered why I had to pay nfore when he was in England than I had to pay when he was in France.


John Allister Currie: I should like to see the
item in the public accounts showing that we paid for the carriage of these parcels in Epgland and in France; then I would be satisfied that the information which I obtained from different general post offices in England at the beginning of the war was wrong. As .soon as the parcel reached Liverpool it was carried free to London and then sent free to the soldieT in France or wherever he happened to he, no charge being made to the Canadian Government. Indeed, the parcels were handled almost entirely by he Canadian officers over there; they hardly ever went into English hands.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My information is thaT there are matters in connection with this which it has not been considered desirable
3b46

or proper to explain to the public. But I am in a position to say that whatever may be the reason of it, it does not depend on action which Canada would be free, independently of her contract in the Postal Union arrangement with the Mother Country, to alter. As the matter has been put forward, I shall inquire whether I am at liberty to give an explanation or not. There is an absolutely clear and settled explanation, I am told, making it clear why Canada cannot control the' matter. X cannot say more at the present moment.


William Pugsley: This matter is of very great interest to the mothers of the boys who are at the front.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is, and when I am at liberty to do so, I shall explain.


William Pugsley: We have heard a great many times during this war that there are all kinds of subjects upon which no information can be given to this Parliament.
I think that the sooner we have a secret session of the House of Commons in order to get some information upon these questions, the better. They have had secret sessions of Parliament in England, as well as in France. Although this country has ' been engaged in the war for nearly three years, not one particle of what may be called secret and important information has been given to this House. This House has never received any information except what has been given to the gen-10 p.m. eral public. I think that the minister ought to let this item stand and get the information, or else give to the committee a satisfactory reason why he does not give us the information now. It is difficult to comprehend why people sending parcels to their boys in England should be obliged to pay more than they pay on parcels going to their boys when they are in France. The minister' says there is a perfectly good reason; well, if there is, I think that Parliament ought to know it.
I can see no reason why it would not be quite right to communicate the information to Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the hon. gentleman attaches too great weight to what I said. As to the suggestion that there should be a secret session of Parliament,
I shall be happy to communicate that to the Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman would hardly expect me to undertake to
~f-


William Pugsley: The minister is a very important member of the Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I appreciate the hon.
gentleman's appreciation of my importance. I 'Shall be absolutely frank; I do not understand the explanation of the deputy minister, beyond that he does assure me that there is a reason that interferes with our independent action-interferes for the moment, at all events, with my going into the explanation. Perhaps the best reason . why I cannot explain at the present moment is that I do not myself grasp what the reason is.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the minister who has been on military service can tell us.


Charles Marcil: Will (the minister explain why stamps are put on letters sent to Canada by the boys at the front? I have received censored letters from the front upon which Canadian stamps were placed, evidently in Ottawa. Why should this be done?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That costs nobody
anything, and is to facilitate distribution. Otherwise we would have to have some kind of franking system.


William Pugsley: I suppose that adds
something to the apparent revenues of the Post Office Department.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The stamps are handed out gratuitously; how could that figure as revenue? That is as difficult to understand as the other explanation. Indeed, if they were charged up, they would help to make a deficit. Whatever the cost of these stamps is, we get nothing back for it. I do not know whether you can trace that loss or not. However, that is the only method of enabling the soldiers' letters to be distributed free without their being held up for lack of postage. The method is the simplest and costs nobody anything.


William Pugsley: Why not stamp the letters " free."?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it is thought that the revenues of the country will be increased or any good purpose be served by stamping the word "free" upon the letters instead of affixing a stamp, which has so far been found the most convenient method, of course we shall be glad to do it. I cannot, however, see what advantage would be in that. I might have a calculation made as to how much these postage stamps cost the country and what difference in cost would be involved in buying a rubber stamp, paying for the ink, and stamping "free" upon the envelope. If there is any differ-

enee in favour of the latter method we might adopt it. I must say, however, that I am doubtful whether there would be any advantage in departing from our present method.


Mr. CARVELL:: How does the placing of a stamp on a letter from the front at St. John or Halifax expedite the delivery of a letter to an internal point in Canada? As the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) says, the letter is franked in France.


John Allister Currie: The censor's stamp is the frank.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When I mail a letter in the House of Commons with my frank on it, any hon. friend does not have to put a stamp on it in order to ensure safe delivery. If the censor's stamp will carry into Canada a letter from the front, I do not see why that letter should not go to its destination just as readily with that censor's stamp on it and without postage stamps on it as my letter goes from the House of Commons with my frank on it. Moreover, putting the stamp on the iso-ldiers' letters involves time and trouble. The minister says that the placing of stamps upon these letters does not involve an increase in the revenues of Canada.


Charles Marcil: It is a waste of stamps.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to be sure of that because I have an idea that the revenues of Canada are increased to that extent. The minister, however, may know about the matter.


John Allister Currie: Possibly the method intimated by the minister would be the best one, because I think the whole trouble is due to red tape in the department, and the people have been paying for red tape. The House will anxiously await the solution of this trouble, which to anybody who has anything to do with the postal service in the Old Country so far as the Canadian soldiers are concerned, is certainly a mystery. For that reason I suggest that some other item be taken up.


Charles Joseph Doherty: These' soldiers' letters come together as soldiers' letters, and the man in this country who receives the bundle knows that they are soldiers' letters, but if he sent them off to all their destinations, when one reached the postmaster who would have to deliver it, he would not know it was a soldier's letter, and he would hold it back until double postage was paid. It is only to avoid that difficulty that the stamps are put on. I
understand a system is being sought to be arrived at by which those letters will individually when they are sent from the other side, be stamped as being soldiers' letters. When that comes to be done, of course, it would not be necessary for us to put stamps on them when they reached here. It is only quite recently that the British authorities have undertaken to consent to that system. Until we have a system of that kind identifying a soldier's letter, something has to be done with it to ensure that the recipient would not be held up for additional postage when the letter arrived with nothing on it to show that the postage had been paid, and what was thought the simplest way to show that the postage was paid was to put stamps on it when it arrived in Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I suppose we must accept that reason. Any letters that I have received from soldiers overseas have been marked "on active service" or something of that kind. There is certainly a mark on every letter coming from a soldier to indicate that it is a soldier's letter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Some of the letters are marked and some are not. Of course, one could separate all those that bear marks from those that do not and put stamps on those that have no mark and not put stamps on the 'others, but inasmuch as many of them are not marked, it was thought the simplest way to put stamps on them all. *


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are there any well defined regulations or rules of the department by which people in any portion of the country can obtain rural mail service? I was told some years ago that if 50 per cent of all the residents along a certain route or road would subscribe for the boxes and agree to become patrons of the rural mail service they would obtain that as a matter of right. Is that correct?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am informed that where 50 per cent of the people interested make a request a rural mail service is established.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Within the last year or two I have received many complaints, some of which I have forwarded to the department, that those regulations are not lived up to at all, and that the only way the people can get rural mail service is by putting their request through a political organization. In my own constituency the bribe is notoriously put forward that if you will do certain things we will give you a rural mail delivery. I think I am safe in

saying that if 90 per cent of the people in certain districts signed a petition asking for a rural mail delivery they would not get it unless they put their request through the proper political channel. That is the way in which the matter works out. I have not bothered the department very much about the matter, but I have felt a great many times that w'hen these estimates were up I would like to ask the question. I intended to do so last year, but when these estimates went through I was busy at another place in the city. I am glad to have the assurance from my hon. friend to-night that, as a matter of right, 50 per cent of the people living along a certain route can demand the boxes, and I shall have great pleasure in notifying many 'people in my constituency to that effect.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not in my knowledge, nor in that of the deputy minister, what representations have been made as to what is necessary in order to get a rural mail service, but I am told by the deputy minister who locates the rural mail routes that he has never had political influence of any kind brought to bear on him in connection with the matter, and that it has been dealt with on the principle which I have just mentioned. That is all the information I have on the subject.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The deputy minister does not know what takes place in the local communities. I have known the deputy minister for a long time, and I kncriv he possesses a great deal of knowledge, but there are taking place around the post office inspector's department, and many places in the different provinces many things of which the deputy minister knows nothing. I assure my hon. friend that what I have described is the practice, but having his assurance to-night, I hope we shall be able' to get rid of that little difficulty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The deputy minister assures me that the routes are laid out in this way, and that the political influence that is talked of has never in any way reached the man who allocates the postal routes. The only conclusion one can draw is that somebody must have misrepresented the matter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will bring the thing to a head in a very short time. We will send in an application, and it won't go through the political end of the constituency either, or through the inspector's office, but straight to the deputy minister with ample

evidence that 50 per cent of the people want the accommodation.


Mr. COPP:: Are forms furnished by the department to people who desire to petition for a rural mail route?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is an affidavit required as to 50 per cent of the inhabitants wanting the accommodation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The deputy tells me it has not been the practice to require an affidavit. The applications may. be made directly to the department or to the inspector. Where they are made through the inspector he is in a position to know, I suppose, whether the petitioners form 50 per cent of the population.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I know that within ten miles of my home a rural mail route was established in a section that was formerly served by a post office. One route was cut off entirely, and the people along it are without mail accommodation at all. I do not know whether this is a case of politics or not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member will be good enough to furnish me with the facts I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I was just drawing it to the attention of the minister in that way.


William Pugsley: What are the considerations that govern in the establishment of these mail routes? What are the limitations as to the number of people to be served? I know of one or two places myself where I should very much like to see a rural mail delivery route provided, but I am not quite sure that the route is long enough. How many miles long has it to be?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am informed that there never has been determined an absolute limit below which a route would not be established, but in practice it is not usual to establish a route longer than 20 miles or for a shorter distance than 10 or 12 miles.	As to population,
routes, have been established where the number of people to be served was as low as 25, but that is not usual. I understand that no limits have been fixed as to the length of route or the number of people to be served. The deputy informs me that the department has tried to meet every request for the establishment of a mail route where 50 per cent of the people interested were agreed in asking for it, and where

the length of route and number of people made it at all reasonable.


Charles Marcil: I was asked a question yesterday which I was unable to answer. Can public documents of this House be mailed free by members of Parliament from any post office in Canada? It would be interesting to know, for instance, in view of the election, if a member could mail a copy of Hansard containing his speech in an open letter from any post office in Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the franking privilege is limited to the House of Commons Post Office.


Charles Marcil: I understood that official publications could go free from any post office in Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that members of Parliament have the right of mailing public documents free from their home post office.


William Pugsley: " Is the minister quite sure of that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am making the statement on the assurance of the deputy minister. ' My own impression was that the franking privilege was limited to correspondence from Ottawa. Tihe deputy minister informs me that while some distinction is made in regard to public documents, it would not be quite safe to take as positive the answer he gave me a moment ago, but I shall have it verified and let my hon. friend know.


Charles Marcil: The question was put to me as regards Hansard. Could a member send 100 copies of his speech, for instance, free from his home post office?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The deputy minister informs me that Hansard is not quite what b,e had in mind when speaking of public documents. Hansard, at all events, would have to be mailed from here to go free.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Some time ago a petition was forwarded to the department from the inhabitants of Scotch Hill, in the county of Inverness, asking for the removal of the post office from its present site to the main road.^ Where the post office is now, there are only two mail days a week, and if the post office were removed to the main road the people could get their mail daily, and the department would be saved the cost of carrying the mail to the present site. The petition was signed by every inhabitant
in the district, irrespective of party, except the person who has charge of the post office. I want to know what has been done with that petition, which was forwarded to the department about two months ago.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall make inquiries and be glad to give the hon. member the information.


Alexander William Chisholm: Shortly after sending the petition forward, I had a communication from some parties down there, and on making inquiries at the department I was informed that they were awaiting a report from the post office inspector. That report, I presume, is now in the department, and I should like to know what decision has been arrived at.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The deputy minister does not recall at the moment.


Alexander William Chisholm: I had a communication from some officer in the department-I do not know his name. He said the prayer of the petition was not granted. What I want to call the attention of the minister to particularly is the fairness of the demand of those people, and I cannot understand why their request was disregarded. They wanted to get a daily mail, and by granting their request the department would have saved a matter of $70 or $80 a year, and at this time when money is so scarce it is difficult to me to see why the request was refused. I would ask the minister to be kind enough to give me some information on the subject before the estimates are passed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will be glad to look into the matter, and inform my hon. friend as to the result of my inquiry.


Charles Marcil: I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that Hansard is . "printed by J. de L. Tache, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty," and would appear to be a public document entitled to be sent free through the post by members. Will the minister kindly clear up the matter so that we may know where we stand with regard to the mailing of Hansard?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will ask the deputy minister to distribute copies of the regulations.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wbuld like to ask the minister, for some information in Tegard to the St, Pierre-Miquelon mails. They used to be conveyed from Halifax to North Sydney by rail, then placed on board the steamer for St. Pierre. This steamer runs

from St. Pierre to Halifax, calling at North Sydney, and when she returns from Halifax to St. Pierre she also calls at North Sydney and there receives all the Canadian mail. The mails are brought from Halifax to North Sydney by rail, unloaded there on trucks, and brought into the post office, where there is very poor accommodation for them. The place is comparatively small, and these mails fill it up so that you can hardly move around. After they have been there for some time they are re-trucked from the post office and put aboard the boat. This was the custom, and I believe it is still carried on. I could never understand why those mails were not put aboard the steamer at Halifax. Not a moment of time is gained by sending them by rail to North Sydney because there they have to wait for the boat. I brought this matter before the Postmaster General some years ago, and was told some change had been made, but so far as I know nothing has been done. The people of North Sydney protest very strongly against the practice, because it results in filling the post office up.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It certainly does seem as if thiat were a very reasonable request.
I will look into it. I understand the hon. member is not quite sure as to whether that system still prevails.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it does.


William Pugsley: I would like the minister to tell me how the amount of $3,519,932 for mail service by railway is made up.
I take it that is the amount which is paid to the different railway companies.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the total
amount paid to the railways for mail service.


William Pugsley: On what basis is it arrived at?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are different contracts with different companies, and that the services are paid for at so rnuqh per running mile.


William Pugsley: How much per running mile?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are paid at the
rate of 16 cents per running mile for a car, and nine cents per half oar, and that in certain places where a baggage oar is supplied they are paid four cents per running mile.	'


William Pugsley: Is not that quite an increase over what it was a few years ago? TMr. McKenzie. 1


Charles Joseph Doherty: There was an increase made two years ago. The rates were then readjusted. I understand the arrangement did not really result in an increase. The difference is they are now paid per running mile, whereas previously they were paid per track mile.


William Pugsley: Then, if they carry two miails a day they would really get double what they were getting when they were being paid by the track mile?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not quite follow that. I understand that on the track mile system the post office used any car that was available and paid for the number of track miles, while they now have a car especially purchased and pay for the number of miles that the car runs.


William Pugsley: What was the percentage of increase to the railway companies as a result of the readjustment a few years ago?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand it was approximately $1,000,000 per yeaT.


William Pugsley: Before the war broke out?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I wish to bring up a complaint with reference to unsatisfactory mail service on the Intercolonial in a very large portion of my constituency, particularly during the winter. For years a train leaving St. John at seven a.m. has connected at Moncton with the Maritime Express during the winter, although it runs on to Truro in the summer. The Maritime Express is supposed to take the mail on from Moncton. If, as frequently happens in winter, the Maritime Express is more than two hours late, a special is run through from Moncton. But on that special they do not carry mails or papers and all the eastern section of Westmorland county from Moncton down is deprived of mail service.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall ask to have the matter investigated. It seems only reasonable that we should take advantage of the special train.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have here a memorial by certain railway mail clerks. It appears that railway mail clerks operating west of Sudbury receive a provisional allowance of $15 a month in addition to the regular pay. Clerks operating east of Sudbury do not receive that. According to the memorial placed in my hands, the eastern men discussed this matter with the late lamented

Mr. Casgrain shortly before he died, and they say that they had made good progress in their negotiations with him, that he was much impressed with their story and that something was about to be done. Owing to the death of Mr. Casgrain and several changes in- the Postmaster Generalship that have occurred since, nothing has been done. They ask that all railway clerks in the eastern division be placed upon the same footing as those in the West. I am requested by the clerk of the association to bring this matter to the notice of the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad to consider it. The payment of a special 'allowance to western employees is not confined to the post office. Owing to the high cost of living in the West, many departments have granted an extra allowance to employees there. As to the particular case, I presume that the memorial will be brought to my knowledge and I shall be able to give it consideration. In the allowance that we propose to make to employees on salaries of $1,000 or under there will be some step in the direction of equalization, because it is contemplated to give a larger allowance to the eastern men- who have not presently this additional amount than it is contemplated to give to western men. That would not apply to all railway mail clerks inasmuch as the salaries of some of them are larger than $1,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This memorial says
that in April, 1914, an Act put through by the Postmaster General, granting certain concessions to those clerks in the eastern division, but it went to the Senate, and, being mixed up with other Acts that were defeated, this Act, while in itself not objectionable, fell by the way with the other Acts, and nothing was done. This is evidently not a new matter, and perhaps the knowledge of that Act having passed through the House would help the minister in reaching a conclusion in regard to it.


William Pugsley: I would like to take advantage of the presence of the d-eputy minister to ask a question in regard to the postmastership at. Dorchester, N.B. The office became vacant recently. Has an appointment been made, and if so, who is the present official?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand it has not been filled.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have been asked to obtain some information from the department in connection with the postmastership
in the town of Stellarton, in the county of Pictou. Some -questions were asked not long ago as to who the postmaster was, and I understand the answer was that a man by the name of William G. Miller was postmaster, the former postmaster, Alexander Inglis, having been dismissed, but my information is that Inglis is still acting postmaster, and it is regarded as peculiar that the gentleman who was referred to in answer to questions, as the dismissed official is -still performing the duties of postmaster, while the real postmaster is William G. Miller. Is there any explanation, first, as to why this man- was dismissed, and, if dismissed, why was the regularly appointed official not installed in office, and why is he not discharging the duties of the office at present?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am informed that the reason why he was dismissed was that his , performance of the duties was not satisfactory. He was insubordinate and negligent, and more particularly, I think, in the matter of answering correspondence and giving information. At all events, he was dismissed, -and Mr. Miller was appointed, but the actual transfer of the post office has been delayed, by reason of the fact that it was necessary to make certain alterations in Mr. Miller's establishment, to adapt it to the business of the post office. Tho-s-e alterations are nearly completed, and, pending their completion, it was not convenient that Mr. Miller -should carry on the business instead of Mr. -Inglis. Mr. -In-glis has been acting postmaster, pending the alterations in Miller's premises. It is expected that in a week or two the new premises will be in proper order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not expect the
.minister to have any information about the premises, but I -am told the whole store owned by Mr. MilleT is now rented by the Government. It is a -small store, but rented at rather a g-ood price, namely $600 a year, by th-e Government. As the minister is -aware that some changes are being made in this building, perhaps he could tell us whether the Government rented th-e building, or is it in that building that changes are being -made for the post office?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Po-st Office Department made the usual -allowance to Mr. Miller for rental, hut, in view of the nature o-f the premises be is furnishing, the Public Works Department is making a certain addition to that allowance, bringing the total up t-o $50 a month, which is paid to him as rental.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister
kno-w what the Public Works Department want this for?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They want it for the
business of the department.


William Pugsley: Is the minister satisfied with the night's work?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, very well satisfied.


William Pugsley: There are some other
items in the supplementary estimates.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have some items.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, there will he items in the supplementary estimates, but that, covers the main items.


William Pugsley: Does the Minister of
Labour intend proceeding with his items to-night?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, they will not take very long.
Fair wages and inspection officers, $15,000.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I would like to
ask the minister if the findings made, by Mr. O'Connor are to be referred to a judge for further inquiry?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The matter has not
yet been fully determined. My hon. friend will remember that, in the order in council passed November last, provision is made for a further examination under the directions of the Minister of Labour, who is authorized to appoint an examiner, and to confer upon him power to examine books and witnesses under oath, and all that sort of thing. Whether a further investigation will proceed under that clause of the order in council or otherwise, I am not in a position to say definitely, but there will be a further investigation.	*


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not make
myself plain. What I meant to inquire of him was whether his Teport, covering the matters of bacon and foodstuffs, is to be the subject of an investigation by some judicial tribunal. There is some intimation of that in the press to-day. If there is to be such an inquiry, has a judge been appointed yet to conduct it?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think I understood
what the hon. gentleman asked. What I said was that it had not been determined yet whether there would be- a further inquiry or investigation under that order in council. There will be' a further investigation.
[Mr. Doherty.!


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will there be an appeal from that investigation?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No telling what the
future may bring forth. Perhaps I ought to makq a little explanation as to a misunderstanding concerning that report. Questionnaires were sent out to those having cold storages in Canada, somewhere about a hundred, I think, just as we had sent out questionnaires to dealers in coal.


William Pugsley: What are questionnaires?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It is a name given to a set of questions. Take the matter of bacon, for instance; the first question was as to the quantity of bacon on hand on a certain date. The next question was with regard to the cost of the bacon laid down in cold storage, including freight and unloading charges. The questions were answered satisfactorily. The next question was: what was the storage, overhead, and delivery cost. One or two of the firms said: " we cannot answer these questions; we are not in a position to give you the particulars." Hon. gentlemen will see at once that in the case of bacon that is sold in Liverpool that the delivery charges would be a very important matter. No answer was given to that question by the firm about which there has been so much talk during the last few days. In his report, Mr. O'Connor does not profess to deal with net profits; he deals with what is known in economics as margins. He pointed out the gross profit, that is the difference between the cost of the bacon and its selling price. Margin is made up of the different items of cost, delivery charges, overhead and cold storage charges -which the firm failed to give us. In a day or two after the report was filed these items of margin, the cost of delivery, storage and overhead charges were all provided and published in the Citizen and other newspapers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then what is the purpose of having a further inquiry by a judge? Why should not Mr. O'Connor make a further explanation of his report, having obtained from the firms investigated information which they failed to give to him upon request earlier in the proceedings?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It is thought desirable that the information should be got by the department through some special officer- not necessarily a judge, though that has not been determined. Uuder the order in council we have power to send a man out

who may examine the books of the company and any witnesses under oath that it may think it desirable to call, with a view to ascertaining without any doubt what the net profits of this particular concern were within a certain period.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Government seems to have established a peculiar system under which these examinations go on indefinitely. You appoint a commissioner to make certain inquiries according to the best of his ability. Perhaps his report is not quite satisfactory to the party whose affairs are investigated. Accordingly, that party raises a howl and makes a lot of noise, the effect of his noise being proportionate to the influence he has with the department or with the Government, and, in some degree, to the size of the interests that he represents. Then another commis-
11 p.m. sioner is- appointed to investigate the first commission. If the second commissioner is not orthodox in his report, the first may say: This report is not fair to me; I did the best I could; I furnished the facts and gave good reasons for the conclusions to which I came. Over my head you have appointed a judge who does not agree with me. I want to investigate him; he is not right; he is not fair. And then it goes on-ad infinitum. There is -an old saying, well known to the Minister of Labour, that it is in the interest of the state that litigation should end. The minister should tell his officials that when they make a report upon a matter of this kind, the report will be final; that the first investigation or finding of a properly constituted court must be considered as final. If that is done, the public will know that when a report is filed, that is the end of the matter. The principle established now seems to be that of waiting a certain number of years after the filing of the first report for a further report on the subject. Has the minister any particular policy in his department in that regard? Is there any statute of limitation which he regards as applying to these investigating commissions?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: In his report Mr. O'Connor points out that the information is not complete and he asks that an expert accountant be employed to make a further investigation. This was done before the William Davies Company ever saw or heard of the report., I quite agree with my hon. friend that it would have been better that further investigation by an expert accountant should have been made before the report was published. But the further investigation is not to be an investigation of Mr. O'Connor's work, whether it was right or not right; it is the further investigation under order in council- as recommended by Mr. O'Connor in his report.


William Pugsley: Do I understand that the minister thinks he was premature in submitting the incomplete report to the House?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I admit frankly that it would have been better to have had an investigation by an expert accountant first.


William Pugsley: Perhaps "it would have been better" is a mild way of saying that, it was a grievous mistake.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Characterize it as you please.
Mr. A. ~K. MACLEAN: Mr. O'Connor made reports also with respect to coal, sugar and other commodities. Was his investigation complete in this or should further inquiry have been made? Perhaps these reports also were defective; perhaps he lacked some information which was not supplied by the parties interested. It is a very serious matter if the inquiry was not complete or the information given not reliable.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The answers sent in concerning anthracite coal and sugar were satisfactory; it was not considered necessary to make any further investigation by an expert accountant. But my hon. friend will realize that the investigations never cease. We are getting monthly reports from all the leading coal dealers and sugar dealers and cold storage people in Canada concerning the quantity of goods in storage and the amounts bought and sold during the month in question. In that sense, therefore, the investigation continues right along, going back to the year 1913. There is an immense amount of work connected with it. The inquiry will continue right along in that sense.


William Pugsley: The minister must be
unconscious of what is going on. He says that it has not yet been decided whether there is going to be a further investigation by Mr. O'Connor.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not say a further investigation by Mr. O'Connor; I said a further investigation under the order in council, by an expert accountant.


William Pugsley: Let me read what the Prime Minister says in a telegram to the William Davies Company. A despatch from Toronto states:

This morning, the William Davies Company received a reply from Sir Robert Borden to the telegram sent the morning after the publication of the O'Connor report. Sir Robert's telegram says:
"I think it desirable that an investigation into the whole matter raised by Mr. O'Connor's report should be made by a competent judicial officer. This course I propose to direct." (Signed) "R. L. Borden."


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Is the word "judicial" there?


William Pugsley: Yes-"by a competent judicial officer." The minister was not aware of that?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have seen the telegram.


William Pugsley: But the minister did
not know the word "judicial" was in it;


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I read the whole telegram, but I do not think the term "judicial officer" is necessarily confined to a judge.


William Pugsley: What is the meaning
of the term "judicial officer " if it does not mean a judge?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think it is
confined to a judge.


William Pugsley: What class of officers
would it cover?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not propose entering into a discussion as to the definition of the term.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A lawyer of ten years' standing might come upder that.
Mr. MeKENZIE: Does the minister make any inquiry as to the wages paid by contractors who have large contracts with the Home Government for supplying war munitions?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I understand that the Imperial Munitions Board does not insert in any of its contracts what is known as a detailed schedule giving the schedule of wages or the general fair-wage clause; but when any complaints are made to us-and there have been a few, although not many -we have made an inquiry and then taken the matter up with the chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board, and he has gone, in at least one case, sb far as to cancel the contract because the contractor refused to pay the wages that we found were current in the neighbourhood and which we thought should be paid. When any complaint is made regarding wages we make inquiries just as we do in the case of contracts let by our Government.
Progress reported.

On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 11.12 p.m.
Saturday, July 21, 1917.