[Stage Direction]
Mr. CROSBY-by Mr. Rhodes-asked:
1.	What is the contract price of the West-ville post office, Pictou county, Nova Scotia?
2.	Who is the contractor?
3.	Is the work completed? If not, when will it be completed?
4.	What is the date under contract when it was to be completed?
5.	What is the total amount paid to the contractor, and what further sums will be payable to him?
6.	What amount of extras, and for what, is paid and to be paid to the contractor?
7.	What will be the total cost of building when completed ?
8.	Who is the inspector, and between what dates has he been employed?
9.	Has he stopped work, and when was he discharged? If not discharged, when will his work be finished?
10.	How much per day is he paid, for how many days, and what is the total amount paid to him to date?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	$12,997.
2.	E. F. Munro.
3.	No. Contract will be completed in about a week.
4.	October 15, 1908.
5 and 6.
	Paid.	Due.
Contract			$11,510 00	$1,487 00
Heating			 1,011 65	
Electric wiring	and fix-	
tures			 350 00	351 00
Sidewalks, curbing and
gravel walks	 1,455 13
Varnishing and plastering	 42 50
Road to station [DOT]	
478	80Drain	
29	60Ladder and peg rails	
13	75Totals	$14,369 28 $2,360 157.	The original estimated cost was $22,000 which did not include the road to station.8.	W. R. McKeen. From October 5, 1907, to present time.9.	(a) No; (b) in about 6 weeks.10.	(a) $3.50 per day; (b) 482 days; (c) $1,687.
I may add that the arrangement with the present inspector was made before the new rale was adopted by the department that inspectors are not to be paid for Sundays. Previously, pay for Sundays was included Mr. FIELDING.
in what was regarded as monthly employment.


HOLSTEIN CATTLE.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	What reason does the government give for not having Holstein cattle at the experimental farm?
2.	Is it true that the Minister of Agriculture has stated in public that he did not wish to encourage the breeding of Holstein cattle in Canada ? If so, what reasons are given for making such a statement?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	Any more breeds than are there at present could not be satisfactorily dealt with.
2.	No.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, EXPENDITURE AND EMPLOYEES.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	What is the total number of employees in the Agriculture Department, inside and outside service, who devote their time to agriculture alone, and the total amount paid in salaries?
2.	What was the total amount of money expended in the year 1908 on purely agricultural purposes, and the names of each branch and the amount expended?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	Number of employees -. 450 Amount paid in salaries .. $253,560 00
2.	$762,589.89.
Experimental farms	 161,125	91
Printing and distribution of
bulletins, farm	
8,000	00Fumigation stations	
4,499	71
Dairying and fruit industries,
&c	
133,669	28Seed	
63,229	57Live stock	
44,656	22Health of animals	
320,538	10Civil government	
26,871	10


ASSISTED COLD STORAGE PLANTS.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	How many companies have taken advantage of the clause in the government Cold Storage Bill which grants 30 per cent bonus to builders of cold storage plants as provided for in the Bill?
2.	Where are said plants situated, what is the amount paid to each company, and the amount still to be paid by the government?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	Seven.

Name.
The New Brunswick Cold Storage Co., Ltd
The Halifax Cold Storage Co	
Scott & Hogg	
Cold Storage Ltd	
Scott, Ashton & Co	
The Trenton and Atlantic Storages Ltd


The J.   D.@: Moore Co., Ltd	
Where situated.	Amount paid.
St. John, N.B		 Port Hawkesbury, N.S.. Peterborough, Ont 	 Woodstock, N. B	 Morrisburg, Ont	 Trenton, Ont	 St. Mary's, Ont		$ cts. 36,740 00 6,685 06 2,175 00 3,836 55 Nil. 11 11
Amount to be paid.
8 cts.
13,360 00 2,430 85 ' 2,175 00 3,836 55 18,986 70 13.569 91 5,100 00
N.B.-In addition to the foregoing the following have made applications which are pending:-
Edmonton Produce Company, Edmonton, Alberta.


The B.: Wilson Company, Limited, Victoria, British Columbia.
Canadian Fish & Cold Storage Company. Limited, Prince Rupert, British Columbia.
R. T. Treen, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
The Nova Scotia Cold Storage Company, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The Acadia Cold Storage Company, Limited, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The London Cold Storage. Company, Limited, London, Ontario.
These contracts have not yet been awarded.


ISLAND OF SOULANGES.
Mr. LORTIE asked:: (Translation.)
1.	Has the Bureau of Canadian Geographers changed the name of the island of Soulanges, in the iSt. Lawrence?
2.	If so, what name has been substituted for it?
3.	What are the reasons for this change of name?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries.) (Translation).: The attention of the Bureau of Canadian Geographers has been called recently to an island upon the St. Lawrence indicated) upon the charts under the name of 'L'lle Soulanges' and 'L'lle Dondaine'. The Bureau has decided for the adoption of the last name which seemed to have priority over the other, as it will, at the same time, avoid the repetition of the name Soulanges' already given to several localities, in the vicinity.


THE BOOK ' FARM WEEDS.'
Mr. GOODEVE asked:: 1.	How many copies of the work entitled
'Farm Weeds' were published, and what was the total cost?
2.	How many copies have been distributed, to whom, what are the names of the parties leceiving them, and how many copies to each?
3.	How many copies are on hand at present?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	25,000 copies at total cost of $26,770 49
2.	18,500 copies, on application
from:-
Senators and Members of House of Commons, 3
copies each	 525 00
Public Libraries, one copy
each	 925 00
Educational institutions, including rural schools in which libraries are maintained, or on behalf of which some assurance is given by' inspectors of schools that the book will be maintained as the property of the school section 14,874 00 Agricultural Colleges, up to
30 copies each	 412 00
Agricultural Organizations, one copy each	 1,000 00
Farmers' Institute lecturers and Agricultural Educators, one copy each, and on personal application to others shewing a special interest in the subiect.. ..	764 00

3.	6,500 copies.


INSPECTION OF DRESSED HOGS IN KENT AND ESSEX.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCOIG-by Hon. R. F. Sutherland
-asked :
1.	How many dressed hogs have been inspected in the counties of Kent and Essex from October 1, 1908, to March, 1909, under the Meat Inspection Act?	.
2.	How many hog carcasses were rejected by the government inspectors in Kent and Essex from October 1, 1908, to March, 1909.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1 12 330.
i.	Id'entire carcasses, and portions of 954.


PAYMENTS TO ERNEST BOIVIN AND A.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-asked :
1.	Has Mr. Ernest Boivin, of Bagotville, province of Quebec, been employed by the government on any of its works during the years 1906, 1907 and 1908 P If so, during what space of time, in what oapacity and at what salary?
2.	How much has the said Ernest Boivin been
paid by the government during the said three years?	.
3.	Did the government during the first six months of 1908 issue a cheque of $14 in favour of one Auguste Desbien for work performed at or near Bagotville?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1 and 2. Ernest Boivin has not been employed by this department at any time; but on the 28th of June, 1904, he and one Onesime Cote entered into a contract with the department for the construction of a wharf at Sacre Coeur, which was duly completed on 1st July, 1905. The department has no knowledge what Mr. Boivin's share of the contract earnings may have been.
3.	Yes.


INDEBTEDNESS OP GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY TO DOMINION GOVERNMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR-asked :
1.	In what amount, if any, is the Grand Trunk Railway Company indebted to the Dominion of Canada?
2.	How much is owing for principal and ininterest, respectively, upon the said indebtedness?
3.	How many years' interest is due?
4.	On what date was interest last paid?
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: This deals with a very old and complicated account. It might be more convenient to put it as a motion for return, but as I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. George Taylor) might regard it as having a bearing on proposals of this session I have brought down the answer :
1,	2, 3 and A. In the year 1862, five years prior to confederation, a reorganization of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada was effected under chapter 56 of the Statutes of Canada of that year.
Provincial debentures of the provinces of Canada to the amount of $15,142,633.34 had been issued, prior to the passing of this Act, in aid of the company. These debentures carried interest at the rate of six per cent per annum.
By section 19, of the chapter referred to, the province of Canada consented to allow its claim for interest due and accruing in respect of these debentures to be postponed to the payment of certain charges which were made prior by the Statute. The section provided that after the payment of the working expenses of the Railway the bal-Mr. FISHER.
ance of earnings was to be appropriated and applied in payment:-(a) of interest on equipment mortgage bonds; (b) of interest on first preferential bonds and the dividend due on first preference stock; (c) of interest due on second preferential bonds and the dividend due on second preference stock; (d) of dividend due on third preference stock; (e) of dividend due on fourth preference stock; (f) of dividend of 3 per cent per annum for ten years on the ordinary stock of the company and thereafter at the rate of 5 per cent per annum; (g) of further dividend on one per cent per annum on the third preference stock; (h) of further dividend of one per cent per annum on the fourth preference stock; (all the above were given priority over the government claim for interest); and then; (i) in payment of the interest for the time being due and accruing, subsequent to the 1st January, 1862, on the provincial debentures issued in aid of the company, before the passing of the Act, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
The interest on the provincial debentures referred to amounted, at the time of confederation, to $10,457,458.01. Amounts, represented by these province of Canada debentures, $i5,142,633.34, and this interest of $10,457,458.01, were, at confederation, taken over by the Dominion from the province of Canada, and have since been carried in the balance sheet without change under the heading ' Railway Accounts,' but these amounts have not been included in the statement of assets of the Dominion.
As the net earnings of the company never met all the prior charges, as provided by the Act, no part of this interest has ever been payable.
There was also carried in the province of Canada accounts and taken over at confederation a special interest claim of $7,302.18, which has been continued in the balance sheet. This special interest claim arose from an adjusted balance of various accounts made between the province of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which balance was confirmed by an order in council of the 18th October, 1866.
Besides the above, the province of Canada was, at the time of confederation, the holder of fourth preference stock pf the company, (converted, by section 11, chapter 18, Act of 1873, into third preference stock), of the par value of $121,739.65. Dividends have been paid to the Dominion on this stock on several occasions as follows :
During year 1881	$ 608 70
"	1883	
1,643	48"	1884	
1,978	26"	1902	
1,217	40"	1903	
2,434	80"	1905	
2,434	80"	1906	
3,652	20"	1907	
3,652	20
This fourth preference stock was accepted by the province of Canada in payment of a certain part of the accounts adjusted by the order in council referred to.


DISRAELI WHARF.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	Referring to the statement of the Minister
of Public Works as recorded in unrevised ' Hansard J of 10th March instant, as follows: page 2425, Mr. Pugsley,-It happens in that case that vessels land and deliver their cargo on the lower side of the bridge, and at the wharf, which is at the lower side of the bridge, and page 2429:	With regard to the
wharf at Disraeli, I am surprised at my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) should allow himself to be misled as to the facts of the case. When he went there on the occasion to which he has referred, he must have studiously avoided the side of the wharf which is frequented by vessels navigating the lake. The same rather unjustifiable and inconsiderate statement was made at the last session of parliament. A report had been made by the resident engineer to the effect that vessels do go to that wharf and that it is a very useful structure for the purpose of navigation. It is true, the wharf having been built, the municipal authorities used an end of it for supporting a bridge, and their doing so does not interfere with the purposes for which it was built. I hope my hon. friend will get more reliable information before he again speaks on that subject in this House,-(a) how many vessels carrying passengers or merchandise regularly called or landed at Disraeli wharf during the navigation season of 1908, and (b) called or landed at all during the season, (c) what were the names of these vessels, and of what tonnage were they?
2.	What vessels, boats or craft of any kind called or landed at or used the said wharf during said season, and to what extent was it used?
3.	What is the area of the lake called Lake Aylmer into which the stream passing under Disraeli wharf empties?


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am not sure that that question is regular as it referred to what happened in Committee of the Whole in a previous debate. The latter part of the question, I think, might be put.


Mr. LENNOX.: I would prefer to withdraw altogether, Mr. Speaker, if you do not think it in order. It seems to me all right.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Bourinot says that it is not regular to refer to what has been said or done in a previous debate, and this refers directly to what was said in Committee of the Whole.


Haughton Lennox: It is a mere question for purposes of certainty, it seems to me. But I will withdraw it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the latter part of the question is quite regular, but not the first part quoting the words of the minister.


Haughton Lennox: I suppose the latter part covers the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: Stand, to be amended.


FRENCH TRANSLATION IN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
Mr. PAQUET asked:: 1.	Has the hon. Minister of Agriculture established in his department an office of French translation?
2.	If so, when was it established, and what are the names of the translators?
3.	Is the volume entitled in French La Sta-tistique Annuaire, translated in the Department of Agriculture?
4.	Are all the documents and reports respecting the office of agriculture translated in that department ?
5.	In what departments have offices of French translation been established?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Yes.
2.	1907. C. E. Mortureux and L. Noail-les, a temporary assistant. From 1892 to 1906 Mr. Louis D'Auray translated the Statistical Year Book, and from 1892 to 1908 Mr. Guignard translated the Experimental Farms Report.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, with the exception of such as are translated by the House of Commons translation staff.
5.	All departments have officers or clerks who understand both of the official languages, and who translate documents from one language to the other for their departments.


MARCONI STATIONS BETWEEN MONTREAL AND QUEBEC.
Mr. ECREMENT asked:: 1.	Has the department of _ Marine and Fisheries received from certain navigation companies petitions asking for the installation between Montreal and Quebec of telegraph stations of the wireless Marconi ?
2.	If so, is it the intention to grant what is asked for in these petitions?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries.) (Translation).: 1.	Yes. The Montreal- Shipping Federa-. tion has sent such a petition.
2.	Under consideration.


DUTY ON REPAIRS TO CANADIAN SHIPS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE asked:: 1.	Have any representations been made to the government to reduce or abolish the tariff or duty now payable on repairs done to Canadian ships in foreign countries?
2.	If so, who were the individuals making these representations, and who did they assume to represent?
3	Is it the intention of the government to deal with the matter this session?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1 and 2. Definite representations have not been made to the Customs Department to reduce or abolish the duty now payable on repairs done to Canadian ships in foreign countries since the Act came into force July 20, 1908, except representations by the Dominion Marine Association not to impose the duty in any case where it is impossible to enter a Canadian dock on account of its previous engagement or occupancy.
3.	The government is not prepared to make any statement on this point at present.


BONUSES OR SUBSIDIES-NONE PAYABLE.
Was J.   A.@: CURRIE-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked:
1.	Are any bonuses or subsidies payable under any legislation passed by this House overdue ?
2.	If so, what are the items and amounts, and why have such amounts not been paid?


William Stevens Fielding: So far as I am aware there are none, but if the hon. gentleman will indicate more fully the purpose of his inquiry the matter will be more closely looked into.


DREDGING AT INDIAN POINT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CROCKET-by Mr. Daniel-asked:
1.	Were tenders called for the dredging which was done by the Maritime Dredging Company at Indian Point, N.B., last summer and fall?
2.	If so, what tenders were received, what are the names of the tenderers and the amounts?
3.	To what depth was the dredging done, and what was the depth of water before dredging ?
4.	How much in all was the contractor paid for rock and boulders exceeding two cubic yards, and how much for other materials?
5.	From what appropriation was the money paid?
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (for the Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Maritime Dredging and Construction Company:
Price per cubic yard, scow measurement.
Towed to dumping ground-
Rock or boulders exceeding 2 cubic yards	$17	00Other materials	
0	50
Cast over-
Rock or boulders exceeding 2 cubic yards	
19	00Other materials	
0	503.	Dredging at Indian Point last season was done to seven feet, low water summer level; average depth of water before dredging was three feet and eight-tenths


Mr. CURRIE.: below summer level, one third of track having but six-tenths depth at low water.
4.	(a) Rock and boulders: $0.00
(b) All other materials: $48,247.68.
5.	From appropriation ' dredging, maritime provinces.'


CARRIAGE OF GOODS BETWEEN CANADA AND GREAT BRITAIN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPROULE-by Mr. Geo. Taylor- asked:	;
In view of the representations made by the Home and Foreign Produce Exchange, London, regarding the urgent need of a law to regulate water-carriage of goods between Canada and Great Britain, is it the intention of the government to introduce a measure for lhat purpose at the present session?
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance.) A Bill dealing with that subject is now before the House.


TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE TARIFFS.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	When was the proclamation of the Governor in Counoil bringing into force part 1 of 7-8 Edward VII, chapter 61D, respecting telegraph and telephones issued?
2.	What was the cause of the delay ?
3.	Has the railway board issued regulations as to the form, size and style of tariffs to be filed, and the information they are to contain and will the minister lay a copy upon the table of the House?
4.	Will the companies be at liberty to charge at the rate of their old tariffs of tolls for four months after the date of the proclamation?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The proclamation referred to was published in the ' Canada Gazette,' February 6, 1909, bringing part 1 into force from and after Monday, the 8th February, 1909.
2.	When the minister's attention was called to the fact that proclamation was necessary he immediately recommended that an order in council be passed authorizing it.
3.	The board has not yet issued regulations as to the form, size and style of tariffs to be filed and the information they are to contain.
4.	Yes, unless such tolls are in the meantime disallowed by the board.


INSPECTION PERMANENT CORPS AT ESQUIMALT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BARNARD-by Mr. Cowan-asked:
1.	When was the permanent corps at Esqui-malt last inspected, and by whom was such inspection made?
2.	Where does the inspecting officer reside?
3.	What allowances for travelling or other expenses were made to the inspecting officer?
4.	What was the total cost of such inspection?
5.	Was any remuneration over and above his regular salary allowed to such officer for such inspection?

2i66
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	On June 21 and 22, 1908, the whole of the permanent corps at Esquimalt were inspected by the inspector-general.
2.	The inspector-general has his headquarters at and resides at Ottawa.
3- The usual allowance and expenses made to an officer of his rank when travelling; i.e., actual cost of transport and $5 per diem to cover hotel expenses and subsistence en route.
4.	Esquimalt was inspected by the inspector-general during his tour of inspection of all the corps west of the great lakes, and, as the expenses incurred on that tour were paid in a lump sum, it would be a difficult matter to arrive at the cost of any one particular inspection.
5.	No.


TENDERS FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS.
Was J.   A.@: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
RETURNING OFFICER FOR ST. JOHNS-IBERVILLE.
Mr. MONK asked.: 


Was J.   A.@: Lussier, a notary of St. Johns, P.Q., the returning officer for the electoral

division of St. J ohns-Iberville at the last federal elections? If not, under what authority was it announced for those having claims in connection with said election to call on him for payment?


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State).: The returning officer for St. Johns and Iberville in the election of October, 1908, was Charles Arcand, farmer. His election clerk was M. J. Aim6 Lussier, notary, of St. Johns, Quebec.
There is nothing of record in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery of any action having been taken by Mr. Lussier in the election held in St. Johns and IberT ville. Everything that was reported to the office mentioned was signed by Returning Officer Arcand.


SUPPLIES TO ROYAL CANADIAN DRAGOONS, ST. JOHNS.
Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	(a) Have the contracts for supplies to the Royal Canadian Dragoons, at St. Johns, P.Q., been awarded for the coming fiscal year? (b) If so, what is the name of each contractor and article, and the price of said articles, and (c) was the contract in each particular case awarded to the lowest tenderer?
2.	If tenders were called, in what newspapers were said tenders advertised?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1. (a) Yes. (b) Contracts were awarded as follow:
For meat to L. Papineau, beef, 7ic per. lb.;
mutton 7ic. per lb.
For bread, to Arthur Labelle, 2|c. per lb. For groceries and vegetables, to R. Gould-
Cents.
Bacon, breakfast	per	lb.	16Bacon, green	
"	12Potatoes	
"	1Beans	
"	3iJams	" 8fButter (in 1	lb. lots).. ..	"	25Butter (in 25	lb. lots).. ..	"	24Cheese	
"	14Split pease	
"	2iSugar, white	
"	4iSalt	
"	iCoffee	
"	18Tea	
"	25Pepper	
"	15Fresh vegetables	
"	1Lard	
"	14Yeast, Royal	per doz. 10
For forage, to George O'Cain-
Hay, $14 per ton of 2,000 lbs.
Straw, $7 per ton of 2,000 lbs.
Oats, 55c per bushel of 34 lbs.
For emptying refuse pits and cleaning chimneys, to Henri Masse.
Emptying refuse pits, $20 per month. Cleaning chimneys, $1.75 per flue.
For scavenging to Ernest Camaraire. Emptying latrines, 75cts. per flour barrel. Mr. MONK.
For removing manure, to T. C. McGinnis, at $8.50 per month.
For washing bedding, &c. to J. B. Thuot:
Cents.
Blankets	each 5
Cases	"	4Cases, bolster	"	1Rugs	"	5Sheets	per pair 5Cases, pillow	each	1White haversacks	"	2Nose bags	**	1Hospital clothing, per suit of 3 pieces	15Hospital clothing, per suit of 2 pieces	6Towels	each	1Night shirts	
"	2Table cloths.'	
"	6Tuques	"	iAprons	"	2Blinds	
"	3Bandages	"	lCovers, mattresses	"	6
(c) Yes.
2. The St. John ' News,' 3 insertions, and ' Le Canada Francais,' 3 insertions.
Tenders were also called for by 50 posters, 25 in English and 25 in French, posted in or about St. Johns.


ST. JOHNS WHARF, P.Q.
Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	What amount was expended last year in connection with the repairs to wharf at St. Johns, P.Q.?
2.	What amount has been spent upon said wharf since the end of the fiscal year?
3.	W as said wharf changed from wood to concrete? If so, why?
4.	Who executed such repairs, and were they by contract?
5.	Were tenders called for publicly through the newspapers? If so, in what newspapers?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	$157.96 was expended for engineering expenses.
2.	The sum of $5,500 was voted for 190809, under the head of 'Income,' for rebuilding the old wharf at the upper entrance; out of this amount $5,469.82 was expended as follows:
Labour	 $2,451 05
Cement, stone, sand, lumber,
&c	 3,018 77
3.	The top of the old wharf repaired as stated above at a cost of $5,469.82, was changed from wood to concrete, so as to make it permanent.
4.	The work of repairs to the old wharf was done by the canal repair staff, and the materials required, purchased under accepted tenders.
5.	Since the work was done by the regular repair staff, by day labour, it was not necessary to call for tenders.


NEW WESTMINSTER PENITENTIARY.
Mr. RALPH SMITH asked:: 1.	Who was the chief warden of the New Westminster penitentiary from 1876 to 1888?
2.	How many prisoners escaped during that period ?
3.	Was Oliver Adair one of the escaped criminals? If so, what was his sentence and crime?


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (for the Minister of Justice):: 1.	Arthur Hill McBride from the opening of the penitentiary in 1878, until, and for several years after, 1888.
2.	Fourteen. Of these, nine were recaptured, leaving five escaped convicts at large December 31, 1888.
3.	Francis Oliver Adair escaped with another prisoner on September 6, 1888. He was sentenced at Nanaimo, B.C., December 1, 1885, to serve a term of 15 years for the crime of robbery with violence.


GOVERNMENT FISHERY CRUISERS.
Mr. RALPH SMITH asked:: 1.	How many fishery cruisers does the gov-vernment own and operate for fisheries protection throughout the whole of Canada?
2.	What are their names and where, are they separately placed?
3.	Has the government definitely decided to build cruisers for the British Columbia fisheries protection?
4.	As the House of Commons appropriated a sum for this purpose two years ago, why has the work been delayed?
5.	Have the claims for such protection been presented to the department ? If so, by whom ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Nine.
2.	'Canada.' Southeast coast of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.
'Constance.' Cape Breton coast.
'Petrel.' Prince Edward Island coast.
'Curlew.' Bay of Fundy.
'Princess.' Magdalen Islands and Lower Gulf Division.
'Vigilant.' Lake Erie.
'Kestrel.' British Columbia coast.
'Falcon.' British Columbia coast.
3.	Yes, the government has decided to build a cruiser for the British Columbia fisheries protection service.
4.	Tenders were called a year ago for the construction of the cruiser. The tenders received were not considered owing to representations made by some Canadian ship building firms, who suggested some changes in the plans and specifications. The plans and specifications were revised and new tenders called for. These tenders are now under consideration.
5.	Yes. Mr. Ralph Smith, M.P., Vancouver Board of Trade, and Hon. Hewitt Bostock.


ST. JOHNS HARBOUR, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	Has a contract been awarded for works this coming spring and summer in the harbour of St. Johns, province of Quebeo, and the extension of wharfs, construction of breakwater, and changing the intake pipe of the waterworks from its present location to one above the barracks?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract awarded, was it awarded by tender, and what was the amount of the contract?
3.	In what newspapers were tenders for the above works called for ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Yes; a contract was awarded for improving the harbour of St. Johns, province of Quebec, consisting principally of clearing the site of proposed wharf and dredging to the required depth, building a new wharf and breakwater. The contractor might also be required to build in, intake pipes for St. Johns' waterworks, and to take up those now in use.
2.	Messrs. John G. Poupore & Company, awarded by tender, schedule rates. Contract to he completed by April 1, 1909, which when moneyed out on approximate quantities amounts to $35,282.
3.	Montreal: The 'Jewish Times,' the , Herald,' the ' Witness,' the ' Trade Review,' the ' Shareholder,' ' La Patrie,' ' La Presse,' ' Le Canada.'
St. Johns, Quebec: ' Le Canada Francais,' ' Le Progres,' the ' News.'
Valleyfield: The ' Progress.'
Lachute: The 'News.'
Richmond: The ' Times.'
St. Hyacinthe: '.L'Union.'
Brockville: The ' Recorder.'
Toronto: The 'Globe,' the 'Star.'
Ottawa: The ' Free Press,' ' Le Temps,' the ' Danebrog.'


MAIL CONTRACT, CHATEAUGUAY.
Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	Who has now the contract for carrying the mail from the post office at Ste. Philomene, in the county of Chateauguay, to Ste. Philomene station, on the Grand Trunk Railway?
2.	What is the yearly cost of this contract and when does it expire?
3.	What distance has the present contractor to traverse.
4.	Have tenders been asked to carry out a new oontract for the same service? If so, what are the names of the parties tendering and their prices?
5.	Has a contract been awarded for this same service? If so, at what price and for what length of time?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	Francois Labrie.
2.	$93.50 per annum. Contract expires March 31, 1909.

3.	2i miles each way daily.
4.	Yes. Godfror Labrie, $79; J. B. Damour, jr., $69.
5.	A contract has been entered into covering the usual period of four years dating fiom April 1, 1909, price $69 per annum.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the' orders of the day are called, I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to have certain information prepared when the government's proposal respecting the loans to the Grand Trunk Pacific is brought down for discussion. 1 think the House should have all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to the matter. That goes as a matter of course. We ought to have a statement of the amounts actually expended up to date on the prairie and mountain sections respectively; also of the respective sources whence these sums have been derived; also an estimate of the cost when completed of the mountain and prairie sections respectively; also a statement of the amount required to complete each of these sections; also of the outstanding indebtedness of the corporation in respect of each of these sections and of the rolling stock; also a statement of the available assets of the company in respect to each of these sections. We should have full particulars of the location of these roads in relation to other existing roads now in operation; also a statement of the amount which has been expended on rolling stock and the dates when expended; also information as to the uses to which the rolling stock has been applied; and under what arrangement and for what consideration it has been so used; also a statement of the stock issues of the com pany and the proceeds thereof, and for what consideration and under what conditions or arrangements the stock has been disposed of and by whom it is now held; also information as to how the branch lines have been financed, and how they are to be financed; also information as to what these bonds would realize now if placed on the market, according to the opinion of the government; also information as to the prior mortgages now outstanding, of which I understand there are three; also a summary of these and copies to be laid on the table in so far as they have not already been laid on the table; also information as to the total anticipated capitalization of the eastern and western divisions respectively of the National Transcontinental; also all the information within the possession of the government as to what will be the amount of the total fixed charges upon each division and the total line when completed; also information as to the actual amount invested in the enterprise by the promoters of the undertaking. If there be any contract under Mr LEMIEUX.
which the indebtedness mentioned by the Minister of Finance this afternoon, the indebtedness of the Grand Trunk Railway to this country has arisen, I would like a copy of that contract laid on the table.


William Stevens Fielding: That refers to before confederation. I do not know whether there would be such a contract but we will look it up.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know either.


William Stevens Fielding: It was back in 1862.


Robert Laird Borden: I am asking purely for information because that is a subject I know absolutely nothing pf, and I would like to get some information about it.
I would like also a statement of all the indirect liabilities of Canada by way of guarantee or otherwise at the present time.
I would be glad also to have a statement of the results of any examination of the books of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company by the government or any officer of the government made in connection with the proposal which the government contemplates submitting to the House.
I would like also information as to the number of miles actually completed; the number of miles under operation during construction, if that is the proper term; and generally, information as to how far the work has progressed upon both the prairie section and the mountain section in all aspects of the work.
I have observed question No. 1 upon the Order Paper standing in the name of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). As this question has been upon the Order Paper since the 26th day of January I presume the answer to it has been prepared, and if it be convenient to th4 government I would be glad if they could give us that information at the same time.


William Stevens Fielding: Sc far as the information the hon. gentleman has asked for is within the possession of the government or accessible to the government we shall do our best to get it down. The order is a pretty large one and it deals somewhat in futures and I am not sure whether we can cope with it all. We will see that the hon. gentleman's request is put in the hands of officials with instructions to get as much of the information as is possible.


Robert Laird Borden: Very well.


William Stevens Fielding: Would my hon. friend mind sending me his memorandum?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is welcome to it but I am afraid he cannot lead it.


William Stevens Fielding: I think I will make it out.


Mr. HAGGART.: The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has two questions on

the Order Paper, one of them with reference to the original quantities that were estimated to be on the national Transcontinental Railway and the quantities as found by actual work upon the road. I would like to have that information before the discussion.


Haughton Lennox: My hon.Jiriend refers to the order of the House for the production of papers which has not yet been complied with. There is another motion on the Order Paper bearing on a somewhat similar question.


Mr. GRAHAM.: I will ask the commissioners to give me that matter with all possible speed. I will look up the motion on the list and see what it calls for.


WATERS OF LAKE SIMOOE.
Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE.: I would ask the Minister of Public Works when we may expect the return ordered by the House on the 8th of February respecting the measures taken by the government to lower the waters of Lake Simcoe and Lake Couclii-ching?


William Pugsley: I thought that had to do with the Trent Valley canal and so was in the Railway Department, but I will make inquiries.


CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE SEIZURES.
Mr. BARR.: When will the return be brought down asked for on the 8th of February, concerning the seizures of the Department of Inland Revenue?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: I was not aware a return had been ordered, but I will give instructions to have it brought down.


William Paterson: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the customs seizures?


John Barr: I also asked for customs.


William Paterson: The return has been brought down with regard to both.


PAY OF MILITIA AT HALIFAX.
Mr. CROSBY.: I am credibly informed that the men of the permanent force in Halifax have not yet received the last pay due them. If that be the case when will they be paid?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I am informed that the fund for paying the permanent force was exhausted on the 7th or 8th of this month, but fortunately there was plenty of money voted during the last session of parliament for the whole militia. A slight readjustment will be necessary and the supplementary estimates which were laid on the table of the House a few
days ago will provide for that readjustment. So" soon as these estimates pass which I hope will be in a short time-perhaps within a few hours if the House consents-the pay will be available. I have heard no complaint from any source, and I wish to take this opportunity of reassuring the junior member for Halifax and the permanent force that the pay will be forthcoming in due season.



SUPPLY-RURAL FREE MAIL DELIVERY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["I beg leave to inform the government that to-morrow afternoon, on the motion of the House to go into Committee of Supply, I propose to introduce an amendment dealing with the question of deferred elections, and I will have the honour to transmit a copy of the amendment to the right hon. Prime Minister to-morrow.\nAt six o'clock House adjourned.", 'Thursday, March 18, 1909.']
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton).: I wish to direct the attention of the House to some matters pertaining to the department of the Postmaster General. It has been my privilege to have had a seat in the House for the past six years and I must say I have appreciated the ability shown by the Postmaster General both as Solicitor General and in his present office. And while I appreciate the efforts he has been putting forth on behalf of the people in general, I cannot fail to appreciate also the ability or the agility he has shown in taking a right about face on the important question of furnishing better mail facilities to the rural districts. I need not remind the House of the statements made by the Postmaster General for some years past on the important measure introduced on a number of occasions with regard to the establishment of rural free mail delivery in Canada. As we are all aware the hon. gentleman has distinctly stated many a time that we could not expect to have such a system until we had a population 20,000,000, and that it wa3 a luxury that could only be thought of as ideal. Last session a resolution was moved urging upon the government the necessity of dealing with this matter in an energetic manner Every member on the government side of the House voted in direct opposition to that resolution, and it was generally understood that they would not take any other position on that important question. However, just on the eve of the general election the hon. Postmaster General, in a speech which he delivered at Niagara Falls, showed plainly the position he took in regard to it. He showed that it was his desire to make a political football of the question, by announcing to the people of the Dominion that he was going to give them free rural mail delivery. Not only did he humbusr the people by his announcement on that occasion, but a number of Liberal candidates, in their political campaigns, announced repeatedly in their constituencies the wonderful advantages which the people would receive from the boon granted to them by the present government. I have

here papers showing that several Liberal members of parliament told their constituencies that they were not only going to get their mails delivered at their doors if they returned this government to power, but the boxes would be furnished to them free, that all they would have to do would be to bore a post-hole and put up a post, and the box would be delivered to them.
Let me go a little further. On the 17th of September, 1908, the Post Office Department issued a pamphlet which was quite different from the one which was issued only a few weeks ago. In the first pamphlet you will not find any reference to the price of the mail boxes or any suggestion that the people will have to pay for them, while in the later pamphlet the Postmaster General distinctly states that the cost of these boxes, with the necessary fittings, will be $3 each, and they can only be obtained from the Post Office Department. I cannot understand why the minister found it necessary to issue these two different pamphlets, were it not that he felt that the position which he had taken in the first place was not likely to meet with the! general approval of the people.
However, let us look into this matter of the boxes for a few moments. The Postmaster General stated in reply to a number of questions I asked on the subject that he had purchased these boxes in the city of New York from the International Mail Equipment Company of New York. I would like the hon. gentleman to explain to this House who are the members of that company or tell us something about it; because I have here, from the latest report of the United States Post Office Department, a list of the firms which have supplied the boxes for the rural districts of the United States, not only during the last year, but during the past five years, and among the names of 300 firms I do not find any such name as the one mentioned by the hon. Postmaster General. How the hon. minister came to purchase 6,000 boxes from a firm which apparently has not been in the habit of manufacturing boxes for the rural districts of the United States I cannot quite understand. Further, in examining into the cost of the boxes used in the United States and comparing it with the price paid by the Postmaster General, I find a very great difference. For instance, out of over 300 boxes that are supplied to the Post Office Department of the United States there are two boxes that cost $2.75 each one at $3, one at $3.25, one at $3.50, and one at $4. The balance of the boxes cost only $2.50 or less. The average would not exceed $1.50. Yet the hon. Postmaster General goes to New York and purchases 6,000 boxes, costing in New York $3 each, and. according to his own statement, he pays the freight from New York to Ottawa Mr. ARMSTRONG.
and the customs duties on them, and delivers them to the different districts in Canada, and then they are not lock boxes. They are to be supplied with locks from the department at cost. So that the people of Canada will find, after the freight and customs duties are added to the amount paid for the boxes in the city of New York, and the amount they will have to pay for locks, that these boxes will cost them over $5 apiece. For 6,000 boxes that will amount to over $30,000. Let us compare that with the amount paid by the people of the United States for their boxes. The boxes are delivered to the farmers in the different 'districts, and the department at Washington pays for them only from 42 cents to $2.50 each. I hope the minister will be good enough to explain to us his position in that regard.
Then, I might ask why it is that in the proposition the hon. Postmaster General has made to this House, there is no provision for any reduction in the number of post offices; while the Post Office Department of the United States has been able to dispense with over 100,000 post offices as a result of the splendid system they have inaugurated in that country. I might ask the Postmaster General still further why it is that in the splendid system he has been granting to the people of the Dominion, he is not delivering registered letters and issuing money orders ? He is aware that in the United States registered letters are delivered and money orders issued to the people living along the main and side roads, if they live within one mile of their box. and they are also able to purchase post cards and stamped envelopes, and have many other advantages. I might go on to speak of the parcel post. When a parcel that is too large for the box or a money order or a registered letter comes to a man who is living on a mail route or stage route at the present time, it would be necessary for him to go to the distributing post office, perhaps five miles away, to receive his mail or else he would have to depend entirely on the carrier. Further than that the minister knows that the system which he has inaugurated in Canada, although it may be called a step in the direction of rural mail delivery, can have no other result than to create contention and strife in the rural districts of Canada. I cannot understand why a man who happens to live on a mail or stage route-and I am sure the department will have difficulty in defining just which are the existing mail and stage routes-should have his farm increased in value owing to the advantages conferred on him by that delivery, by having his daily papers, having market quotations and many other advantages denied to others whose farms do not happen to be on mail routes. I am sure that when the

farmers thoroughly understand this question they will urge upon the Postmaster General the necessity of enlarging this scheme and giving this service to the thickly settled portions of the Dominion of Canada. The minister knows that the United States system is carried on under certain definite regulations, and while he may contend and try to becloud the issue by saying that our country is sparsely settled, that we cannot possibly grant to the people of Canada rural free mail delivery, yet he knows that in the United States the sparsely settled districts are not being served by rural free mail delivery, and the United States government have no intention of serving these rural districts until they become sufficiently populated to come under the existing regulations. The United States regulations provide that the standard route must be 24 miles long, that there must be 100 families on it, and that 84 of these must be willing to pay for a box and put it up before any route can be established; and if the route should be shorter than 24 miles the rural mail carrier's wages are proportionately reduced, although even if the route is shorter than the standard it must contain a proportionate number of families. Hence I claim that it is nonsense for members of the government to contend that the Americans have free delivery in the sparsely settled districts.
I would ask the minister what he intends to do with his present surplus. He may say that he is going to leave it as part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but I would ask him if he thinks it is wise to make the Post Office Department a taxing department, that the postal service should be utilized to gather taxes from the people of Canada so that that money may be put into the different departments and, to a large extent, squandered as in the past few years it has been squandered. Does the minister propose to establish an all-red route, an all-red cable, and extend, as he seems to be willing to extend, the carrying of mails into foreign countries at a nominal charge? There is no talk of these propositions not paying, nothing is said with reference to the subsidies and steamship subventions which amounted to over $1,250,000 last year, for the carriage of mails into foreign countries. We hear nothing of these services not paying, and it is our duty to see that the men living in the rurai districts, the men who pay two-thirds ot the taxes that enable the government to carry on the public service, receive better facilities for the delivery of mail so that they may enjoy some of the advantages which are granted to the cities in Canada.
I know that the Postmaster General will say that we have been improving the postal service, that we have been increasing the number of postoffices in the scattered districts of Canada and to some extent in the thickly settled portions. That may all be true, but the minister knows full well that
if we examine into this question more thoroughly he will find in Ontario some 40,000 square miles of thickly settled country in the rural districts of Ontario in which he could satisfactorily establish rural free mail delivery. He might also find in Quebec some 30,000 square miles of similar territory and then he might go to the maritime provinces or to the western provinces. When the minister thinks this is not a live question in the western provinces, he is sadly mistaken, because he must remember that large numbers of people are coming into those provinces from the United States who have been accustomed to these advantages in the United States and who feel the need of like advantages in Canada. It is only fair and reasonable that the people of the rural districts, who contribute so much of the money which permits the free delivery in cities, should enjoy similar advantages to those enjoyed by residents of cities. We cannot but appreciate that the men living in the rural districts are justified in urging on the government the ne cessity of the extension of this system.
Let us glance at the progress that they are making in the United States. Some 900 counties are to-day entirely covered by rural free mail delivery, and where necessary the postoffices have been dispensed with, saving a large amount of money. The star-route system which the minister claims to be established in Canada is not employed in the United States except in the most sparsely settled portions which enjoy free delivery. According to the statement of the minister, 44 routes have already been established in Canada and the actual cost to the department has been only $663 per annum. $663 per annum is the estimate given by the Postmaster General for the establishment of 44 routes, which amounts to an average of ouly $15.06 per route. Does the minister think that this is an extravagant proposition? Does he think it would involve a -tremendous drain on the revenue of his department if he did likewise in the thickly settled districts of this country? I am satisfied that when he investigates this question, and I hope he will, he will see that we are not asking anything out of reason in regard to the establishment of this system in Canada.
Now, let us look a little further. The minister tells us that the system in the United States is a very expensive system. I would like to refer to a previous debate in this House in which the minister tried to becloud the issue and to lead the people of Canada to believe that this system was so expensive that we could not possibly think of undertaking it in the Dominion at this session of parliament. I am

satisfied that when he examines the reports of the United States he will no longer compare the Dominion of Canada, with its six millions of people, with the United States with its eighty-five millions, and he will not hold up before our people the expenditure of $35,000,000 in the United States for the purpose of frightening us and telling us that it would bankrupt Canada if we were to expend any such amount of money. Does the hon. gentleman not realize the fact that 18,000,000 of people in the United States are being served by (rural free . mail delivery, and tihat the $35,000,000 that are being spent on the system amounts to only $2 for each family that is being served? But that does not take into account the income received by the Post Office Department for the sale of stamps to people in those rural districts, and the amount of money that is spent on stamps in outside districts for sending mail matter to those people who are living in the delivery districts. Let the minister appreciate this fact that last year when there were 40,000 routes in operation supplying 18,000,000 of people the system covered 1,000,000 miles of road; the carriers covered an aggregate of 200,000,000 miles and 2,000,000,000 pieces of mail were handled by the rural free mail delivery carriers on those 40,000 routes. Does the minister not realize that in handling this enormous amount of mail matter. there is an enormous revenue coming into the department from the stamps that are sold, both to the people who send the mail and the people who reside in those rural districts? Now, the amount of revenue that comes into the Post Office Department from those 2,000,000,000 pieces of mail matter only represents a cost to the people of $2 per head. It is evident when you take into consideration the enormous revenue that is gathered under this system that the people of the United States do not look upon rural districts as being producers of deficits, but the reverse. Only a year or two ago the Postmaster General of the United States stated that instead of the rural free mail delivery system being a deficit producer, it is a revenue producer. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the President of the United States distinctly urged upon Congress the necessity of extending this system, and giving a better service and a more expensive service even than they have at the present time.
But the minister will say they had a deficit of $16,000,000 last year. That is true. The increase in the post office revenue for the last number of years has exceeded over 9 per cent, while last year the increase did not exceed 4'24 per cent. But if he will take into consideration the fact that over $9,000,000 were paid in increased wages to employees in the Post Office De-Mr. ARMSTRONG.
partment and that there was a falling ofi in the revenue owing to the financial depression in that country, he cannot but conclude that, had it been a normal year and under normal circumstances, there would have been a surplus instead of a deficit. Now, let us look at the matter in another light. In 1896 when the United States government undertook the establishment of rural free mail delivery the deficit in the Post Office Department was over $11,000,000, at a time when they had only expended on the system $14,000. Last year when they were expending $35,000,000, the deficit only amounted to a little over $6,000,000, nearly one-half of what it was when they were expending only $14,000 on the system. I wish to quote from the annual report of the Fourth Assistant Postmaster General made in 1903:
The average number of routes in 50 states and territories was 315. The average number of houses on each route was 137. The average population on each route was 585; the average number of boxes, 70; the average number of patrons, 381; and the average cost cf each route, $597.80.
Those people who oppose the introduction of the system into Canada should take into consideration these figures, which go to show that the United States has not established rural free mail delivery at all in the sparsely settled districts, nor do we on this side of the House urge on the minister to establish rural free mail delivery in any districts but those where the system can be carried on successfully, and that are thickly populated. Now I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that it is necessary for him to make a further investigation into this subject. He has been able to go part way, by granting rural free mail delivery to a portion of the country. But there is no doubt in my mind that, before many years pass, he will be compelled by public opinion and by the position the people are taking in many districts to grant this advantage to the thickly-settled portions of Canada generally. The increase in the value of the farms in the United States has been very great where rural free mail delivery has been established. Take a farm worth $5,000; if it increases only five per cent-and prominent men in the United States say that the increase in farm values has been a great deal more than five per cent-there is an increase of $250. If the minister were called upon to spend an average of that amount in delivering mail to the people on these farms it would mean that the farmers could afford to pay $5 a year for fifty years for this great boon. But it is not necessary for them to pay any such amount. I have here the statements published by Mr. Hamilton, of the Toronto ' News,' who gathered a great mass of facts in regard to the establishment of rural mail

delivery in the county of Lincoln. I need not tell the minister that many counties in the eastern provinces of the Dominion have what are called militia maps These maps show exactly the number of homes on the different roads. By the aid of such maps, you could lay out routes for free mail delivery that would cover the county completely. The minister, of course, is aware of this fact. I wish I had time to place on record the splendid material which has been gathered concerning the county of Lincoln by Mr. Hamilton. But I may say that he has shown that sixteen routes would cover the county, and that the cost to the people of that county would not exceed fifty cents per head over the cost of the present system. Lincoln is not thickly populated, for if the minister will investigate the figures, he will find that there are only thirty-four families to the mile. After studying these facts, as I have done, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that we have in the Dominion of Canada at least 1,700,000 living in the rural districts who could be successfully served by a rural free mail delivery system. If we take the minister's system of delivery-in the county of Lincoln, even if it were thoroughly carried out there would be only 600 people who would be reached, while 2,500 people, who have as good a right to mail deliveries as the others, would be compelled to do without it. I only call these matters to the attention of the minister, that he may investigate the matter more fully. If he will do so, I am satisfied that he can only come to one conclusion, the conclusion that I reached many years ago-that it is time for us not only to investigate this matter but to make the system part of the Post Office Department for the benefit of our people generally.
There is another matter of which I wish to speak. I would urge upon the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) the necessity of investigating the mail matter that is coming into this country under the British preference. I wish I could bring the minister to see the necessity of appointing a board whose duties would be to cause to be examined practically every bit of literature coming into this Dominion. There is no doubt in my mind that masses of literature are coming into this country whose only tendency is to degrade and demoralize the people. The Postmaster General can go to the bookstores of this very city and find stacked up there the cheap novels coming from Great Britain, and also the cheap Weekly periodicals, whose influence upon the people is so injurious. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) said, a few days ago, that the amount of material coming through his department in the shape of books and novels was $350,000 worth, and that the cheap periodicals and papers came in free. While the Postmaster General may try to saddle the Minister of Customs with some responsibility in this regard, I cannot but feel that we should have a board of censors. For, though you put your best and ablest men to teach in your colleges, to nreach in your pulpits, to lead in your sabbath schools, yet you may depend upon it that, if you allow the literature that is now coming into this country to continue to come in. much of the good that our best institutions would bring to the people will be neutralized.
Another suggestion I would make to the Postmaster General is this:	We need inspectors in the Post Office Department. The Postmaster General may say that he already has inspectors in the different districts of the Dominion. That is true. But their duties are so heavy that they are not able to go into the rural districts and examine the post offices. What we need is a body of inspectors whose powers are as wide as the Post Office Department can possibly grant, and whose duties will be to go into the different post offices, examine the systems in use, look into the finances, consider the different postal routes and in every way seek to improve the carrying and distribution of the mail.
But that which I wish particularly to impress upon the minister is what I have said in regard to the establishment of rural free mail delivery. I sincerely trust the Postmaster General will receive these remarks in the spirit in which they are made, and will investigate this system which is in vogue in the United States. For. I am satisfied, that had the hon. gentleman investigated the systems now in operation in Great Britain, New Zealand, Germany, France, and other countries, he would have found that the best system in vogue for our purposes is that of the United States. The people of that country have had the advantage of the system for the last eleven or twelve years, and it is time that we began to investigate it, to say the least. Surely we will be able to improve upon the position they have been taking because we will be able to benefit by the mistakes made in the past. I would urge on the minister the necessity of investigating this question without further delay.


Mr. C. J. THORNTON (Durham).: As a young member, representing a rural constituency, I would like to say a word or two on this question of rural free mail delivery. I feel particularly interested in it because I represent a county which is almost entirely agricultural. I have been impressed with the conviction that there should be something done in the way of giving our agriculturalists better mail facilities. I w'as therefore glad when the government proposed to institute such a system, and I have been pleased with the

spirit which the* hon. Postmaster General has shown towards those members who have seen fit to interview him in connection with postal matters. I must say, without any desire to flatter, that I think the Postmaster General is anxious to serve the people and the rural constituencies in the best manner possible. But in looking over the matter, I must say that it does not appear to me that a comprehensive plan of rural free mail delivery has been inaugurated by the minister such as we should have had. Looking at the conditions in my own county, it appears to me that the plan devised by the minister is one which benefits an already favoured class. Take my own county as an example, and what applies to my county will apply to nearly all the rural constituencies in Canada. In my county there are about 140 miles of mail routes, and the people on those routes are the most favoured so far as mail facilities are concerned. They have nearly all of them, and have had for years, a system of rural mail delivery of their own. They pay the mail carrier a yearly sum of from $1 to $2 each, in| return for which he drops their mail in boxes placed at their gates. In my county the residents along the mail route) pay the carrier $1.50 per year for that service. But outside of those mail routes, the great majority of the people have no mail facilities of that kind. Taking my county again, I find that there are about 1,500 miles of travelled roads along which farmers reside, but there are only 140 miles that would be served with free mail delivery, according to the plan laid down in this little pamphlet. These are particularly favoured, while the people on the other 1,350 miles enjoy no such mail facilities. I would like to see the minister bring down a broad, comprehensive plan of rural free mail delivery which would serve the great majority of the agricultural class. I do not say that he could serve all the people, but I do believe that a plan could have been devised which would have given free rural mail delivery to a much larger portion of the agricultural class.
But there is another matter of more importance, and that is that there are large communities of wealthy, tax-paying people who are without any postal facilities whatever. What I mean by that is that they live long distances from the post office. There are communities in which there are large thickly settled districts of comparatively wealthy people, who contribute largely, directly and indirectly, to the revenues of the country, and who have not anything like efficient postal service. In my opinion it should be the first duty of the Postmaster General to see that these communities are served before any system of rural free mail delivery is instituted.
There is another question of importance to my mind, and that is the inadequate Mr. THORNTON.
compensation paid our rural postmasters. I know that there was a re-adjustment of the scale of remuneration paid to postmasters a few years ago and that the postmasters get more now than they did previously. But I want to point out that while the revenues from many of our country post offices have not increased, the work has increased three-fold. I need but mention but one office in my own county, which is a fair sample of many of them. The work in connection with that office has been increased three-fold inside of twenty-five years, while the revenue has not increased. Twenty-five years ago we had only one daily paper and to-day we have twenty-five. Twenty-five years ago there were twenty-five weekly papers taken at that post office and there are a hundred and twenty to-day. And then we have to-day catalogues and circulars by the hundreds and thousands delivered at that office. Twenty-five years ago we had none of these. I know, as a matter of fact, that it takes in that office one person, seven to eight hours a day delivering postal matter, and for this he is paid some $35 a year or about 11 cents a day, and there has always to be some person in attendance. That is one of the things which should engage the attention of the Department of the Postmaster General.
There is another matter of importance, and that is the re-arranging of the postal route. In my own county there is a mail delivery at a certain point on the Canadian Pacific Railway and the mail from that point, which is a distributing office leaves that office at 11 a.m. by horse and buggy, and delivers mail at a certain office on the rcute at 4 o'clock, p.m. Now, at that very point there is a mail train passing within a stone's throw of that office at 11.40 in the forenoon and there could be a mail delievered at that office at that hour, instead of waiting until a horse travels 11 or 12 miles to reach the office at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. We are away behind the times when we allow such a state of things to exist. Unfortunately this is not an isolated case for there are very many others all over the country. Now, first of all I would like to see a good comprehensive system of free mail delivery, but before that I would like to see postal facilities given to many communities who have no adequate postal facilities to-day and who need them badly. In the second place I would like to see better remuneration paid the country postmasters, and in the third place I would urge a re-arrangement of the postal routes so as to give the people the very best facilities for the delivery of mail matter. I hope the Postmaster General will give these matters his best attention.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: I have listened with great attention to the remarks of the hon. mem-

ber for Durham (Mr. Thornton), and even though I do not share his views I must congratulate him on the manner in which they were expressed by him. I am sure the hon. gentleman will be quite an addition to the House and especially to His Majesty's loyal opposition. I have taken note of his suggestions for improvements in our postal system, and will give them attention. As regards the number of post offices in the country districts I may tell the hon. gentleman that since I have been Postmaster General it has been my aim and my pleasure to increase as much as possible the postal facilities by adding to the number of postoffices and thereby reducing the distance between those previously existing. In the olden times when the population of this country was sparser the distances between the post-offices ranged from 10 miles to 20 miles, but of course that system got out of date and in view of our buoyant revenues I decided some years ago that we should reduce the distances between post offices to from 3 miles to 6 miles which is about the present average. As regards better remuneration for Postmasters I would remind the hon. gentleman that under the regime of the Conservative government postmasters were paid $12 a year, and that when Sir William Mulock took office he increased that to $25 a year and when I became Postmaster General three years ago I came to the conclusion that the surplus we had in the department entitled us to increase the remuneration of our rural postmasters so as to give them $35 a year. I also increased the percentage on rental, fuel, and light and to-day, generally speaking, our postmasters derive quite a nice revenue from their offices and there are no complaints. As to rearranging our postal routes I may inform the hon. gentleman that that rearrangement is going on quietly throughout the country. As new settlers go into New Ontario and New Quebec, and the west, we are naturally forced to rearrange the postal facilities and to give to outside settlements the facilities which the travelled routes enjoyed for many years. The inspectors in these new districts have received special instructions in that regard and I can assure the hon. gentleman that the good work will be continued in the future. I now come to the question of rural mail delivery and I hope my remarks will be brief. My hon. friend from Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) referred to my right about face on that question but I can assure him that I made no right about face at all. I acted in perfect consistency with the views expressed by me on previous occasions in this House. I said that in view of our area, of our scattered population, and of our revenue, I could not favor for Canada the same system of rural free de-88
livery which had been adopted in the United States. But at the same time I said I was in favour of the system known in the United States as the star route system, and that I would be glad to be able to adopt it as an experiment in Canada.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the minister say when he first made that statement?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not 'Hansard' at hand, but I shall later on give my hon. friend the citation. The hon. gentleman will remember that I pointed out that in the United States they have a dense population and a large revenue, which justified free rural mail delivery, but that we in Canada having the same area but less revenue and less population could not so advantageously adopt it. I stated at the same time I would be in favour of the star route system and that is the system which we inaugurated in Canada a few months ago. When in the month of September last I was in Ontario with the Prime Minister, the question of the star route system had been discussed not only by the officers of my department but by the cabinet several months before, and I never dreamed that I would be accused of trying to corrupt the electors of this country, because on the 15th day of September at the opening of the electoral campaign I announced to the people of Canada that we had decided to establish a system of rural mail delivery.
I do not see anything smacking of corruption in that announcement It is a matter of public policy ; and if the government could take credit for the establishment of that policy, I do not know what power would prevent me from announcing the policy and giving due credit to the government for it.
Why, Mr. Speaker, if the announcement I made at Niagara Falls was an act of corruption, I only followed in the path of the hon. leader of the opposition, who two years ago in the Halifax platform stated that if he were supported by the people and became Prime Minister, he would give to the people of this country free rural mail delivery, and recently, at a banquet given by his friends under the roof of this very building, he stated again that if he were placed at the head of affairs of this country, he would give the people of Canada free rural mail delivery. I do not intend to give the people of Canada free rural mail delivery, as they have it in the United States, but I will give to the people of Canada the measure of free rural mail delivery which I established in September last, and which is now working fairly well. I did not say in my speech at Niagara Falls that I would give every farmer a box where collection and delivery of the mails could be made every day. I have the manueript of the speech which I delivered



on that occasion, and which was published verbatim on the 16th September, in the Toronto ' Globe '; and here are the words I used:
As I have often stated in parliament, it is a splendid system which I admire greatly, and which can be introduced step by step in Canada. For some two or three years, acting under my instructions, the officers of the department have been studying the main features of rural delivery as operated in the United States with a view to the possible introduction of a scheme in accordance with our revenue, population, and physical conditions.
Towards that end, the Post Office Department has evolved a scheme of rural delivery and collection from the present system of stage routes whereby the rural population of the country may he able to receive and post all ordinary mail matter at their doors instead of having to drive from two or three miles to the nearest post office for that purpose.
I have, therefore, determined, with the consent of my colleagues to equip all existing mail routes in Canada with rural delivery boxes, under regulations to be published and enforced shortly. At the junction of every concession line with the main road the people will also he given the privilege of having boxes located for the receipt and collection of their mail, as desired.
The department has made all arrangements for the carrying out of this scheme, and will at once proceed to inaugurate it. This system of rural mail delivery can he introduced at a cost which the country can afford to pay. It will evolve and expand gradually with the growth and development of Canada and at a ratio of cost that will not prove burdensome. It is, on the whole, a great postal reform which will be hailed with delight by the farmers of Canada.
That is the declaration I made, and it was not made with a view of corrupting the electorate-far from it. I do not believe the farmers could be induced to vote for the government simply because the government does its duty in placing postal boxes on the road for the collection and delivery of letters. Mr. Speaker, there are two systems of rural mail delivery: there is free rural mail delivery, and there is the star-route system. The free rural mail delivery as differentiated from the star-route system, consists in the delivery and collection of letters, papers, parcels, registered letters and registered parcels. In fact, free rural mail delivery, as they have it in the United States, serving, as my hon. friend has stated, eighteen millions of people, is simply a post office on wheels, equipped with postal facilities, postal notes and money orders. That system is a most expensive system, which we in Canada are not in a position to adopt. The other system, the star-route system, is described in this blue-book, which was distributed to all members of the House a few 'days ago, in these words:


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: It is very easy to learn from the census returns which are the thickly-settled and which the sparsely-settled portions of Canada. I do not need to send my officers to prepare a statement showing these conditions. Any one who is at all conversant with the different sections of Canada knows that this section of Ontario in which my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) resides is a thickly-settled section, while many of those in the west are sparsely-settled. I do not mean to be at all demagogic, but I claim that what the thickly-settled portions of Canada receive, the sparsely-settled portions _ should receive also; I do not want to discriminate in this matter; what the people of Ontario and Quebec receive, the people of the west must also receive.
Now, in the United States also they have the star route system. The department inaugurated the policy of delivering mail into and collecting it from boxes along the lines of star routes, and an obligation requiring such service was incorporated in the new contracts as they were made from year to year covering the four contract sections. ~ The service is incidental to the transportation of the mail over star routes, and involves no specific increase in expense. These facilities supply a valuable convenience to rural residents, and are appreciated. The Postmaster General of the United States says in his report:
The contracts for star-route service in all parts of the United States now provide for delivering mail into and collecting it from boxes along the lines of the routes. This feature of the service has proved highly satisfactory to the large number of patrons so served, and is recognized as a valuable public convenience.
Now, our system, which is the star route system, must have regard to the vast area to be served, and also to our population and our revenue. What is our postal revenue as compared with that of the United States? The revenue of our Post Office Department for the year ending March 31,

1908, was $9,483,166.13. There is quite a difference between this and the revenue of the Post Office Department of the United States. And, although we have about the same area as the United States, bear in mind that the population of that country is fourteen times as large as ours, while their postal revenue is twenty-one times as large as ours. The postal revenue of Canada represents $1.50 per capita, while the postal revenue of the United States represents $2.50 per capita of their large population. As I have just stated, the two conditions most essential for rural free mail delivery, as they have it in the United States, England, France, Germany or Belgium, are, first, large revenues and, second, large population and thickly-settled country. My hon. friend praised the United States, and I do not begrudge our American cousins the praise the hon. gentleman gives them. But my hon. friend must remember that in the United States they adopted rural free mail delivery, not when they had a population of seven or eight millions, the population that we shall show at the next census according to the recent prediction-I hope, a sound prediction-of the Minister of Agriculture. My hon. friend must remember that when the United States had a population ;of only seven or eight million, the system of rural free mail delivery existed in Europe. It is not by any means a new thing; it existed in Europe at the beginning of the last century; it had been successfully carried on in England, France and Germany for nearly a hundred years before the United States adopted it. The United States waited until they had reached a population of seventy million and a postal revenue of $80.000.000-a practical acknowledgment and illustration of what I have just said that, in order to give rural free mail delivery there must be a population and there must be revenue. This is an expensive system, though a beneficial one.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I ask the Postmaster General a question ? Is it his intention, so far as he is concerned, to establish free rural mail deliveries only when we have a population of twenty millions ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Post Office Department is giving the country a good service, an up-to-date service, and it intends to follow the development of the country and to expand with the expansion of the country. I would not like to make from my place in parliament any vain promises to the people of Canada. I will act cautiously-I was going to say that I would act conservatively. I have been asked to act cautiously by the farmers of Canada. My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) says it is a sham; he has even used a very unparliamentary term and has spoken of ' humbug.' He did not mean it, I am sure; he does Mr. LEMIEUX.
not know what the word means, for he himself has never humbugged anybody. The farmers can speak for themselves. I do not believe there is a better representative body of the farmers in Canada than the Grange, which has its seat of influence in the province of Ontario. Probably there are many grangers in my hon. friend's constituency. Let me quote from an account of the proceedings of the Grange ;
The report of the Resolution Committee covered a number of propositions but it is stated that the clause in the report which drew forth the most animated discussion was the one dealing with rural mail delivery. The clause as drafted contained the following :-
We desire to commend the Dominion government for inaugurating free rural mail delivery. At the same time we would urge the necessity of going cautiously and profiting by the experience of other peoples who ha-e adopted this system.
My hon. friend knows that the Grange is an outcome of the farming community of the United States, and the institution, as we have it in Canada, came to us from that country. The Grange informs the Canadian Postmaster General that it commends his action but urges him to be cautious and to profit by the experience of the country where the Grange itself was established.
We would also urge that regulations be laid down to enable all rural communities to avail themselves of the advantage of free mail delivery.
The ' Weekly Sun,' in which Dr. Goldwin Smith-' A Bystander '-writes, says, with reference to the debate on this resolution :
The general expression of opinion on the part of the members was that, while they appreciated what the Dominion governmenUhas done, it would be a dangerous thing to proceed too rapidly along this line. The general feeling was that the service should be extended only as the revenue derived in return warrants.
There was a decided indisposition to ask for anything that was likely to involve a charge upon the general revenue for the special benefit of farmers. Eventually the first section of the resolution was adopted, and other sections eliminated, thus simply declaring approval of the action of the government in inaugurating free rural delivery along the line of existing mail routes, and at the same time urging the necessity of going cautiously and profiting by the experience of others.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to follow the advice of the grangers, the advice of the farmers of Canada, who understand their own interest, and who would not like to see the Postmaster General rush in where angels fear to tread. But my hon. friend says: What are you going to do with your surplus? My surplus? No, the surplus of Canada, the surplus of the farmers of
2793 MARCH 17, 1909 2794	
Canada. Has my hon. friend followed the expansion of the department of late years? Does he not remember that under the regime of his friends there was a huge deficit of $700,000 a year in Tound figures, every year? When Sir Wm. Mulock took office he administered the department in such a way as to wipe out that deficit and to create a surplus. But did he not do anything for the people of Canada with that surplus? While he increased the revenue of the department, he was at the same time able to reduce the rates and thereby to reduce the postal taxation. The inland letter rate has been reduced from three cents to two cents per ounce or a fraction thereof; the letter rate from Canada to the United States was reduced from three cents to two cents per ounce; the letter rate from Canada to Great Britain and to every portion of the British empire was reduced from five cents to two cents per half ounce; and in October last it was made two cents per ounce or fraction thereof; the rate on drop letters in cities has been reduced from two cents to one cent per ounce, a lower rate than exists in any other country of Europe or America; the rate on Canadian newspapers and periodicals sent from publishers in Canada to subscribers in Great Britain and every other part of the empire, was reduced from eight cents per pound to a quarter of one cent per pound; the rate on Canadian newspapers and periodicals sent by the general public in Canada to correspondents in Great Britain and other parts of the empire, was reduced from eight cents per pound to four cents per pound, a reduction of 50 per cent. It is also to he borne in mind that the reduction in the rates on papers sent by publishers in Canada to subscribers in Great Britain tends to the wider dissemination throughout the empire of Canadian newspapers and other publications. So it is easv to see what has been done by the Postmaster General with the surplus in the department since 1897. Now, Mr. Speaker, how have we served the country with our surplus? Let us look at the expansion of the service as shown by this table: EXPANSION OF SERVICE. Number of post offices. 189G	 9,103 1908	 11,823 Increase, 2,720. Percentage of increase, 30 per cent. Money order and postal note offices. 1896	 1,310 1908 	 9,637 Increase, 2,720. i Percentage of increase, 636 per cent. Post office savings bank. 1896	 755 1908	 1,084 Increase, 329. Percentage of increase, 43 per cent.	Total miles of annual travel of mails. 1896 	 30,551,683 1908	 43,986,149 Increase, 13,434,466. Percentage of increase, 44 per cent. Number of letters carried. 1896	 116,028,000 1908 	 396,011,000 Increase, 279,983,000. Percentage of increase, 241 per cent., Total number of articles carried in mails. 1896	 177,178,136 1908	 519,452,045 Increase, 342,254,909. Percentage of increase, 190 per cent. Amount of money transmitted by money orders and postal notes. 1896	$13,081,860 1908	 '55,284,595 Increase, $42,202,785. Percentage of increase, 323 per cent. Number of depositors in savings banks. 1896	 126,442 1908	 165,691 Increase, 39,249. Percentage of increase, 31 per cent. Financial results. 1896 (deficit)	$ 781,152 1908 (surplus)	 1,101,827 Making a financial improvement of $1,882,979. I said a moment ago that in 1896 there was a deficit of $700,000 a year; last year we had the magnificent surplus of over a million dollars. These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the things we have done with the surplus of the Post Office Department. My hon. friend stated a moment ago that the box which was supplied by the Post Office Department for this special service, was a box unknown in the United States. For the information of my hon. friend let me tell him that in the United States they have nearly 300 styles of boxes in use, and it was decided lately to do away with all of them and to adopt the box which Canada has been the first to adopt. In the month of July or August last there was a committee appointed by the United States Congress to examine the latest pattern of postal boxes with which to replace the 300 patterns which they have been using there, and that special committee decided unanimously that the best box to be used in that great country was the one selected by Canada. The box they have adopted, following our example, is one which can be used without the letter carrier being obliged to dismount from his carriage, thereby saving time, and giving better collections and better delivery to the carrier. My hon. friend says the box costs $2. It would be easy for this government to make cheap popularity by saying to the farmer, we will give you that box free of any cost. That would sound so well before a general election.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Might I ask the Postmaster General a question? In his speeeh at Niagara Falls did he make any definite statement of what it would cost the farmers, or did he say in the first pamphlet that he issued anything with regard to the cost?	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The question was not put to me at Niagara Falls. I did not enter into details, I simply stated that it was decided to inaugurate a system of rural mail delivery. I did not say anything about the cost of the box, but every man knows that if he wants a box in front of his house he has to pay for it, just as every man must know that when he goes to the post office to mail_a letter he must buy a stamp. I stated that this box would cost $3. When the box was examined at Ottawa, not only by the post office authorities but by members of the government, the question was asked if the price of $3 would always be the same. Of course if the number of boxes is much larger, as it will become later on when the system expands, evidently the cost will be much less because the manufacturer will be able - to supply a larger quantity at a smaller profit. At that time, however, we took only 6,000 of those boxes at $3 each and we had them examined by an expert, a manufacturer in this city, whose name I cannot just now recall. That expert said that to manufacture the same box in Canada would cost more than the $3.


Mr. S. HUGHES.: As I understand the system, it is only those who happen to reside along the mail route and will pay for the service, who will get tnis delivery ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and those who reside on the outside concessions have also the privilege of putting their boxes at the cross road.


Mr. GEO. GORDON.: Did this expert say, how much more the boxes would cost if manufactured in Canada ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He said that to manufacture a similar box would cost in Canada more than the $3.


George Gordon: How much more ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not his report here, but I will be quite willing to lay it on the table. One of the boxes will be exhibited in the Liberal room and another in the Conservative jroom, and my hon. friend will have an opportunity of examining it.


George Gordon: Unless the box costs a great deal more in Canada -than in the United Startes, would you not prefer having it made in Canada ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was said in the press during the elections that Mr. Lemieux.


Rodolphe Lemieux: had betrayed the interests of Canada because forsooth he had not provided for the manufacture of that box in Canada. Well, I was very prudent and cautious, as I was urged to be by the Grangers. When I decided to inaugurate that system, here is the letter I wrote to the Rural Automatic Mail Company:
August It, 1908.
Dear Sir,-Referring to the several interviews we have had with respect to the adoption in Canada of your rural mail delivery box, I beg to say that the Post Office Department views the box with approval, and is desirous of making experiments as to its adaptibility for service in Canada. For this purpose we are prepared to buy from you six thousand (6,000) at the price of $3 per box f.o.b. factory in United States, such box to be delivered to our order on or before the 10th of September prox.
In giving this order it is the intention of the department to distribute the boxes for experimental purposes as widely as possible throughout the Dominion. Our expectation is that they will prove successful, and that they will be largely adopted on the existing mail routes in Canada. If this expectation should prove correct, we should, of course, be ready to order larger quantities of boxes for future use, and in that case, if we are able to give you assurances as to satisfactory quantities, we should require you to establish a factory for the manufacture of the boxes in Canada.
As stated above, we view the box with approval, and fully expect that it will be widely adopted in Canada, but we do not feel free to bind ourselves for the future until after we have made the experiments as proposed.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) RODOLPHE LEMIEUX. Dr. Harriss,
Representative of Rural Automatic Mail Company, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.
So that we have been very careful not to commit ourselves to the adoption of any box. We wanted the best and the latest pattern and one which would serve the people best. Since three months the system has been in vogue, and these were three winter months, the worst part of the year. During these three months we organized forty-three routes; and since I gave that answer to my hon. friend a few days ago, we have organized some eight or ten more, so that we have altogether fifty routes since the 15th of September last. These are serving actually 3,500 people. We have in use 700 boxes on the 43 routes and on the 50 we shall require 750. So as time goes on, and in view of the many petitions which are pouring into the department, I expect that within say two years many thousands of people will be served by that system throughout Canada.
The remuneration which the department has decided to pay to the contractor for the mail service for depositing into and

collecting from the King Edward boxes erected along his route, is as follows:-
$1 per box per annum for a service once a day or more frequently.
75 cents per box per annum for a service less frequently than once a day but more frequently than once a week.
50 cents per box per annum for a weekly service.
The scale of remuneration for this service is uniform throughout the Dominion.


Mr. BLAIN.: Might I ask if those routes are established in thickly settled parts of Canada?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, as a general rule.


Richard Blain: Is it working well ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is. I have here some testimonials from various postmasters :
From the Postmaster, Hamilton, Ont., re Ancaster-IIamilton route.
I have inquired of a number of the patrons as to whether the new system was quite satisfactory to them or if they had any complaints or objections to make. All expressed themselves as well pleased and thoroughly satisfied.
From the Postmaster, Waterloo, Ont., re Waterloo-Crosshill route.
The system adopted to deliver the mail to the patrons on the Waterloo and Crosshill route has been quite satisfactory to the patrons.
This office has a case with sufficient pigeon holes to have one labelled for each patron and the mail for each patron is placed in the pigeon hole after each mail has been assorted. When all the mail for the route is assorted the letters and papers are tied into parcels for the respective patrons and handed to the courier. By this method we have found errors to be at a minimum.
The patrons of this route have apparently taken advantage of the opportunity offered by the free rural mail delivery as most of them are now taking a daily paper, and the number of letters and other correspondence has also been on the increase since the establishment of this route.
From the Postmaster, Milton West, Ont., re Milton West-Mount Nemo route.
I have made inquiry and find that the system is altogether satisfactory. The mail courier informs me that all the patrons are well satisfied.
Then, the post office inspector at Vancouver, speaking of the Terra Nova and Vancouver route, says:
I beg to say that since the inauguration of the rural mail delivery on Vancouver route No. 1, I have taken advantage of two or three opportunities to interview the patrons regarding the same, and without exception they all expressed themselves as well satisfied, and some went so far as to say that the accommodation was invaluable. The boxes appear to work satisfactorily. No complaints have
been received from the patrons and the only trouble I have had was with the oouncil of the municipality of Point Grey who considered the boxes an obstacle to traffic and requested that they be removed, but this was amicably arranged, concerning the particulars of which you have already been advised.
So far as the Vancouver office and the intervening offices are concerned, they are each doing their part satisfactorily, in fact, so smoothly is the system working that it leaves nothing further to be desired.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I understand the former mail courier on the Milton-Mt. Nemo route declined to do the work for what the government offered. Has the government secured the services of a new courier?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In some instances the mail courier has refused to do the additional work for the remuneration offered and we are obliged to give notice to cancel the contract and to call for new tenders. It may happen that the same courier will tender at a little higher figure and accept the new contract.


David Henderson: Has that been done in the case I refer to?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I cannot say.


John Barr: Do you advertise at so much per box?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We say the department will pay $1, or 75c. or 50c., depending on the frequency of the service. My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong! said that the mail delivery in the United States had produced quite a large revenue, but my information is that the United States postal authorities have been able to ascertain the revenues on only 21 of the best equipped and best paying routes, and as regards all others they have been unable to say what share of the revenue was derived from that service. The United States postal authorities are however well able to say that the cost is increasing by leans and bounds. Perhaps it might be interesting to read the following letter from Mr. De Graw fourth assistant Postmaster General of the United States to Mr. George Ross chief post office superintendent of Canada:



[Stage Direction]
Office of the
Fourth Assistant Postmaster General.
Washington, January 22, 1909. George Ross, Esq.,
Chief Post Office Superintendent,
Toronto, Canada.
My dear Mr. Ross,-I gladly comply with your request of January 19, 1909, for further information in relation to the average annual cost of rural delivery routes in the United States.	.
In the communication sent you January 14, 1909, the rate named of $865.58 per route was based upon the average cost for service by
[Stage Direction]
carriers alone on routes in operation December X, 1908.
On January 2, 1909, rural delivery service was in operation in the United States as follows :-
No. of	No. of	Annual
Routes. Times Served.	Cost.
38,920 Six times per week. .$33,951,174 650 Three times per week. 302,094
Total	$34,256,568
These routes were served by 39,441 carriers; 129 of the carriers served two tri-weekly routes each on alternate days. On this basis of the cost of service for carriers the average per route, January 2, 1909, was $865.72, and per carrier, $868.55.
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 1908, various sums not included in the above estimate were expended as follows:- Cler.ks-in-charge	rural stations...$	7,921	52Tolls and ferriage	
9,655	35Substitutes	
1,159,717	35Supplies	
54,037	00Total	$1,231,331 22
This miscellaneous expenditure for the current fiscal year will be somewhat greater and will probablv reach $1,300,000. If this last named sum is added to the total cost of $34,256,568 for carriers on routes in operation January 2, 1909, there would be a gross annual expenditure of $35,556,568 or $898.57 per route.
In explanation of the fluctuation in average cost it may be stated that during the month of December, 1908, the increases in length caused by amendment of routes largely exceeded the decreases and the number of routes on which service was increased from three to six times per week exceeded the number on which frequency of service was reduced.
Very truly yours,
„	P- V. DE GEAW,
Fourth Assistant Postmaster General.
It will be seen that on each route the United States there is an average expenditure of $898.57 but the United States authorities have been unable to say what the revenue is. However, a technical newspaper in the United States which has given considerable attention to this matter has come to the conclusion that the deficit between expenditure and revenue on each of the routes served by rural mail delivery in the United States is about $400. Of course, it is difficult for me to make a comparison between the revenue, on the Canadian routes and the revenue on the American routes.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if that is the paper that he quoted from a year or so ago?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He does not know the name of it or where it is published?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are so many papers published in the United States that Mr. LEMIEUX.
I cannot off-hand remember the name. The Post Office Department of the United States is unable to state what is the revenue derived from the free rural mail delivery system. They have been able to state what was the revenue, from 21 of the best equipped routes, but that is all.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Does the hon. minister expect that these fifty routes which have already been started in Canada will be selfsustaining, or does he anticipate that the general revenue of the Post Office Department will be drawn on to any extent in order to maintain them?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course our routes are not the same as the American routes. In the United States the rural mail carrier goes from door to door, and last year he received a salary of $900. In Canada we have not the same expenditure to meet; our system is less costly; but I am not yet in a position to say that it will be self-sustaining. At all events, the government are quite ready to take a slice of the surplus in the Post Office Department in order to give the farmers of Canada the boon, as it has been termed by some hon. gentlemen, of the star-route system.
My hon. friend has reminded me that there has been some undesirable literature circulating in our towns and cities. I can only say to my hon. friend that I am as anxious as he is to stamp out undesirable literature in this country. So far as the Post Office Department is concerned, we are doing our best to prevent any such literature passing through our mail boxes or our mail cars. We have been able, since two or three years, to do away with nearly all the objectionable literature which came from some of the western states. I do not know that there is at present any quantity of such literature circulated m Canada; I think there is not; but if there is, the people have the weapon for dealing with it in the Post Office Act. Any man can institute proceedings in any police court of this Dominion, against the merchant who sells any such undesirable literature. As to a board of censors, I would not say that is impracticable, but it is very difficult to establish one. We are all jealous of the liberty of the press. I am asked sometimes by over-zealous clergymen, I will not say to what denomination they belong, to suppress some papers which in their opinion are published against their particular faith. Well, it is very difficult for the Postmaster General to act as censor in such cases. The common sense of the people will be the best judge. I cannot take upon my shoulders the task of judging of the heterodoxy of a publication which may or may not serve the purpose of any religion or any sect in this Dominion. But as regards filthy literature, I am as desirous as

any one to suppress it, and I am pleased to say that under the regulations of the Post Office Department, since I have been Postmaster General at least, in the mining districts, such as Cobalt and others, where I have been myself a witness of what has taken place, filthy literature has been completely suppressed. I had the testimony of the postmasters themselves, and I myself visited the mail boxes, and so am able to testify that in those districts filthy and yellow literature has disappeared completely. At the same time, it is always prudent and wise to watch, and I intend to watch in the future as I have done in the past.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is adopted, I wish to say a few words.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman can only do so by the consent of the House.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understood that the Postmaster General was quite willing that I should have the privilege?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: But there is a rule of the House that a member cannot speak a second time on the same motion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no objection personally.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I will only take a few moments.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the House so understands it; but I may say that it is a very dangerous precedent for the House to make, because any other member might claim the same privilege.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not wish to infringe on the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman can put a question, but should not make a second speech.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will not attempt to say anything further. I am sorry that I am not given the privilege of making some reply to the statements made by the Postmaster General.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Mr. Speaker, if I am in order, there is a matter which I would like to refer to the Postmaster General. There is a feature of the administration of his department in my constituency which I think has been very unfair, and I believe that in this case the Postmaster General has been bossed, overruled, by a man who at one time in our country had con siderable power-power enough to be called the young Napoleon; but of late he has certainly been plucked of his plumage, and has no longer the same influence in the
west, and I did not think he had the power to overrule fair play and justice to the extent that he has done in this particular ease since the elections of October, 1908.
I refer to the dismissing of postmasters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) who is ill, asked me to request my hon. friend not to bring up this question of the dismissal of postmasters, for which the hon. member (Mr. Sifton) takes full responsibility, until he is present. It will be only a few days until he is here.


Mr. STAPLES.: He was in his, seat on Monday and if he was well enough to be here then, he is well enough to be here today.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If it is the desire of the Postmaster General, I shall be glad to
accede to his request.


Mr. FOSTER.: What does the hon. member mean by saying that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) accepts full responsibility for the dismissals?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not throw the responsibility on his shoulders. I take the responsibility of the dismissal, but the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) recommended the dismissal and I acted on his advice.


Mr. G. TAYLOR.: He bosses the government all right.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, no.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.
River Saguenay-dredging and other improvements, $30,060.


George Eulas Foster: Some returns ordered have not yet been brought down. The minister would think us harsh if we refused to grant Supply without them, and we do not wish to be put in that position.


William Pugsley: I have spoken to my deputy about these returns, but he explained ' that we have really no room in our department for extra help. I told him he . must arrange for two or three temporary clerks and he said he would do so at once, so as to expedite the returns.
|	Mr. AMES. What is the Saguenay work?
.	Mr. PUGSLEY. We are doing dredging
E upon the Saguenay, improving and straight-i ening as well as deepening the channel. - Last year we had an appropriation for this [DOT] purpose of $40,000 and there was an ex-i penditure for work done under contract by the General Construction Company's 1 dredge of $23,291.17 There were also; the 3 working expenses of the tug otorm K-ing,
1	$6,158.53 and the Canada Improvement
3	Company did dredging to the amount of

$3,280.10. We are asking this vote of $30,000 to continue the work of dredging upon the Saguenay. It is very necessary in order to enable deep draft vessels to reach the important town of Chicoutimi.


Richard Blain: Will this be a continuous expenditure?


William Pugsley: It will take some years to thoroughly complete the work.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: Aou cannot very well estimate definitely in dredging of this kind because it depends upon the depth to which we go. There are about six or seven miles below Chicoutimi which require to be straightened and dredged out to make a perfect channel.


George Eulas Foster: What depth will you get?


William Pugsley: In the turning basin we are going to a depth of 20 feet and hope to continue to dredge the channel to a depth of 20 feet as well, but of course it will take some few years to obtain that.


Mr. AMES.: If you look over the public accounts as given by the Auditor General during the last two or three years, you will find that a good deal of money has been spent and is being spent from time to time under the head of 'Saguenay Dredging,' and you will find also that the local engineer manages to interpret the term 'Saguenay Dredging' in a pretty broad sense. For instance, in the Auditoi General's Report for 1907 is an item concerning the River du Moulin. $1,409.39. And in another year you find a further item relating to the River du Moulin. And when you come to inquire you find it difficult to see why this work on the River Du Moulin is charged to 'Saguenay Dredging.' Now the story of the River du Moulin is this: This is a small stream which comes into the Saguenay from the south, if I remember rightly, just a little to the east of the town of Chicoutimi. The people of that town had been accustomed to use an old wooden bridge across the river, and they were extremely anxious to have that wooden bridge replaced with a steel bridge upon stone abutments. They endeavoured to pursuade all and sundry to come to their relief, not wanting to pay for the work themselves, but without much success. They approached the federal member to ask his good offices in this particular, and the federal member interviewed the engineer to know if there was any way in which the River Du Moulin wooden bridge could be replaced with an iron bridge and charged to 'Saguenay dredging.' The engineer apparently suggested this exceedingly ingenious expedient:	In the
spring of the year, some earth comes down I


William Pugsley: from the mountains and passes out into the Saguenay river by way of the River du Moulin; therefore let us charge to 'Saguenay Dredging' what it may cost to protect the banks so that they will not wash away. Now, inasmuch as the dredging is five miles below the point where the River du Moulin enters the Saguenay, and inasmuch as there is a depth of thirty feet for three miles below the place, and inasmuch as the River du Moulin is a very small stream which brings down very little silt each year, it took a pretty long stretch of imagination on the part of the engineer to find it possible to charge this to 'Saguenay Dredging.' However, with the aid of the local member they were able to accomplish it. They made a report that it was necessary to build a concrete pier on the left side of the river, right under where the old wooden bridge used to rest. As a matter of fact, there was already a wooden protection, all that could possibly be needed to prevent erosion, and this wooden protection had to be taken down in order that it might be replaced with the concrete pier. Then, the people of the municipality arranged with a contractor to build a stone pier directly opposite, and so they had the two abutments for the bridge. If the minister is interested, I shall be glad to send him a photograph, so that he may see the concrete pier under the iron bridge on this small river some distance up from the Saguenay, which concrete pier has been charged to 'Saguenay Dredging,' which dredging is being done on the main river seven miles below.
Now, when we are asked to vote money, we like to know what it is for, and when we are told it is for one purpose we do not like to have it used for another. In this particular case, I would like to ask whether the minister has disciplined the local engineer whose misleading statements undoubtedly induced this item to be charged in the way it has been, and also whether he or his predecessor was aware of the fact that when they were asking parliament to vote an appropriation for the dredging of the channel leading into the upper river at Chicoutimi, they were really asking that a portion of that money should be used to build a concrete pier under a municipal bridge?


William Pugsley: I am unable, at this moment, to enlighten my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) as_ to what knowledge my predecessor had in regard to what would be done with the vote given for the ' River Saguenay, Dredging and other Improvements.' My attention was called to the fact that the bridge had been built either immediately adjoining to or upon a part of the foundation of the glance pier. I made inquiry and was informed by the engineering staff of my department that the object of building this glance pier was to prevent
2805 '! MARCH 17, 1909 2806	
the silt which came down from this river to which my hon. friend referred, flowing into the Saguenay Tiver and so nullifying to a considerable extent the dredging work being carried on. Mr. GEO. TAYLOR. Does the photograph show it? Mr. PUGSLEY. Photographs are very deceptive. I could have a photograph taken of my hon. friend (Mr. George Taylor) from such a position that his best friends would not know him. A great deal depends upon the photographer. Mr. GEO. TAYLOR. That photograph looks perfect. Mr. PUGSLEY. It is evidently taken from the landward side of the pier. A photograph from the river side would present a very different appearance and might give a different impression from that conveyed by this photograph. Mr. GEO. TAYLOR. What does the engineer say? Mr. PUGSLEY. He would not recognize it from this photograph. Having asked him, I may say that another reason he would not Tecognize it is that he has never been there. I can say to my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) that, in asking parliament for this vote for the ' River Saguenay Dredging and Other Improvements,' I can assure the committee that directions will be given that the money shall be used entirely upon the river Saguenay and that it will be used for Dredging and Other Improvements of the river Saguenay. I think that my hon. friend will admit that the dredging work is very useful, that the channel is a very crooked channel, that it is difficult if not dangerous for vessels to approach Chicoutimi by the present channel, and that it is very necessary to improve the position by widening and straightening, as well as deepening, the channel. Mr. AMES. No doubt, it is necessary that the channel, which is six or seven miles below Chicoutimi, should be deepened and widened so that steamers can come up. But, in this particular case, I think it required a very great stretch of imagination to bring this pier under the vote which this parliament passed for ' Saguenay dredging.' One feature I call to the attention oi the minister which takes away, I think, the only argument that he has advanced. It is this: At the place where the concrete pier was built, there had previously stood a completed wooden structure which protected the banks from erosion as effectively as this concrete pier does, and this wooden structure had to be taken away so that the concrete pier could take its place. Thus so far as erosion was concerned, there was as good protection before as there is to day. No, the whole matter was hatched	oetween the member and the resident engineer with a view to saddling on this government an expense which the federal government should not bear. That is the same story all along down the Lower St. Lawrence, and if there is any way in which they can disguise these expenditures so that they will escape the attention of the minister or of the members of parliament, whose duty it is to, study the documents in connection with these cases-if there is any way in which it can be disguised or concealed, that will be done. Before we get through this afternoon I shall have the pleasure, unless six o'clock is reached too soon, of showing other cases like this, where money is voted by parliament under, I might almost say, false representations, because it is expended for other purposes entirely than those which parliament intended it should be expended for. Mr. FOSTER. Who is the resident engineer? Mr. PUGSLEY. Mr. Tache. Mr. FOSTER. How long has he been there? Mr. PUGSLEY. He has been in the department 35 years. He was formerly at headquarters. Mr. FOSTER. Who is the engineer here that passes his work? Mr. PUGSLEY. The chief engineer, Mr. Lafleur. Mr. FOSTER. I do not know how the minister feels with reference to this. I do not know how members sitting on either side of the House feel about it, but I cannot find language too strong to characterize a transaction of that kind. What are we here for? To misrepresent, to conceal? Surely it cannot be that. It makes no matter whether we are Liberal or Conservative, -do we approve of stealing the money of the people under false representations, and actually expending it, and coming to parliament and lying about it? If they want it to build a glance pier at Riviere du Moulin, seven or eight miles above where the channel is being dredged, why not come in an. honest way and get a vote for it-explain it to the House, and if the House stands under it, then do it. But here is a vote for dredging the river Saguenay, and they are dredging a channel below Chicoutimi, as 1 understand. Mr. PUGSLEY. Below and in the vicinity of Chicoutimi. Mr. FOSTER. It is at least seven miles below the River du Moulin, which is a small insignificant stream. They have absolutely gone to work and have spent a sum of

money in taking down a wooden protection to the bank of the stream in this River du Moulin, and building a concrete pier, and on that concrete pier a bridge has been placed. Thus the government is spending out of the Saguenay river dredging vote $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 to build a concrete pier. The municipality have built another pier on the other side at their own expense, and then a bridge is put across. If it is to build an abutment for a bridge, come to parliament and ask for it. If it is for the purpose of protecting the stream in any way, come to parliament and say what it is for. But to get a vote for dredging in the River Saguenay and make a channel deeper and wider, and then go seven miles above into a little bit of a stream and build a concrete pier, and try to justify it by saying that it is meant to keep the silt from coming down the River du Moulin


Samuel Hughes: How far is this from the Saguenay river?


George Eulas Foster: The River du Moulin runs into the Saguenay river. Now this is not an isolated instance, it is being done over and over again in the province of Quebec, it may be in other provinces. We bring them up and make these statements, and the minister plays a little piece of comedy about it, glosses it all over, winks his eye to show how nicely he has done it. I want to ask_ the minister whether, if the statement is true that has been made by my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), he has not a duty to perform. Will he perform that duty, or is he going to cover it up, as he has done in case after case, make a laugh of it, and pass it off by some glib words? That is not what the minister ought to do, that is not what members of parliament ought to allow. What impression does it create? That the department is not to be trusted. If the state of things is as stated by my hon. friend, it means that the engineers are not to be trusted, that the resident engineer has condoned the taking away of the moneys of parliament voted for a certain purpose, and applying them to another purpose; that the engineers in the department here condone it, or support it or show negligence, if they do not know it. It is a very poor answer to have from the engineer here who finally passes the account, to say that he has never been there and does not know.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend does an injustice to Mr. St. Laurent, he is not the gentleman I mentioned. I said that it was Mr. Lafleur, the chief engineer, who passes the work. It is the assistant deputy that is here in the committee.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether it is the gentleman sitting here or not, but it seems to me the chief engineer is respon-


George Eulas Foster: sible for his resident engineers scattered throughout the country. This matter has come to the department, the minister said that he had information with reference to it. What have the minister and the engineer done? It would seem to me that if that state of things exists, as stated by my hon. friend, the resident engineer has some accounting to make. Why, would a gentleman who has a business who has a man in his employ, allow that sort of thing for a minute? Should the minister of a department, or the legislature of a country, who are acting as trustees for the people's money, allow that sort of thing for a moment? Case after case has been brought to light where bridges are really being built where a municipality or village is spared its proper expenses, and benefits by this subterfuge of doing something as a Dominion work. If that sort of thing were done in the vicinity of Kingston, where all men could know it, it would not pass. It is done in out of the way places, and I think the minister has a duty to sit down on that sort of thing. What he ought not to do is to make light of a case like that. It is the indication of a great deal else to make light of it in his department. It is one of the things which shows us on this side of the House that there is a necessity for a thorough investigation, and a reorganization of the system in the Public Works Department. There is too much of this hand in hand work between the representative and the resident engineers in the outside offices. They are continually putting their heads together, not to do justice to the country at large, not to do justice to the minister under whom they are serving and the parliament of which the representative is a member. At least the minister should have stated that he would look into it and see that discipline is carried out. He said that nothing like that should be done in the future. That is an admission that something wrong has been done, but a condemnation m a laughing way here is not enough. The officials at fault ought to be dealt with sternly and taught that they cannot indulge in that sort of thing with impunity.


William Pugsley: This work was done some four or five years ago. It was done under a vote for improvements and dredging in the Saguenay river. Now, I understand that this glance pier was erected in the Saguenay just at the mouth of the du Moulin. When I became minister, the fact was brought to my notice that part of the pier had been used as a foundation for a bridge. I had no evidence, and I do not know that the hon. member for St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) has any, that when the glance pier was placed there, it was built with any intention of being used as the foundation of a bridge. It was

placed there by the department on the report of the engineer that it would serve a useful purpose bv preventing the silt from flowing into the Saguenay, and so rendering the dredging to a certain extent less effective.


George Taylor: Is it up on the shore?


William Pugsley: No, it is right on the Saguenay river just at the mouth of the Du Moulin. My hon. friend says that I turned this off in a laughing way. I have not done anything of the kind. I could not undo what had been done some years before I became minister, but I did what I could. I gave instructions that in the future no wharf shall be erected, if the main purpose is to utilize it as a foundation for a highway bridge. My hon. friend says that I should have disciplined the resident engineer. I suppose he means that I should have discharged him. Well, I did not feel called upon to do that because the resident engineer, in examination before the Public Accounts Committee, pledged his professional reputation that this work was one which might properly be done in connection with the improvements on the Saguenay river. I have done what I could so far as the future is concerned. I have given those instructions, and in several instances I have refused to authorize construction of glance or ice piers in the rivers where I thought they were not required for the improvement of the rivers, but as the foundations of bridges. Where urgent demands have been made I have refused to put any sums in the estimates for that purpose, and the vote we are now asking will be used entirely for dredging and other improvements in the Saguenay river and not for the construction of glance piers or piers of any description.


Mr. PRICE.: I happend to know this locality very well, as I spent a couple of holidays there many years ago, and have many times passed that place. In my opinion those two piers were put there for the purpose of building a bridge. I can see no other reason. To say that a great deal of silt goes out into that river is nonsense.


William Pugsley: Is the hon. gentleman correctly ' informed when he speaks of two piers? My information is that the government only erected one.


Herbert Brown Ames: The government only erected one and the municipality erected another exactly opposite.


William Price: I said two piers. There may be only one erected by the government and the other by the municipality. I do not think the government should have built this pier. As a matter of fact, it is used for a bridge, and I do not think that
this government should build piers of that sort for bridges. That kind of work does not come under our jurisdiction.


Herbert Brown Ames: As my hon. friend who has just spoken has said, he knows the place thoroughly. His company built a construction on that side and there is no silt going down at all. The bottom of the river is bed rock.


William Pugsley: For what purpose did the hon. member's company build a construction on that side?


William Price: When that part of the country was opened up, my people had a mill there, and they built those wharfs for the purpose of shipping.


William Pugsley: Were they removed when this pier was built?


William Price: No, they still remain.


William Pugsley: It is your wharf that was shown on the photograph?


William Price: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: But a piece was cut out of that wharf in order to make room for the pier.


Mr.   J.@: D REID In the building of these wharfs in the province of Quebec there appears to be case after case in which, instead of being used as wharfs, they are practically piers for bridges Where the public money is spent for a wharf and it turns out afterwards to be a bridge, what does the government do with the engineer? Before undertaking this expenditure does not the government send an engineer to report as to whether a wharf is necessary at that particular point, what boats are likely to land there, and what business is likely to be done ?


William Pugsley: When a petition is presented for the construction of a wharf at any place, I send it to the chief engineer with instructions to report as to the necessity of it from a public standpoint and the cost. On receiving that report, the question of asking parliament for an appropriation is considered by the department.


Herbert Brown Ames: The chief engineer is the man the minister asks to get a report?


William Pugsley: Yes, and he sends to the resident engineer?


Mr. J. D. REID.: When it turns out afterwards that the pier, instead of being a wharf, is required to be used as the foundation of a bridge is there any censure of the engineer on whose report the government acted? I have not heard of a case yet where any engineer has been dismissed or suspended for having made a report of that kind. Last session one of the members from an adjoining county, who seemed to

know all about the situation in a particular locality, stated that a wharf had been built there by this government, which turned out subsequently to be simply used as a municipal bridge.


William Pugsley: Which one was that?


John Dowsley Reid: The Disraeli wharf.


William Pugsley: The department has caused careful inquiry to be made about the Disraeli wharf and the information is that there are three steamers and two gasoline vessels on the lake and they use the Disraeli wharf.


John Dowsley Reid: This wharf was built-


William Pugsley: This was not intended to be a wharf. This was a glance pier intended to give another direction to the silt coming down the Du Moulin river.


George Eulas Foster: Before that was built, was a report made by the resident engineer to the chief engineer at Ottawa, giving a plan of the proposed work and estimating the cost, and was it approved by the chief engineer?


William Pugsley: That is a very proper question and I shall have the information looked up and submitted.


George Eulas Foster: I would like the minister to state in a definite manner the details of the whole transaction from beginning to end. I do not want to do any injustice to Mr. Lafleur or the resident engineer, but if the facts are anything like what have been stated some one has made a blunder that ought not to be passed over.


William Pugsley: I shall get the information.


George Taylor: I will send over to the minister a photograph taken from the other shore and he will see that the pier is several feet up on dry land so that his statement cannot be justified that it was for the purpose of turning the channel and preventing the silt coming down.


William Pugsley: If that is a recent photograph it may not give accurate information as to the beneficial results which have followed the erection of that pier because the pier itself might stop the silt in its progress and cause the very accumulation which we see there.


Mr. BLONDIN.: Did the minister get the information which was asked for the other night about Mr. L. P. Girard ?


William Pugsley: Yes, the evening this matter came up in the House I caused a telegram to be sent to Mr. Tache the resident engineer as follows :
Ottawa, 12th March, 1909. To J. C. Tach6, resident engineer, Chicoutimi.
Was Hr. Girard's son, who is now lawyer at Chicoutimi, ever employed at Clark City Mr. J. D. REID.
hy the department? If so, when, for how long, and in what capacity? Was he in sole charge or was there an engineer over him? If an engineer, who? Reply immediately, minister wants information this evening.
(Sgd.) J. B. HUNTER, Deputy Minister.
To that there came a reply from Mr. Tache as follows:
Chicoutimi, March 12, 1909.
J. B. Hunter,
Deputy Minister of Public Works, Ottawa.
Yes, M. Girard was employed at Clark City under Mr. Lamoureux.


J. C. TACHE.
[Stage Direction]
That information was not sufficient because it did not give all the information desired so I had this telegram sent:
Ottawa, 12th March.
To J.   C.@: Tache, resident engineer, Chicoutimi.
Please give all information asked by my telegram. Your message no answer.
(Sgd.) J. B. HUNTER, Deputy Minister.
To that there came this reply:
Chicoutimi, 13th March, 1909.
J. B. Hunter, Ottawa.
L. P. Girard was employed at Clark City in 1904, on the survey of Seven Islands bay, as chain man from 24th of June to 12th Sept., and in 1907, as assistant to engineer in charge from 15th of June to 18th of Sept. Joseph Lamoureux, of Ottawa, was the engineer in charge on both occasions.
(Sgd.) J. C. TACHE.
Then I received a memorandum from Mr. Lamoureux as follows :
March 15, 1909.
Memorandum for the Hon. the Minister.
Mr. Girard worked under me as sub-inspector and general help during the summer of 1907 at Clark City.
During that season the contractors removed part of the old work preparing the beds for new cribs. Two cribs, 100 feet in length each, were built and sunk. Mr. Girard helped me in taking levels, measurements, keeping gauge readings, &c., spending most of his time on the work under my instructions, when I could not be there, and reporting to me what was being done. During that summer I made surveys of Magpie bay, and at Ellis bay, Anticosta island, being away about two weeks at a time at each place. On my return Mr. Girard reported to me as to what was done by the contractors, and every difficulty that arose was adjusted by me.
He helped also in reducing the soundings taken at Magpie bay, and doing general office
work.	___
(Sgd.) JAMES LAMOUREUX.
Assistant Engineer.


George Eulas Foster: 
Herbert Brown Ames: Who is now practising law at Chicoutimi and who was then a law student?	;


William Pugsley: Yes. My hon. friend was right as to that.


John Dowsley Reid: Was Lamoureux working there the whole season?


William Pugsley: Yes, except for about two weeks_when he was working at Magpie bay.	I	i


John Dowsley Reid: This young man was put there and he knew nothing about the work. He was simply a law student and this was a scheme of the government to pay him while he was on his holidays $2.50 a day and expenses, including Sundays. If Mr. Lamoureux required an assistant from June 24th until school opened in September he certainly required an assistant during the whole season or he did not require one at all. I do not know anything about this young man, but on the very face of it it is clear that the government adopted this scheme to pay him $2.50 a day and expenses during the holidays so that he might educate himself during the winter. You see, if he had been put on as chain man he would not get $2.50 a day, for the chain men on the St. Lawrence canals only get from $1.50 to $2.00 a day, and so in order to get $2.50 per day of the peoples' money, Lamoureux deceived the minister by putting him down as inspector.


George Eulas Foster: Lamoureux states that he was sub-inspector, and he was paid as inspector. What has Mr. Lamoureux to say about that? Anyway what about this policy of working in with a member of parliament and making a situation for his boy? Is it not very poor business? The evidence shows that he was simply there to help to do some calculations, and that reported to the inspector would act occasionally as a chain man, and the like of that. Who was the inspector?


William Pugsley: Mr. Lamoureux was the inspector and engineer in charge, and he used this young man as sub-inspector. For a number of years it has been the practice, and I have never heard it complained of, to give employment to students.


George Eulas Foster: The sons of members?


William Pugsley: Although the employment has been largely limited to the students of technical schools, this young man had been under Mr. Lamoureux in 1904, and it may be that he was an intelligent young man, able to do his work well, and could be relied on to keep the accounts and see that the men did their work. He was only paid $2.50 a day, although in some cases we pay inspectors $3 and sometimes $3.50 a day.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister defend that kind of transaction?


William Pugsley: It would depend on the circumstances. If I knew that he was a capable young man, and did his work faithfully, I would defend him. But I do not know whether he was or not. I would assume, from the engineer having employed him, and having certified that he was capable, and that he did useful work, and did it well, that he was worth $2.50 per day. That is not an unreasonable wage, and _ is considerably less than we pay to the inspectors in charge of such work.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the minister aware that all his expenses were charged, so That what he got was $4 a day?


William Pugsley: The expenses which were charged were his travelling expenses to and from the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: And all his board while there.


William Pugsley: The inspectors get thir board too when engaged on such work in remote districts.


John Dowsley Reid: No, no.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it customary to pay a sub-inspector $2.50 a day and his expenses going and returning, and his board during the entire summer?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will bear in mind that this young man was employed by Mr. Lamoureux to act as his assistant, and that he did his work well, as Mr. Lamoureux certified, and I do not think $2.50 a day with board in that remote district would be an unreasonable wage to pay him.


Mr. TALBOT.: Would my hon. friend on the other side (Mr. Ames) allow me to ask him if he is not a little severe in this matter? Mr. Girard is a member of parliament, it is quite true. He is the father oi a very large family and a man of very limited means, and he is giving an expensive education to his son. We know that it is customary to give university students a chance to earn a little money during vacation. It is done in the United States and in every other country in the world. Because Mr. Girard happens to be a member of parliament, and his son, to whom he is giving a university education, is given, a chance to make a few dollars to aid him in pursuing his studies, I do not think it is fair to accuse this poor man who has a large family and is doing the best he can with it.


John Barr: I want to remind my hon. friend that this is not a charitable institution, and the fact that a man happens to have a large family is no reason why it should be supported by the country. '
Some resolutions reported.


George Eulas Foster: What business will the government take up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We intend to proceed in Supply. I understand that notice has been given that to-morrow afternoon is desired for a certain amendment, and that is in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. MARTIN BURRELL.: I beg leave to inform the government that to-morrow afternoon, on the motion of the House to go into Committee of Supply, I propose to introduce an amendment dealing with the question of deferred elections, and I will have the honour to transmit a copy of the amendment to the right hon. Prime Minister to-morrow.
At six o'clock House adjourned.

Thursday, March 18, 1909.