1. The Department of the Interior complained of eight illustrations at the end of part 6. The two least satisfactory were cancelled and done over again. The King's Printer pointed out at the time that the original photographs, which were supplied by the Department of the Interior, were done by an unsuitable process, and better results could not he expected from them.

2. No, the half tone plates were not made at the Government Printing Bureau.

Of the illustrations which appeared, six were done in the Federal Press office, Ottawa, and the two others were done by the Grip Company, of Toronto. For the six $8.50 each, and for the two $12.50 each was paid.

1. Has an investigation been made in regard to the accumulation of postal matter in the Montreal post office ?

2. By whom was said investigation made ?

3. What is the result of said investigation ?

4. Did the person charged with said investigation hear any of the employees upon whom devolves the duty of handling said mail matter?

If it is intended by this Question to suggest that there has been any accumulation of general postal matter in the Montreal post office, such a suggestion is without foundation. The history of the post office shows that at leading city post offices, on exceptional occasions, large quantities of printed, circular and other advertising matter, at times amounting to tons in weight, are at the same moment delivered at the post office for distribution, but such matter is not allowed to interfere with the regular despatch of ordinary regular mail matter. One such instance occurred at Montreal a few weeks ago, owing to the unexpected arrival at that point of a considerable quantity of American circulars, advertisements and sample newspapers, and was in due course disposed of without any interruption whatever to the despatch of the regular business of the office.

No formal investigation was called for or held. It happened that a certain newspaper in Montreal charged the department with delay in the transmission of mail matter, and the Chief Post Office Superintendent, being in Montreal at the time, looked into the matter and informed himself by inquiry of the proper officers as to what foundation there was for the charge, and he found the facts to be as above stated.

1. Is the government aware that bags of newspapers, circulars and catalogues have remained for weeks, and even months, la the Montreal post office, owing to the insufficient number of employees in said office ?

2. Have Montreal post office employees been obliged frequently to work overtime, in order to dispose of such accumulated mail matter ?

3. Have said employees. been paid for such extra work ?

4. Has the Minister of Labour any knowledge of the above facts ?

1. No.

2. No, only occasionally to meet emergencies.

3. No. [DOT]

4. The Minister of Labour is not aware that any employee at Montreal is either overworked or underpaid.

1. No.

2. The amount of the fine levied upon any employee, if deducted from his salary, would remain in the treasury.

3. No.

4. The state of affairs above suggested

appears to be entirely imaginary. .

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

It seems to me that in the latter part of the section there is some confusion of language. You say that:

Every document purporting to he signed by the chief commissioner and secretary, or by either of them, shall be prima facie evidence in all courts.

I think that is all right.

It would be better phraseology to say ' any document certified by the commissioner or secretary, or either, to be a copy shall have the same force and effect as the original.' However, if the minister is satisfied with It I have no objection.

On section 29,

The company shall, as soon as possible after the receipt by it, or service upon it, of any regulation, order, direction, decision, notice, report or other document of the hoard, or the minister, or the Inspecting engineer, give cognizance thereof to each of its officers and servants performing duties which are or may be affected thereby, by delivering a copy to him or by posting up a copy thereof in some place where his work or his duties, or some of them, are to be performed. 51 V., c. 29, s. 25, Am.

Mr. LANCASTER.

I would suggest to the hon. minister that the words in the section, after the word ' thereby ' be struck out, and some words like these inserted : ' And shall see that such regulation, order, &c., Is properly carried out.' You are limiting the company to a certain way of delivering the document, and I think it would be move practicable to leave it to the company themselves to decide the best way of reaching their servants or employees, so long as they carried it out. I submit thatjfor the consideration of the minister.

There were a number of suggestions made by some Ontario organizations, -boards of trade or town councils-and this may be one of them. Some of these sug-

gestions, it was not thought well, ou consideration, to adopt, because they were framed without a knowledge of the scheme of the Bill as a whole. On a superficial glance, they might seem to he all right, while if adopted they would dislocate some parts of the Bill. We have ample provisions in the Bill that the company shall do their duty, and defining what their duty is, so that it is not necessary to say in this clause that they shall perform their duty.

On section 35,

Any decision or order made by the board under this Act may be made an order of the Exchequer Court, or a rule, order or decree of any Superior Court of any province of Canada, and shall be enforced in like maner as any rule, order or decree or order of such court.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

You make this new board of commissioners a board of record ?

Yes.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

What, then, is the necessity of making any decision or order of the board an order of the Exchequer or Superior Court ?

One very cogent reason is that it might be necessary to enforce it by some executive officer or some machinery of the court.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Would this have the effect of giving the court jurisdiction over the matter or a right to hear an appeal ?

No.

On section 35, subsection 2,

Where an order or decision of the board has been made a rule, order or decree of any court, any order or decision of the board rescinding or changing the same shall be deemed to cancel the rule, order or decree of such court, and may in like manner, be made a rule, order or decree of court.