Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

Before the Orders of the day are called, I would like to bring to the attention of the government a telegram which I received late on Friday afternoon. It is as follows :

Fort Frances, Ont., July 16.

R. L. Borden,

Ottawa.

Canadian Northern has daily passenger trains east and west. Spite this, mail for Rainy River valley comes by freight and is practically suspended. People are using American mail, express boats to Rat Portage, and any available means to forward mail out, but have had only one mail in for past seven days. Business is paralyzed, and we can get no relief from Post Office Department. If this is economy, it means at a ruinous cost to a growing and ambitious district. Please help us.

W. J. KEATING, Mayor.

I know nothing of the circumstances, and the only course open to me was to bring this matter to the attention of the government at the earliest possible moment.

With reference to the subject of mail service at Fort Frances, to which the hon. leader of the opposition, has alluded, when this subject was brought to my attention two or three days ago, I applied to the comptroller of the railway mail service for an explanation. He informed me that the service between Winnipeg and Fort Frances was performed by the Canadian Northern Railway, by their regular train service, which at that time was limited to three trains per week. I think the days were Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Without the consent of the department, the railway company decided to discontinue the running of that train service as heretofore regularly to Fort Frances, but to stop at same point west, and intended, in lieu thereof, to put on an express train. The express train as I am informed was not established for a few days after Friday, the last regular day of the local to which I have referred. Accordingly there was a hiatus cused by this change in the running of the train. The moment the matter was called to my attention, instructions were given to utilize all the trains, which is now being done. Of course it is the privilege of the mayor to write as he likes to a member of the House and for an hon. member to read his telegram, but it is quite an unfair way of presenting the case.

Mr, BORDEN (Halifax). I do not know whether my hon. friend intends to charge me with any unfairness.

If my hon. friend had submitted the telegram to me, I could have shown him that the- reasons assigned were without foundation.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

When any communication of this kind comes to me, as a member of the House of Commons, I shall consider myself quite at liberty, if it relates to a public matter, to bring it to the attention of the government and obtain from

the leader of the government or the head of the department concerned, such explanation as he may think necessary to give.

Air. BORDEN (Halifax).

I would like to bring to the attention of the government the fact that the documents which have been printed, purporting to be a return to an address of the House of Commons dated the Ilth -May, 1902, for copies of all Orders in Council and other documents having reier-ence to the granting of provincial autonomy to the North-west Territories, are extremely defective, I had procured a number ut prints of these documents from Regina, and, doing the work of a clerk this morning, 1 compared them with the return which has been brought down, and I found that a very great number of the documents have not been brought down, or at least have not been priuteu. In order to show my right hon. friend how very incomplete is the return as printed, I will read a list of the documents which have not been included in it, some of which are of no great importance, but others of which are of the greatest possible importance for the purpose of an intelligent discussion of this question. I may say that one or two of the documents which I have included in the list, while not directly referring to the question of provincial autonomy, are nevertheless in answer to correspondence which does touch that question as well as the question of better financial terms ; and these, I think, ought to be brought down, because they are part of the consecutive correspondence dealing with these matters. The letters which have been omitted, which I had to take from a number of documents and therefore have uot them arranged in chronological order, are as follows : January 31, 1903, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; February 11, 1903, Mr. Haultaiu to Air. Sifton ; February 9, 1903, Air. Me Gee to Air. Haultaiu ; February 10, 1903, Air. Keys to Air. Haultain ; Alarch 19, 1903, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; March 21, 1903, Air. Sifton to Air. Haultain ; April 15, 1903, Air. Haultaiu to Air. Sifton ; December 17, 1902, Air. A. L. Sifton to Air. Clifford Sifton ; February 5. 1903, Air. Sif-ton to Air. Haultain; February 11, 1903, Air. Haultaiu,to Air. Sifton; February 21, 1903, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; April 1C, 1903, Air. Fielding to All'. Haultain ; April 17, 1903, Air. Haultain to All'. Fielding ; April 20. 1903, Air. Fielding to Air. Haultaiu ; April 20, 1903, Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier to Air. Haultain ; April 20, 1903, Mr. Haultain to Air. Fielding ; April 21, 1903, Lieut.-Gov. Forget of the North-west Territories to the Secretary of State, inclosing an address ; June 2, 1903, Air. Haul-tain to Sir Wilfrid Laurier ; June 6, 1903. Mr. Fielding to Air. Haultain ; June 15. 1903. Air. Haultain to Air, Fielding ; July 25. 1903, Air. Pelletier, acting Under Secretary of

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

State to Lieut.-Gov. Forget; January 30, 1901, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; Alarch

21, 1901, Air. Sifton to Air. Haultain ; Alarch

30, 1901, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; April5, 1901, Mr. Sifton to Air. Haultain ; June4, 1901, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; June5, 1901, Mr. Sifton to Air. Haultain ; August, 11, 1901, Mr. A. L. Sifton to Air. Clifford Sifton ; August 14, 1901, Air. Clifford Sifton to Air. A. L. Sifton ; January 11, 1902, A. L. Sifton to Sir Wilfrid Laurier ; January22, 1902, Sir Wilfrid Laurier to Air. A. L. Sifton ; Alarch 15, 1902, Mr. Haultain to Sir Wilfrid Laurier ; Alarch 18, 1902, Sir Wilfrid Laurier to Air. Haultain ; Alarch 27, 1902, Air. Sifton to Air. Haultain ; April 2, 1902, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; April 29, 1903, Air. Pelletier, acting Under Secretary of State, to Lieut.-Gov. Forget. I thought it would be desirable to read this long list in order to indicate to my right hon. friend how very defective is the return which has been brought down and printed. I recollect that at the time the papers were first brought down, the right hon. gentleman mentioned to the House that there would be some other papers. Possibly these have not yet been prepared ; but might X be permitted to suggest that, in bringing down correspondence of this kind, it would greatly diminish the labour of members who desire to deal with important subjects of this character, if the documents could be printed in chronological order, begiuuing with the documents, of an earlier date. That has not been done in this case, and if we have another return printed, with the documents that I have mentioned, I am afraid that the matter will be in rather a confused condition. Possibly it would be advisable to nave these documents arranged in chronological order, if it would not take too long, and printed, so as to have them in an intelligible form before the House. The correspondence is quite voluminous, and it will be difficult to gather its bearings unless we have it in that form.

I think that some part of the difficulty arises from the fact ;aat my hon. friend's remarks dealt with two subjects, which probably the officials who prepared the return did not associate together, although they do in some respects touch each other. Aly hon. friend's remarks had relation to the question of provincial autonomy, and he has mentioned some correspondence which took place between Air. Haultain and myself which has not been brought down. I had no correspondence whatever with Air. Haultain on the question of provincial autonomy. I did have correspondence with him with respect to the grants to the North-west Territories, and I quite admit that the two questions touch each other, though they are distinct from each other, and I think that may be the explanation of the absence o? these documents.

Mr. BURDEN (Halifax).

That explains two or three of these documents, but not all. Two or three communications, principally telegrams, passed between Mr. Haultain and the Minister of Finance. I referred to those in mentioning that some of the documents contained no reference to provincial autonomy. But there are a great many other documents not brought down which refer to provincial autonomy, although they may refer principally to better terms. Some of those omitted relate entirely to the question of provincial autonomy.

When I brought down this return I stated that something more would have to come. I note that some correspondence subsequent to the date of my bon. friend's motion is not included, but I will have this brought down. Would my hon. friend be kind enough to let me have the list he has just read ?

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I am afraid that it is not legible to any one but myself, but I will have a copy made.

It will be in ' Hansard,' and can be got there.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior the fact that he promised to bring down a return which had been moved for by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche). I do not know whether it has been brought down or not, but I have not seen it. When we were proceeding with the estimates a few days ago, the hon. gentleman said that it would be brought down the next day or the day following. He said also that he would bring down certain information with regard to the lands still obtainable in the organized territories for homestead entries.

I gave instructions to have the return referred to by the hon. gentleman brought down and expected to have it this morning. It is. however, being attended to. As to the lands, I gave a statement, but my hon. friend was not here at the time. You will find it in ' Hansard.'

Mr. LANCASTER.

I desire to call the attention of the hon. the Minister of Marine to a return ordered the 1st of June for correspondence with regard to fishing rights in James Bay. When may we expect this return ?

It must be in the hands of the Secretary of State, because I sent him the papers a long time ago.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I understand, then, that in this section, as it was at first the provision was general, but the Senate has limited it to the point referred to in section 7. Section 8 is a companion section to section 7. and, if it is restricted, you should refer to both these sections.