Mr. FISHER.

I should take it that the report would cover the fiscal year, that it would be presented to the government like any other departmental report and _ would be laid on the table in accordance with the Act. As no report can be made to parliament this session it would be presented at the next session of parliament.

Mr. FOSTER.

Perhaps the Prime Minister would look into the matter.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I have already looked into the matter. The other day, when my hon. friend inquired for the report of the Civil Service Commissioners^ I sent over at once and asked the commissioners to come to my office, which they did. When informed of the request of my hon. friend they did not anticipate that they were called upon to make a report. I cannot express any opinion on the matter but I asked Mr. Shortt, and Mr. Larochelle whether, according to their interpretation, of the Act they were bound to put such a report on the table this session.

POST OFFICE RETURNS-RE-APPOINTMENTS, &c.

Mr. FOSTER.

May I ask the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) to call the attention of the Post Office Department to the fact that they have sent in an incomplete report in answer to an order. The Post Office Department must be bigger than to have made only twelve appointments, no promotions, and only one transfer.

Mr. LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).

During the year?

Mr. FOSTER.

Yes, according to the report.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

I will inquire into it.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

We have generally referred these Bills to special committees and have accepted their reports. The suggestion made by the hon. gentleman may be very proper, and I have no desire to combat it at the moment, but I have no doubt all this will be looked into by the committee before the Bill is allowed to pass.

Mr. SPROULE.

I was on that committee for a considerable time, and I remmber that the committee paid little attention to these Bills because it was contended that when such a Bill got a second reading the principle was adopted and that all that remained for the committee was to consider the clauses.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

That is undoubtedly true with regard to a public Bill, but it is certainly not so in the case of a private Bill. The first question put on a private Bill is whether the preamble shall pass, and that is the first thing the committee has to deal with.

Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

Explain.

Mr. TURRIFF.

This is a Bill to confirm an agreement made between the Ontario government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and contained in chapter 18 of the Ontario statutes of 1904. Section 21 of that Act provides that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company shall come before this parliament and get an Act to confirm the agreement. This Bill is introduced at the request of the Ontario government and to carry out that arrangement. It applies particularly to sections 3 and 22 of the Ontario Act.

Mr. JOHN HAGGART.

What is section 3?

Mr. TURRIFF.

It is as follows:

1. In addition to the provisions of the Railway Act with respect to tolls, to be taken or levied by the said companies it is hereby enacted that there shall be no secret special rates, rebates, drawbacks or concessions to favoured shippers nor any act or thing that will affect or prevent free competition in any line or lines of trade.

2. Each of the said companies shall be obliged, upon the request of any township or county, municipality through which the line of railway passes, to carry road making material, gravel or stone, required for improving any of the road within any such municipality, at the cost of handling and carriage.

Section 22 provides that in the event of the Dominion government taking over the road, the subsidy given by the Ontario government shall be returned to them by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. These two clauses are being confirmed in the Bill which I am now asking to be read the second time.