1908-06-30

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 195) to incorporate the Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company.-Mr. Brown.
Bill (No. 196) for the relief of Arthur James Townsend.-Mr. Copp.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Graham, for the third reading of Bill (No. 118) to amend the Railway Act with respect to telegraphs and telephones, and the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Northrup thereto.
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the motion for the tfiird reading of this Bill was adjourned two weeks ago with the statement by the hon. gentleman who has moved the amendment (Mr. Northrup) that, in his view, it would be desirable that I Should make some further remarks in reference to the scope of the legislation proposed by the Bill and the amendment. I had already, when this Bill was in committee two weeks ago to-day, expressed the views I entertained of the proposition which the hon. gentleman had made, but he thought he had not apprehended correctly the circumstances of the particular case in which he is interested, and that I was not appreciating the importance of the amendment he was proposing as applied to the circumstances of that case. I was speaking at that time with nothing to rely upon but my memory of what the hon. gentleman had said with reference to this matter early in February last, but since then I have taken occasion to read again, and to read with care, the observations which the hon. member for East Hastings made on the 10th February last in reference to this matter, and after having read again these remarks of my hon. friend, I am quite unable to understand in what respect it is that my hon. friend thinks my memory was at fault, or that I failed to appreciate the point he was endeavouring to make with regard to the particular company in which he has interest and the subsidy paid to it. I have substantially nothing to add to the remarks I made in committee with reference to this matter two weeks ago, certainly nothing of value. The matter presented by my hon. friend seems to me today exactly as it seemed to me then-a proposition to apply to the facts of a particular case, not a remedy so much as the creating of a new right of action. The proposition made by my hon. friend in this amendment is not limited to the special ease in hand, but is simply a proposition that in every case in which any railway company has taken over the line of another railway company, although there has been at the time of such taking over no charge or encumbrance whatever upon the line so taken over, the company which does so take over the line would be liable to make good any obligations which might rest upon

the other company In the way of operating the line so taken over. That would manifestly be to create a new right of action, a new claim, new obligations upon the company which so takes over the line of a company which is under an obligation of some character as to the operating of that line. It is not any mere new remedy that my hon. friend is proposing, but something of a much more radical character.
In that view it seems to me the proposition is one that ought not to commend itself to the House. The clause under consideration is a clause not giving any new cause of action to any person but simply giving a new remedy by application to the Board of Railway Commissioners. If any railway company has entered into an obligation and made a breach of that obligation it is liable to be pursued in au action for the recovery of damages. That liability to an action for payment of the damages caused by its breach of obligation is not touched in any way by the legislation now under consideration. That is a liability in the ordinary courts of the country and that liability will remain exactly as it has existed ever since courts were established, without reference to whether or not the clause in the Bill now under consideration becomes law. If the clause is passed it will afford a new remedy for such a breach of obligation. The person who suffers by reason of that breach of obligation, will not as at present be restricted to a suit to recover damages, but he may resort to the Board of Railway Commissioners under the provision in question and ask that the contract which he complains has been broken should be specifically performed by the company on which the obligation to perform it rests. That I take it is substantially the full scope of the legislation which is proposed by the Minister of Railways. It Is simply applying a new remedy for breaches of contract on the part of companies under some obligation to do some certain thing. To that, my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr! Northrop) wants to add what I have described as something which is to create an entirely new sort of obligation and to impose that obligation not upon the company which has undertaken it, but upon some other company to which the undertaking company has transferred its property. To my mind that would be an altogether dangerous and inadvisable thing to do. In the remarks made by my hon. friend (Mr. Northrop) when this clause was last under consideration on the 17th instant, he seemed to put his case upon what to my mind was a new ground; a ground which if he had indicated previously he had at all events not at ail emphasized or made the strong point In his case; the ground, namely: That in this instance the money paid by way of subsidy had been fraudulently obtained.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: '
He puts it very strongly and very distinctly as a case in which according to his view:
The Grand Trunk Railway Company have fraudulently, and I use the word advisedly, obtained $21,000 of the money of the people of this country.
He proceeds to say that so long as the Minister of Railways and the Prime Minister have not plainly refused to take steps to recover the money of this country ' thus obtained by fraud ' they may possibly be said to be free from blame. He says : This wrong ought to be righted, and he con-eludes his remarks by saying:
I think that if the Grand Trunk obtained money under the circumstances the government is entitled to get it back.
So that he puts the matter before the House as one in which the money of the government had been paid to the Grand Trunk Railway Company under some fraudulent representation of that company and therefore that the company ought to be compelled to pay it back. If my hon. friend rests the particular case in which he is interested upon this ground, it is surely manifest that he does not need the amendment which he proposes. Such a claim resting not upon breach of contract but upon deceit or fraud would be an ordinary money claim which could be pursued in the ordinary courts of the country and which would result if successful in simply a judgment for the payment of a certain amount of money. Such a judgment the courts are in a position to pronounce without the proposed legislation, and the proposed legislation of my hon. friend the minister does not interfere with or touch in any way the right of the courts to adjudicate upon any such claims that may be brought before them. My hon. friend (Mr. Northrop) needs nothing more in that regard, and it seems to me it would be entirely a breach of the analogy which up to this point has always obtained with regard to the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, if we were to impose upon them any obligation to inquire into a cause of action of that character. The Board of Railway Commissioners at the present time deals not with actions for wrongs but with actions or claims for breaches of contract. If an accident takes place upon a railway and a claim arises by reason of the negligence of the company or of its servants, that claim is not pursued before the Board of Railway Commissioners, but before the ordinary tribunals of the land; and so exactly, if this claim rests, as my hon. friend now puts it, upon what he calls the fraud of the Grand Trunk Railway Company it is one which ought not to be followed, as I submit, before the Board of Railway Commissioners, but in the ordinary courts. How-

ever, the facts of this particular case as detailed to the House by my hon. friend in February last seem at once to demonstrate that the claim which is being urged on the part of the hon. gentleman does not have the character which he now represents. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the salient facts of the case as then presented by my bon. friend. The Belleville and North Hastings Kailway Company lost its identity in the year 1882 on being absorbed by the Grand Junction Railway Company and with other companies amalgamated into a company called the Midland Railway of Canada. That amalgamation was carried out by a public Act of the Ontario legislature. It was upon the statute-books of the province as well as being a matter of no inconsiderable notoriety especially in the locality where this Belleville and North Hastings Railway line was built. Three years later, and only three, in the year 1885 this parliament granted a subsidy to that line. Now, at that time the constituency of North Hastings in which this line to which the subsidy was granted was built, was represented in this House of Commons by a distinguished gentleman who was a member of the cabinet of that day and who must have been perfectly conversant with the circumstance that only three years before the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company had been by Act of the Ontario legislature amalgamated with and made'to form part of the Midland Railway. And notwithstanding that public knowledge in regard to it, it is incredible that the parliament of Canada in 1885 was entirely ignorant when it did see fit to grant this subsidy to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway.
That was repeated in 1880 by an additional subsidy grant, and nothing is said in either of those subsidy Acts about operating the line. In each the subsidy is to be paid upon the construction of the line. The construction of the line is that which was to earn the subsidy. It is not disputed that the line was completely constructed, and the complaint to-day is simply that since then it has ceased to be operated. What took place ? These subsidy Acts having been passed in 1885 and 1886, making the subsidy payable to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway, application was made for the payment in 1887. While the matter was still fresh in memory, while the same hon. gentleman I have alluded to (Sir Mackenzie Bowell) was still representing North Hastings, that application was made, not secretly or deceitfully, but openly, by Mr. William Wainwright, a gentleman well known as an official connected with the Grand Trunk Railway. He made the application in October, 1887 for payment of this subsidy pursuant to the Act of parliament. A subsidy contract followed, prepared no doubt by the Department of Railways and Canals, and containing the contract by the government to pay the amount
of that subsidy to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company. The subsidy contract followed the subsidy Act, as no doubt was necessary, but it was an obligation by the Crown, as represented by the government of that day, to pay this money voted by parliament to a company which my hon. friend complains had five years previously gone out of existence. Whether it had gone out of existence technically speaking or not, its identity had been merged into that of the Midland Railway of Canada, a company perfectly well known to the law and to every business man in the community at that time; and when we have, as we have in this case, a contract made in 1887 to pay to a company, which five years before had been merged by Act of parliament in the Midland Railway,
I am not able to understand upon what ground my hon. friend contends today, twenty years afterwards, that this money was obtained by some manner of deceit or fraud. The money having been applied for and having been reported by the officials of the Railway Department as having been earned, and a certificate having been given by the chief engineer of the government that the road was in good running condition and that its rolling stock had been provided by the Grand Trunk Railway, an order in council for the payment of the money was passed in 1878; and in January, 1889, $21,888 was paid by cheque issued to the order of the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company. That was no doubt the only payee which, according to the statutes granting the subsidy and according to the contract for payment of that subsidy, was entitled to receive this subsidy money. The cheque was isued payable to the order of the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company. It was endorsed by the officials of that company over to the Grand Trunk Railway, it is true, but the legal effect is not different in any respect from that which would have followed if this money had been taken by the officials of the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company out of the Bank in cash and then handed over to the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway or deposited to the credit of that company, in its bank. My view is that the money having been made payable to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company and the cheque having been endorsed by the officials of that company, the payment was legally made to that company. What that company did with the money, after it received it, is something with which this government or parliament has no concern. If there was any wrong, that wrong ^Was when, with knowledge of the facts-which it must be presumed this parliament had in 1885-this parliament passed its statute making this subsidy payable, not upon the operation of the road at all, but upon the

construction of the line, and made that money payable in terms to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company, although that company had ceased to exist some three years before. In these circumstances it seems to me, upon the best consideration I have been able to give the matter, that no claim for the repayment of the money exists ; and what my hon. friend seeks by his amendment is to create a right of action which would not otherwise exist, and to place that right of action, not in the courts of the land, but in the Board of Railway Commissioners, notwithstanding the fact that up to the present the jurisdiction exercised by that board does not apply to claims of that character but only to claims of breach of contract. In these circumstances, I must oppose the proposition of my hon. friend to amend the Bill in the manner he suggests.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: In saying that I support the amendment of the hon. gentleman from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), I must declare at the outset that it goes a great deal further than one would imagine from the speech we have just heard. One would apprehend, listening to the Minister of Justice, that the amendment was entirely aimed at the one particular, isolated case which the Minister of Justice has so ably defended on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway. At the outset I must remark that the amendment of my hon. friend from East Hastings is a proper amendment because it does not particularize between the kind of matters where wrong is done by a railway company either against the Crown or a municipality or other corporation, regarding which the section of the Bill it is proposed to amend does particularize. I wish to say a word in regard to the effect of the two different sections-the one of the Minister of Railways as compared with the one sought to be substituted for it by the hon. member for East Hastings. Whether the amendment does or does not reach the isolated case discussed by the Minister of Justice, it certainly does reach a class of cases in which this parliament should take care to protect the interests of the people. The amendments are rather long, as they have to be, to cover the matter sought to be dealt with ; but if one will look at subsection 8 of the Bill brought in by the minister and at 26a in part 2 of the same Bill which my hon. friend from East Hastings is seeking to amend, one will see at once that while both parties realize the necessity of protecting the people in regard to these matters by allowing a specific performance to be sued for before the Railway Commission,for some unaccountable reason the section, as drawn by the minister, deals with a very few of that class of cases and absolutely excludes by its particularizing the majority of cases which the commission ought to deal with, Mr. AYLESWORTH.
if we are to recognize its right to deal with such cases at all.
The amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) commends itself to me because It does not distinguish between classes of grievances, and once you recognize that there should be specific performance in regard to any contracts made by the people with railways I say it is not right that we should particularize in the extraordinary and particular way we would if we accepted the section as proposed by the Minister of Railways. What it says is that matters of construction, alteration, installation, operation, use or maintenance by the company or by such municipal or other corporation or person can be dealt with, but they must all relate to any structure, appliance, works, renewals or repairs. Thus if there is a matter which does not relate to these particular things it is not dealt with by the Bill. One would think to hear the Minister of Railways that the word ' operation ' covered all sorts of operations, and that any matter, such as tolls, rates and fares would come under that as a question of operation. If it was sought to draw a Bill which would cause the people to think they were getting a chance to have their grievances remedied by specific performance by means of the Railway Commission, and at the same time give them almost nothing, it is skilfully drawn, but if it is intended to afford a specific remedy and to enable the people to secure redress of grievances, we must have the amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). All questions of operation are dealt with by this amendment. The minister the other day said he was afraid of loading the commission up with too much work. That might be an objection to both amendments, but if it is his objection to the amendment of Mr. Northrup, he ought to withdraw his own amendment, because by it he is placing a certain class of contracts before the commission for decision. The only difference between the two in this respect would be that the amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) would give the commission more work as it covers all cases. The Minister of Railways said that my hon. friend's amendment by its wording was limited to special cases and was not general enough. The amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings is to cover al! cases of breach of contract to which full justice cannot be done-by an action for damages or in which an action for damage, for some reason, would not be a proper remedy. It would apply in all cases, and, therefore, it is the general amendment, and that of the Minister of Railways is a specific one relating only to certain isolated cases of a limited character.
As I understood the Minister of Justice he said that because the government of

that day was imposed upon and paid money it ought not to have paid, therefore the person wrongfully receiving the money should be entitled to get away with it. That is a proposition which no court would hold as between two subjects of the Crown, and I am astonished to hear the Minister of Justice say it is a good answer as against the government. If the government of that day were imposed upon by anybody, as the Minister of Justice tacitly admits, surely that is no reason that the succeeding government, knowing that its predecessor had been imposed upon and that there is at least a suspicion of fraud, should refuse to allow this matter to go before the Railway Commission for investi-agtion. What harm in the world could that do ? One would think from the argument of the Minister of Justice that the amendment of the hon. member for Bast Hastings (Mr. Northrup) amounted to a decision that this money must be paid back by the Grand Trunk. It looks to me as if it should, but that is not the amendment. The amendment is that the matter should be investigated, and why does the Minister of Justice, of all people, not want an investigation in regard to money which it is alleged was wrongfully or fraudulently obtained from the government by some officers of the Grand Trunk Railway Company ?
The amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) in so far as it mav affect that case does not go further than to authorize this Railway Commission to investigate, and, if they come to the conclusion that something is necessary to be done-if, for instance, instead of giving damages, as said by the Minister of Justice, to order specific performance more or less of some other terms of the contract-they could provide a remedy for the grievance of the people of that county. But the fact is clear, from the speech of the Minister of Justice himself, that $21,000 was wrongly obtained, and I cannot hear the Minister of Justice say that, without raising my protest against leaving that grievance without a remedy. For, as I have said, we are not asked to decide that this money shall be paid back, but, we are asked to vote for an amendment which will have the effect of allowing the Railway Commission, as a coroner's jury would do, to investigate the circumstances, find out what is the trouble and make any report they please. It is probable that, after investigation, in view of the statements made before the House, it would be found to be the government's duty to bring action against the Grand Trunk Railway to return the money. The hon. member for East Hastings has not the ear of the Governor General at present. He may have in a month or two. But, as it is, he has to appeal to this government. All that the amendment will accomplish is to provide for a full investigation and the making of a report upon which, probably,
some action could be taken. For these reasons, I have no hesitation in voting for the amendment of the' hon. member for East Hastings.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: With the consent of the House, as I moved the amendment, I wish to speak a few words in reply.


Mr. SPEAKER.: It can only be by consent of the House. This is an amendment, and there is no right of reply.


William Barton Northrup: The minister does not object, and I take it that I have the consent of the House. I would call attention to the exact position in which this amendment stands. In a railway Bill brought down by the government is a clause providing that, under certain circumstances, the Crown or a municipality, can apply to the Board of Railway Commissioners in order to have enforced certain agreements, which agreements, however, are confined entirely to those affecting minor matters of detail in connection with the management or operation oif the road. By the amendment which I have moved, the right of the Crown and of municipalities is precisely the same as that given by the original clause, except that it goes one step further and allows these applications to be made touching the important question of the operation of the road. The amendment is exactly along the line of the government clause, except that, whereas they are-to use their own expression-loading up the commission with many minor matters of trivial import, the amendment would allow the commissioners to deal with so important a matter as an agreement for the actual operation of the road. In one other respect, and in one only, does the amendment go beyond the clause of the Minister of Railways. The clause of the Minister of Railways is confined to cases which arise between municipalities or the Crown on one side and the road which obtains the assistance for operating the railway ; the amendment proposed by me goes a step further and provides that, in case an agreement of the kind above referred to is made with a railway, and subsequently that railway parts with its property, inasmuch as the Crown or municipality is helpless in the way of obtaining relief from the road which received that assistance, then the railway which has acquired the property shall be made liable for the contract of its predecessor, and that, under these circumstances, in order that justice may be done, the Crown or the municipality may apply to the Railway Board, which board shall have power to make such order as seems just to them. So that the amendment, instead of creating a new obligation, as the Minister of Justice says, merely creates a new mode of procedure in allowing the application to be made to the Board of Railway Commissioners and allowing that board to do justice in the case. It happens that,

in showing the necessity of this amendment, I gave a case in point, a case to which this amendment would apply, but given only as an illustration to show the necessity of some amendment of the law. It is admitted by the government that the law is defective, and that, in one case at least, injustice has been done. But member after member has stood up to show that in their constituencies similar grievances have arisen. Therefore, when the Minister of Justice, in his answer, confines himself to stating that, in the particular case which I gave as an illustration, it is not necessary or proper that further relief should be given, he entirely ignores the fact that the clause does not relate specifically to one case in the county of Hastings, but is a general clause to give the board power to deal with questions, not merely of trivial contracts, but of one of the most important agreements to operate the road, and to give them power to compel a railway which has acquired the property of a predecessor and enjoys the benefit of the subsidy of a municipality to do what is right and proper in the circumstances in which they are placed. I was surprised that the Minister of Justice, speaking of the case I refered to particularly should base his case on the statement that if the Belleville and North Hastings road had itself been in existence, and had itself complied with the terms of the contract, and had Itself been paid the money, and had itself handed over the money to the Grand Trunk, the circumstances would be the same as at the present time. I cannot believe that the Minister of Justice realy believes that. Let me give him an exactly parallel case: If, when his next monthly cheque as minister of the Crown, becomes due, I should be able to obtain possession of it, and, by endorsing bis name on the back, secure payment, in case I were charged with fraud or forgery, all I would have to show, according to the opinion he has expressed, to acquit himself of that charge-though I had signed his name to the cheque, would be to show that he was so good-natured that, had I gone to him and told him my needs, he would himself have cashed the cheque and handed the proceeds to me. The cases are precisely the same. Admitting that a road not in existence had its name on the cheque, admitting that another road acquired that cheque, admitting that the cheque could not have been paid had not a contract been made with the government under which some railway agreed to carry out the terms of a contract made with a municipality, admitting that another company obtained the money, then if ever there was a case into which the government should be empowered to inquire I submit that this is that case. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House longer in discussing the question. I wish to be clear in placing on record two facts. The Minister of Justice was entirely Mr. NORTHRUP.
in error, when a few moments ago, he intimated that in my remarks on this amendment on the 16th of June I suggested a new point when I spoke of the contract with the Grand Trunk Railway and the circumstances under which that company obtained this money.
I am not allowed to refer to a previous debate, but if the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways will consult ' Hansard,' pages 2899 and 2908, neither, I am sure, will thereafter suggest that any new point was raised by me on the 16th of June; for, from the beginning to end, my contention has always been that the pivotal point in this case, so far as North Hastings is concerned, is the fact that moneys were obtained by fraud, the government allowed a railway to obtain public money by fraud, and refused to take the first step to secure a return of that money, which was improperly received and is improperly retained. One other point. I trust that when the government vote down, as I presume from the utterance of the Minister of Justice they propose to vote down, this amendment, and when they vote it down, as we are justified in inferring from the speech of the Minister of Justice, because they are determined that the Grand Trunk shall not be asked under this clause to pay back the money which the Minister of Justice himself cannot say they obtained properly, I trust the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Rail-ways will still be able to find a means of carrying out that object which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways so much desire, that in some way or other the Grand Trunk Railway shall be made to operate the road for which they obtained a subsidy of $21,000, or to pay back that subsidy.
'House divided on amendment (Mr. North-rup).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Alcorn,
Barker,
Barr,
Bennett,
Blain,
Borden (Carleton), Boyce,
Brabazon,
Bristol,
Chisholm (Huron), Christie,
Clements,
Crocket,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes (Victoria), Lake,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Leonard,
MacLaren,
Maclean (York, S.), McCarthy (Calgary), Monk,
Northrop
Reid (Grenville), Roche (Marquette), Schafiner,
Sproule,
Staples,
Taylor,
Walsh (Huntingdon), White.
Wilson (Lennox & Addington),
Wright (Muskoka)-36.

NAYS:
Messieurs
Archambault,
Aylesworth,
Biokerdike,
Black,
Bourbonnais,
Boyer,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Calvert,
Carney,
Caron,
Chisholm
(Antigonish),
Clarke,
Copp,
Delisle,
Demers,
Desjardins,
Dubeau,
Dugas,
Feilding,
Finlay,
Finlayson,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Geoftrion,
Graham.
Grant,
Hunt,
Kennedy,
Lachance,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Lovell,
Macpherson,
McColl,
McCool,
McIntyre (Perth), McKenzie,
McLean (York, C.), McLennan,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Martin (Montreal,
St. Mary's),
Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Miller,
Paterson,
Parent,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigouche), Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Cape Breton), Ross (Rimouski), Savoie,
Schell (Glengarry), Schell (Oxford), Sifton,
Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Oxford), Stewart,
Templeman,
Tolmie,
Turcotte,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Walsh (Montreal,
St. Anne),
Watson,
Wright (Renfrew), Zimmerman.-77.
PAIRS:
Loggie,	Cockshutt,
Beland,	Armstrong,
Maclean (Lunenburg), Smith (Wentworth),
McCraney,
Pardee,
Bureau,
Oliver.
Ross (Yale-Cariboo), Ratz,
Sinclair,
Sloan,
Telford.
Tobin,
Turriff,
Lavergne.
Marshall,
Lalor,
Forget,
Macdonell,
Ames,
Perley,
Beattie,
Jackson (Elgin), Paquet,
Lewis,
Thompson,
Stanfield.
Amendment (Mr. Northrup) negatived.


Mr. TAYLOR.: My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) and my bon. friend from Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. Lefurgey) have not voted.


Mr. BERGERON.: I am paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I am paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan); otherwise I would have supported the amendment.
On the order for the third reading of the Bill :
(Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I beg to move in amendment to the motion the following:
That the said Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of inserting the following:
Section 331 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
4.	The tolls of any standard passenger tariff shall not exceed two cents per mile.
Messieurs
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Parmelee,	Worthington,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
Green way,	Tisdale,
Talbot,	Bergeron,
Burrows,	Wilmot,
Borden	Haggart,
(Sir Frederick), Caldwell,	Seagram,
Cash,	Kemp,
Dyment,	Osier,
Conmee,	Porter,
Crawford,	Ward,
Devlin,	Daniel,
German,	Fowler, .
Emmerson,	Elson,
Gervais.	Avery,
Carvell,	Ganong,
Ethier,	Morin,
Guthrie,	Broder,
Greenway,	Foster.
Macdonald (Pictou),	McLean (Queens, P.
Hall,	Martin (Queens, P.i
Harty,	Pringle,
Johnston,	Clare,


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Does not this amendment refer to another matter that is upon the Order Paper and is not the effect to transfer that order from its place to this? If so, it would be out of order.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: I have moved the same amendment in previous sessions under the same circumstances.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not recall any such precedent. I think if there were any such precedent it would not be a proper one to follow. The authority is very clear that members cannot anticipate a motion which is already on the paper by transferring it, by way of a motion to amend or otherwise to another place. That is exactly the effect of this. I think that is a plain violation of the practice.


William Findlay Maclean: The opportunity for discussing public Bills introduced by private members has elapsed, on former occasions the practice that I propose to follow to-day has been observed, and I think the House in all fairness ought to allow this

subject to be discussed in the way I propose.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Of course, the House is at liberty to do anything it sees fit to do. My duty is to call the attention of the House, as I now do, to the fact that, under the rule, I do not consider this a proper amendment. The effect of it Is plainly to transfer a similar motion from its place and introduce it herewith is irregular and out of order.


William Findlay Maclean: If you will permit me again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to facilitate the business of the House. I can discuss this on going into Supply. First of all I will have to give notice


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think not. That would again be doing the same thing.


William Findlay Maclean: If you will pardon me-I would ask for the discharge of the other order on the paper, and if the House wishes to lose that time I will have to make a motion to that effect. I think it will facilitate the situation to allow the debate to go on now.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Unless the House directs otherwise I will have to rule it out of order. The question is now on the third reading of the Bill.


Mr. MONK.: I wish to move an amendment to section 22. Section 22 provides that there shall be a secretary who shall reside in the city of Ottawa. I move to amend this section by adding the following:
If the secretary appointed is not thoroughly versed in the French and English languages, the Governor in Council shall appoint a joint secretary having a thorough knowledge of the language in which the secretary appointed is deficient; the said joint secretary shall hold office during pleasure and reside in the city of Ottawa. The duties of the said joint secretary shall he determined by the board according to section 23 of this Act.
I do not wish to detain the House, but I wish merely to call the attention of the government to the fact that I have frequently raised this question since the con stitution of this board. My representations with regard to the matter have been considered by members of the government as reasonable, and 1 have been promised that they would receive consideration, but since the board has been constituted they have not had that consideration which I think they are entitled to. Let me remind the House that this tribunal is one of original jurisdiction, that it is informal in its nature and in the character of its proceedings, and it does not require the employment of lawyers. Its jurisdiction extends over the whole province of Quebec, and it is absolutely necessary that the secretary of the board should be able to correspond Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
in the French language. Let the House for a single moment consider the position in which the board is to-day with regard to the curing of certain grievances. The jurisdiction is of a very varied character. A man may require a siding or a crossing, he enters upon correspondence with the board and he can do so without having recourse to any third party. But he finds out that the secretary does not understand the language and he is then obliged to have recourse to a third party. Nobody supposes that he will communicate with the secretary in his own mother tongue. The matter to him is one of great interest. He feels it to be his duty to have the secretary communicated with in the English language. Hence he is put in a position of disadvantage which should not be. I do not wish to detain the House, but it is a question which I think commends itself to the consideration of the House, and I think it is a question which we should settle now. I do not believe in carrying the question of language too, far unless it is necessary to secure one's rights. I think that, as far as possible, it is better not to raise such questions, but this is a matter in which I think if the House would now take action, we would avoid in future the discussion of a question which is always irritating. Therefore I have confidence that the House will receive my suggestion in the spirit in which I have made it, and that the government will accept it. I have many times called attention to this matter. When the board was constituted in the first place, I called the attention of the then Minister of Railways to it and he promised to give it his consideration and so did my right hop-friend every time I have raised it. This is a suitable time in which to bring the question up, and I hope the House will accept my amendment.
When previously I made this representation to the House and the government, I was told there was somebody who could make the necessary translation. No doubt that is the case. No doubt in an important commission of that kind, there is a member familiar with the French language, and no doubt among its employees there is one also conversant with that tongue. But that is not the point. The secretary himself should also be similarly qualified because in the province of Quebec many people who have occasion to correspond with the board, knowing that the secretary is not familiar with their language, will go to the trouble I have pointed out It is a matter of justice and right, and it is not a sufficient answer to say that somebody will be found who can do the necessary translation.


Mr. GRAHAM.: My hon. friend, when he brought up his amendment recently, made similar remarks, and I assured him that the matter would be considered. Evidently he

has not taken me at my word. I just wish to say that there are a few officers appointed by the government who are not of necessity recommended by the commission, and that the balance of the staff must be recommended by the commission, the chairman of which understands the requirements better than any of us. The secretary is an officer appointed by the government. I have had a conference with the chairman of the board, and he has selected a member of the staff who will be called the assistant secretary, who will have a salary commensurate with that title, and do the work my hon. friend desires. He will be the French secretary to the commission. That has been arranged for, and there will be an item to meet it in the supplementary estimates.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I think it. would be unfortunate if we were to put in the form of legislative enactment the proposition contained in the amendement of my hon. friend. He has brought the matter to the attention of the government and the government have taken steps to have the wishes of my hon. friend, which are perfectly warranted, carried out. I hope therefore he will not persist in his amendment. The government are alive to the duties incumbent on the secretary and intend acting in the direction desired, and I hope my hon. friend will not persist in his amendment.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very much gratified to find that the government takes the view it does of the suggestion I have made. That suggestion is made in a spirit of justice and fairness, but in view of what has been stated by the Minister of Railways, I cannot understand why it should not be incorporated in the law. I made the same representation to previous Ministers of Railways and they promised consideration and even more at that time. Now I think we should enact my suggestion and make it the law. The Board of Railway Commissioners is a tribunal of a special character. It has considerable work to do in the province of Quebec ; and if the people there have to deal with it through a third party, because the secretary is not conversant with their language, that will be a great disadvantage. We ought to put what the government has decided to do in the statutes, so that it shall bind all future ministers.


Mr. FIELDING.: There is no substantial difference, as respects the matter to which my hon. friend refers,.between the Board of Railway Commissioners and any department of the government. It is most desirable in every department of the government ithat there should be on its staff officials conversant with both languages and that naturally is looked after. If it is necessary to incorporate this proposal of my hon. friend into an Act of parliament as respects the Railway Commission, it is equally necessary in the other departments.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think so.


William Stevens Fielding: Every department of the government has relations with every province in the Dominion and must naturaly receive communications in both languages ; and it is only right and proper that communications in the French language should go into the hands of officials who understand that tongue, so that the department may have the benefit of the full force of the representations made. The object of the hon. gentleman is good, but it would be equally good as respects every department of the government ; and inasmuch as in every department we bring this about by ordinary business arrangements, I fail to see the necessity of enacting such legislation as respects one branch only.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a great difference. People dealing with any department of the government deal with it, as a rule, through their representatives.


William Stevens Fielding: I have to dissent from that entirely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is a view which seems a reasonable one. But the Railway Commission is a court and people deal with it directly. People in the province of Quebec who have to deal with the departments of the government, as a rule, do so through their representatives. In that province we learn the English language and are disposed to use it and are not disposed to ask what is unreasonable. And in this case what we ' are asking for is reasonable.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken when he says that people deal with the departments only through their representatives. Every minister and deputy receive a large amount of correspondence which does not pass through the representatives at all.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: There is this to be said about it, that the Board of Railway Commissioners is, to all intents and purposes, a court exercising jurisdiction and carrying on its work in every province in Canada. It would seem therefore proper % that that board should be so equipped in its official staff that there would not be the slightest inconvenience experienced by any one throughout the country transacting business with it. The Minister of Finance has truly said that there is no statutory provision in the matter with regard to the departments of the government. But this is a matter materially different, as my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has pointed out. It is different in this respect that the Railway Commission is a court and not a depart-

ment of tlie government; and it is a court of the people and not of the lawyers. That difference might be emphasized by the further observation that the various departments of the government are closely in touch with this parliament, which exercises a certain control over them, over their expenditure and their officials, but the same is not true to the same degree with regard to this tribunal. It would seem proper therefore that necessary precaution should be taken in order that there might be no inconvenience experienced in any part of the country by reason of the circumstances pointed out by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).


George Perry Graham: I just want to say this :	Acting ia good faith, on the suggestion of the hon. member and other members, I proceeded to carry out absolutely the suggestion made that there should be an official of the board, either the secretary or the assistant of the secretary, competent to read and write the French language and to handle the French correspondence so that there might be no delay in business where the French language is used. That must be the object of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk). I immediately took the matter up without waiting to pass any Act and I had a consultation with the chairman of the commission.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the obiec-tion to putting it in the statute?


George Perry Graham: What my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) seeks to accomplish is accomplished without waiting for a statute.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It may not stay accomplished.


George Perry Graham: Arrangements have been made for just such an official for just such work, so that the objection which formerly existed has been overcome. We are passing an Act this session for civil service reform so as to place the civil servants away from the influence of the government, and for the proper working of the Railway Commission we should allow the board as far as possible to appoint and manage their own staff. This official will be appointed, under the arrangement I have made, by the commission itself to do the work selected by the commission, and he will have the title of assistant secretary, which, to my mind, accomplishes the very thing the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) or any person else can ask. That course will do away with what we pretend to be doing away with, namely, the appointment of such an official by a member of the government.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I cannot understand why the government does not accept the amendment proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk). It cannot be that it is to avoid expense, because ac-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
corling to what the Minister of Railways has just said a gentleman will be appointed to fill that position, and if he has the capabilities required his salary will be just as high as that suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk). The amendment says that in case the secretary of the board does not understand the two languages another secretary familiar with the French language will be appointed. The right hon. gentleman said that such a thing does not exist anywhere under the government at present, but we have an example in this very House where if the Mr. Speaker is of one language the Deputy Speaker must be of the other language.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a tacit rule.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: As my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has pointed out. the case of the Railway Commission is different from any other department of government. If the assistant secretary is appointed by statute, that will be known all over Canada and the people of the province of Quebec will know that if they want to transact business with the Railway Commission they can write in their own language and have their letters answered in their own language by an official regularly appointed by statute. I think the government should have adopted the amendment.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish to say that this official to whom I refer should be an official appointed by statute and not an appointee of the board.
House divided on the amendment (Mr. Monk).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Ames,
Barker,
Bar r,
Bennett,
Blain,
Borden (Carleton),
Boyce,
Brabazon,
Bristol,
Chisholm (Huron),
Christie,
Clements,
Foster,
Fowler,
Henderson,
Herron,
Lake,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
NAYS:
Messieurs
McColl,
McCool,
McCraney,
McIntyre (Perth), McIntyre (Strathcona), McKenzie,
McLennan,
MacLaren,
Martin
(Queens, P.E.I.), Monk,
Northrup,
Owen,
Porter,
Reid (Grenville), Roche (Marquette), Schaffner,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Taylor,
W alsh (Huntingdon), Ward,
White,
Wilson (Lennox & Addington.)-36.
Archambault,
Aylesworth,
Beauparlant,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), Bourbonnais,

Boyer,	Major,
Brodeur,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Brown,	Martin (Montreal, St.
Burrows,	Mary's),
Caldwell,	Martin (Wellington),
Calvert,	Mayrand,
Carney,	Michaud,
Caron.	Miller,
Cash,	Oliver,
Chisholm	Paterson,
(Antigonish),	Parent,
Clarke,	Pickup,
Copp,	Proulx,
Crawford,	Pugsley,
Delisle,	Ratz,
Demers,	Reid (Restigouche),
Dubeau.	Rivet,
Dugas,	Roche (Halifax),
Fielding,	Ross (Cape Breton),
Finlay,	Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Finlayson,	Savoie,
Fisher,	Schell (Glengarry),
Galliher,	Schell (Oxford),
Gauvreau,	Sifton,
Geoffrion,	Sinclair,
Graham,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Grant,	Smith (Oxford),
Green way,	Stewart,
Hunt,	Templeman,
Jackson (Selkirk)	, Tolmie,
Kennedy,	Turcotte,
Knowles,	Turgeon,
Lachance,	Turriff.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Verville,	
Law,	Walsh (Montreal, St.
LeBlanc,	Anne),
Lemieux,	Watson,
Lovell,	Wright (Renfrew),
Macpherson,	Zimmerman.-89. PAIRS: Messieurs
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Parmelee,
Logan,
Greenway,
Talbot,
Adamson,
Bureau,
Carvell,
Conmee,
Cyr.
Devlin,
Dyment,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
German,
Gervais,
Gordon,
Guthrie,
Hall,
Harty,
Johnston,
Lavergne,
Loggie,
Macdonald,
Maclean (Lunenburg). Meigs,
Pardee,
Power,
Sloan,
Telford,
Tobin,
Worthington,
Lefurgey,
Tisdale,
Bergeron,
Wilmot,
Hughes (Victoria), Sproule,
Haggart,
Maclean (York, S.), Lennox,
Seagram,
Kemp,
Osier,
Daniel,
Elson,
Avery,
Ganong,
Morin,
Broder,
Wright (Muskoka), McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Pringle,
Clare,
Macdonell,
Armstrong,
Smith (Wentworth), Crocket,
Marshall,
Lalor,
Forget,
Wilson (Russell), Laurier
(L'Assomption),
Carrier,
Fortier,
Girard,
Gladu,
Hughes
(Kings, P.E.I.), McLean (Huron).
Perley,
Beattie,
Jackson (Elgin), Paquet,
Lewis,
Thompson,
McCarthy (Calgary), Cockshutt.
Amendment negatived.


George Taylor: The hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) has not voted.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot). Had I voted I would have voted for ;the amendment.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Minister of Railways was proposing to introduce in connection with this Bill somp amendment to clause 415 of the Railway Act. I would ask him now whether the matter has been under his consideration and whether he proposes to so amend that section as to make it conform to what I believe would be in the interest of the railway men as well as the safety of the general public. Section 415 of the Railway Act provides :
Every officer or servant of, and every person employed by the company, who wilfully or negligently violates any by-law, rule or regulation of the company or its directors lawfully made and in force, or any order or notice of the board, or of the minister or of an inspecting engineer, of which a copy has been delivered to him, or which has been posted up or open to his inspection in some place where his work or his duties, or any of them, are to be performed, if such violation causes injury to any person or to any property, or exposes any person or any property to the risk of such injury, or renders such risk greater than it would have been without such violation, although no actual injury occurs, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall, in the discretion of the court before which the conviction is had, and according as such court considers the offence proved to be more or less grave or the injury or risk of injury to person or property to be more or less great, be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both.
2.	No such fine shall exceed four hundred dollars, and no such imprisonment shall exceed the term of five years.
3.	The company may,, in all cases under this section, pay the amount of the penalty and costs and recover the same from the offender or deduct it from his salary or pay.
This clause, I think, has been found to operate very harshly upon a large section of the railway employees who are directly affected by it. This is owing to the words * wilfully or negligently ' and it seems to me upon the real meaning of these words as applied to the section that they come in rather awkwardly with regard to the Act in the phrase:
Who wilfully or negligently violates any bylaw.

If one of these railway servants violates any by-law, rule or regulation of the company, surely the violation as found by a court, would he a negligent violation or at any rate would be a violation and the word ' negligently ' seems to be a redundancy. I think the Minister of Railways is himself aware that in the working out of that section some injustice has been caused to the operators and employees of our railway companies. I know that the Minister of Railways is desirous, as the whole House is desirous, of conserving to the utmost degree the safety and convenience of the public and the safe control and management of railway trains. But at the same time it does seem to me upon the wording of this section and its interpretation in the courts in recent decisions, that it goes further than that, the Act has been carried further than was ever contemplated with regard to the working of the railway. The railway em- | ployees in this country as a rule are a sober, industrious, hard working and conscientious body of men.


Mr.   GATJVREATJ@: Hear, hear.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: They are careful and certainly not desirous of incurring any unnecessary risk. As a rule they do not take any risk, but the man who does take any risk violates an order and if he violates it he is liable to punishment under the Act. If he omits to perform a duty imposed upon him by order or regulation of the company, of which he has notice, then he is guilty ; but to say that a railway employee who having been informed of an order shall do something beyond violating it, that is he shall be found guilty of negligently violating it, who violates it either in the affirmative sense or in the negative sense by the mere forgetting or omitting for reasons beyond his own control, reasons which under the ordinary interpretation of the law of negligence, would entirely exculpate him from blame, shall be punished in this way, is, I think, to impose such a liability as to carry the section too far. I have in my mind in connection with this legislation the dictum of Chief Justice Brett in an action where manslaughter resulted from the neglect to perform a duty incumbent upon a servant. The dictum of the learned judge was that there must be evidence in a case of that kind of negligence so great as to satisfy the jury that the prisoner had a wicked mind in the sense of being reckless of whether the neglect of his duty was attended with danger to human life or not. It is that kind of negligence which it is desired to legislate against; and I hope.the Minister of Railways will find himself able to modify this section. At the moment, my suggestion is that striking out the words ' or negligently ' In the second line would fulfil all the purposes of both the employees and the public and would serve the public interest as well. The section then would read: 'Any officer Mr. BOYCE.
or servant who wilfully violates-' and so on. I would suggest to add ' or omits to perform.' That is, if he violates the positive duty incumbent upon him, refuses to perform that duty or omits to perform it- that is all that is required. I hope the minister will be able to assure the House that he has the matter under consideration, and that he will not allow the Bill to pass until some such amendment is made.


George Perry Graham: I am glad my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) has called attention to this matter. It is a matter that has been under careful consideration. I have seen several deputations of railway employees on this point. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr .Macpherson) has a Bill on the Order Paper now respecting it; and it was on my assurance that something would be done or further consideration would be given it that he refrained from pressing it further. My hon. friend will agree with me that the matter hardly comes under this Bill. We could place it in this Bill, but it would hardly look at home in a measure to enlarge the powers of the Railway Commission. I would like to confine this Bill to that particular object. What the hon. gentleman has said about the railway employees is fully endorsed by myself. I think that, possibly, if we were to compare the men employed on the great railways of the Dominion with every other class of men the railway employees would not suffer by the comparison. They must of necessity bo men of intelligence, they must be men of a good deal of skill, they must be men of sobriety and good judgment, in order to be good railway men. Perhaps there is no occupation in life that calls for such a diversity of qualifications as does that of the class to which I refer. In my dealings witli the railway men I have found them reasonable and very intelligent; I have found them men above the ordinary, interested in their particular calling. The matter to which my hon. friend has referred is one of considerable importance. I cannot, for my part, see why any class of men, particularly men of the qualifications I have described, should be subjected to what might be called a double liability for any wrong of commission or omission that they may do. They are liable under tlie Criminal ' Code to prosecution for the result of an accident caused by their conduct. Why, then, should they be liable under another statute to be prosecuted in a different way? My own opinion is that one law is sufficient under which any class of men should be prosecuted. Now, to my mind, the result of having in the statute this clause to which my hon. friend has referred has not been beneficial-and I have had some opportunity of observing the effect of what I have called the 'double liability' of railway men under these two statutes. In conversation with some of

the leading men of the various railway associations 1 have found this liability to prosecution even for a little neglect on their part has not only not improved the service, but has tended to make the men nervous, to make them more or less afraid all the time that something might happen, that some little thing might go astray for which they would be jumped on and made to suffer under this provision of the statute. Prosecutions have takeu place. The double prosecution was threatened, and even begun under these two Acts against one man, but afterwards one of them was dropped. For the protection of the public, as well as for the benefit of the service, in order that we may keep the best men in the railway service, I agree that something-must be done either to amend this clause or wipe it out, or in some other way to change the law so that the railway men may be placed on the same footing as other men in the matter of prosecutions for their conduct. It is better in the interests of the lives and property of the public that these railway men should be relieved of the nervous strain under which they have worked with the statute as it is. I assure my hon. friend that, before this session closes, an amendment will be made somewhere to remove the evil to which he has called attention.


William Findlay Maclean: As the representative of a large numbef of railway men, I may say that they do desire some amendment of this section, and I hope that the statement of the Minister of Railways will be carried into effect and some amendment offered.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o ciock.


Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I listened with some interest to the discussion that took place with reference to the clauses affecting the railway employees, and was glad to hear the Minister of Railways promise to bring down some fegislation before the end of the session which would deal with their grievances. As I understand it, the chief grievance of the railway men is that the existing legislation is of a discriminating character, that they are brought under the general law, and as if that was not sufficient, special legislation is directed against them in the Railway Act. I understand that has been one of the principal grievances of the railway men. I sympathize with them. As a class, I am glad to bear testimony to the high character and the high grade of the labour represented by the railway men. The laborious occupation in which they are engaged is a strain upon their nerves, and requires such careful attention as very few workmen of any other class have to undergo. As a rule, I think their intelligence and their assiduity to their duties are unequalled by any other 368
class that we have. Of course, we must have regard on the other hand to the immense interests of property and life which are absolutely entrusted to their care and attention. The millions of people who are conveyed from one part of the country to the other under the guidance of these officers, must be taken into account. I do not think any safeguard of the law ought to be relaxed which is absolutely necessary to guard the life and property Of the travelling and the mercantile public. When these are safeguarded, I believe in going no further in the matter of legislation with reference to the class of men whose claims and whose grievances we have shortly taken into account this morning. I imagine that while the minister does not propose to relax any legislation which is necessary to guard life and property, at the same time he proposes not to have legislation on the statute book which discriminates against railway men as a class. To that extent, I would heartily support any legislation which the minister may bring down.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Railways has already pointed out the hardships from which the railway men of the country are suffering at the present time in this respect, that besides being liable to certain penalties under the Criminal Code, they are also subject to the penalties of a special enactment particularly directed against them, not only in case of any wilful violation, but even any inadvertent violation of any by-law or regulation under which they are performing their duties. It would be desirable I think to ameliorate their condition in this respect. It seems to me that could be done without condoning any fault of a serious nature on the part of any one of these men. I have had conversations with some of them on the subject, and I do not find that there is among them any disposition whatever to relieve any man from the consequences of a violation of the law leading to danger to life or property. They admit that life and property depend upon the care and attention which they devote to their duties. At the same time, they point out that in the everyday affairs of life inadvertence will sometimes occur for many reasons that might be mentioned, over-fatigue, calling a man away from the subject he has in hand -thousands of illustrations of this kind might be mentioned, and their complaint is that while in the ordinary, everyday affairs of life outside of their avocation, these accidents are not punishable by the strict application of the criminal law, railway employees are punishable under the provisions of the particular enactment which has been referred to by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce). So much for that.
There is another matter which I desire to call to the attention of the House, and



that is a subject to which I directed the attention of the House in the month of January, 1907. At that time I brought to the attention of parliament the fact that there had been a certain agitation throughout the country with regard to the reduction of the fares or tolls which were provided in the standard passenger tariffs upon the railways of Canada. I illustrated one aspect of the complaint by the fact that a certain railway in this country when running within the state of Michigan, charges only 2 cents per mile, while within the confines of Canada it charges a somewhat larger rate. 1 pointed out at that time that two remedies had been suggested. One was a legislative enactment that the tolls charged upon certain of the railways of Canada should be reduced to an amount not exceeding 2 cents per mile. The other remedy which had been proposed was that the rate that may properly be charged by any railway per mile in this country should depend on its average passenger earnings per mile. I think the law of the state of Michigan, to which allusion has been made in this House, is based upon the principle to which I have just adverted. I did not advocate, and I am not advocating that there should be direct legislative enactment in the first instance at least, but I did on that occasion move the following motion :
That it is expedient that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada do inquire, determine and report with the least possible delay whether or not the tolls charged in standard passenger tariffs should be reduced so as not to exceed two cents per mile upon all or any of the railways in Canada. That the government, under the provisions of the Railway Act, and especially the 21th section thereof, should forthwith take such steps as are necessary for this purpose.
The section which was then number 24 in the Railway Act, is now numbered 38, but it contains the same provisions. The Minister of Railways at that time, the Hon. Mr. Emmerson, replied to my argument in support of this motion, and he read a somewhat lengthy and exhaustive letter from the then chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, to the Prime Minister, and he relied very largely upon the statements set forth in that letter in asking the House not to support the motion which I had proposed, but to adopt the amendment which he offered. He relied very largely upon the statement set forth in this letter in asking the House not to support the motion which I had proposed but to adopt the amendment which he offered. The letter to which I have alluded from the late Judge Killam bears date in December; it is very long and I will not weary tbe House with very much of it. The important portions of it are as follows :
It appears to be probable that parliament or the Railway Committee of the House of Mir. R. L. BORDEN.
Commons will be asked to require the board to report upon the question of reducing standard passenger tariff rates to two cents per mile. I desire to urge that the board should not be required to report upon this question within any limited time, or during the present session of parliament. We will have soon to decide upon the telephone and express companies' tariffs. We have many important questions which, according to our programme, are to be,taken into consideration in the near future. We have much pressing current business. I do not think that it would be possible for us to decide in a brief period of time, with satisfaction either to ourselves or to parliament or the country, upon the important question of the reduction of passenger tolls generally.
Further on he uses the following language:
I would, therefore, respectfully urge that the government should not, at the present time, countenance the proposal to refer to the board the question of reducing the rates as proposed by Mr. Maclean's Bill, but that the whole matter should be left at large at least until the next session of parliament, and the board left, in the meantime to exercise its discretion unfettered by anv order or reference.
The letter of Mr. Killam did not in the slightest degree minimize the importance of the subject, but be declared iu tbe first place that the board already had too many matters on hand to permit it to report within a short period of time with regard to this important subject. In the second place he pointed out that the board was about taking the matter into consideration, and he urged that the whole question should be left at large at least until the next session of parliament. The government, through the Minister of Railways and Canals, emphasized this position. Tbe minister then presiding over that department, in the course of bis remarks, used this language:
There are two things that are self-evident. First, this matter has not been overlooked by the board, and they have endeavoured so far as they could to deal with it. In the second place, they have not sufficient data to enable them instantly to deal with the matter. It may be said that if they have not had a sufficient staff the lack could be remedied. I do not think they have shown any negligence in that regard. Their quarters are insufficient, and they are not in a position at this moment to enlarge their staff to a great number, or to any considerable extent.
It might be worth while at this moment to point out that the congestion of business before the Board of Railway Commissioners will be remedied at once by the appointment of three additional members, and for that reason the argument which may have had much force at that time that the board was overworked should not be permitted to prevail at the present moment. The present chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners is, I believe, a very able and forceful man, a man who is disposed to



190S

[Stage Direction]
urge on business in every possible way and who is not inclined to permit any unnecessary delay. I believe that his energy and force of character will do a great deal, even if he were not to be assisted by three additional commissioners, towards relieving any congestion of business which may at the present time exist before that board. In so far as this argument is concerned, I do not think it ought to prevail at the present moment. The then Minister of Railways and Canals presented a further argument. He said that the available data were insufficient. At page 2321 of the debates of last year he used this language :
The unit of comparison among railways is the number of passengers carried one mile.
After pointing out the absolute insufficiency and inadequacy of auy other standard of comparison he went on at page 2322 as follows :
My hon. friend asks why we do not acquire that information. I am coming to that point in explanation of the position I am taking in this matter. This information has not been heretofore gathered in connection with the railway statistics of Canada, but on the first of July last the statistical branch of the Department of Railways and Canals was reorganized and entirely new schedules were put into effect. When parliament meets again complete analytical data will be available in relation to the passenger business of Canadian railways. The unit to which reference has been made will be ascertained and this will enable close and accurate comparisons to be made with the passenger earnings in other countries. It will also enable parliament to discuss the general question of passenger rates fully and fairly. Under these circumstances it would only be right that this data should be secured or should be available before we should even impose upon the Railway Commission the duty of immediately and promptly inquiring into or dealing with the matter.
Further on he urged the same matter in these words:
In the light of the evidence presented to the House it would seem to me to be inadvisable to pass such a resolution. The matter is being dealt with, it will be intelligently dealt with, and I think I may go so far as to say that until we have. the statistics which will be available at the end of this fiscal year, the Railway Commission are not in a position to determine the questions involved in the resolution. We do not want them to go at this matter hap-hazard, I am sure there is no one in this country who would desire that.
The government thus presented two arguments against an inquiry into this matter. The first argument was that the Board of Railway Commissioners was overworked. I have already disposed of that by pointing out that the board has been doubled in number, and that it will be no undue burden to cast upon them the duty and obligation of making this inquiry. In the second place, the then Minister of Railways and Canals speaking on behalf of the govern-368J
ment, put forward the statement that the data were not then available, that the proper statistics for a comparison not only between the railways of Canada but between the railways of Canada and those of the rest of the world were not available. That was coupled with the direct statement that the statistics would be available about the close of the then present session, that at the next session we would be in a position to discuss the matter intelligently upon these data and statistics and that the Board of Railway Commissioners would be in a position to prosecute such an inquiry and to render parliament greater assistance in the matter.
I may say that I regard it as very desirable in the interest of the country as a whole that an inquiry should be made. I regard it in the first place as in the interest of the people as a whole, because there is a very great feeling, and perhaps some misunderstanding, among the people as to what the facts really are, and what remedy can fairly be applied having due consideration for the interests of those who have invested their money in providing means of transportation. Under these circumstances, I can only regard such an inquiry as not only in the interest of the people, but in the interest of the transportation companies themselves, because, so long as that inquiry is postponed or delayed for any reason or in any way, there will be a suspicion throughout the country that the facts are not as represented and that a fair, full and complete inquiry into the whole subject would show a condition of affairs which would demand a remedy at the hands of parliament. For these two reasons it seems to me that in the interest of every person, in the interest of the people of the country, in the interest of the transportation companies and in the interest of the government itself, it is desirable that such an inquiry should be prosecuted. Therefore, Mr. (Speaker, I would propose to move a resolution for the purpose of expediting that inquiry. I have already placed in your hands a resolution which I thought was proper. If you think it is in order I will move it; if not, I will move it in another form.
Mr. SPEAKER, At the first reading of the resolution I was rather under the impression that, as it was an amendment to the motion for the third reading of the Bill and as at that stage none but mere verbal amendment can be made, the motion was out of order. But, on a careful reading of the amendment and of the Bill itself, it appears that it is possible that it refers to the principle of the Bill in one respect, as to the question of tolls, and I am not therefore prepared at the moment to rule it out of order, although I have some doubt of it being in order.
Robert Laird Borden: I move, therefore, that:
The said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be resolved as follows:
That it is expedient that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada do inquire, determine and report with the least possible delay whether or not the tolls charged in standard passenger tariffs should be reduced so as not to exceed two cents per mile upon all or any of the railways in Canada. That the government under the provisions of the Railway Act and especially the twenty-eighth section thereof should forthwith take such steps as are necessary for this purpose.
I would like to say that this motion will not in any way defeat the passage of the Bill ; it will only postpone the passage of the Bill for one day because when such a motion as this is carried the usual practice is that the gentleman in charge of the Bill moves on the following day that the Bill be reinstated. The motion is based on section 28 of the Railway Act which states that the board either of its own motion' or upon the motion of the Minister of Railways of Canada shall take into consideration any matter of public importance, which would include beyond question a matter such as this. For these reasons I move this amendment and I sincerely trust the government will accept it.


William Findlay Maclean: I sympathize altogether with the object of the leader of the opposition in proposing this motion, but I do not agree with him as to the means to bring about a reduction in passenger tolls in this country. To my mind it is a matter of policy and a matter of legislation and the best evidence in support of that is the fact that all the substantial reductions in passenger tolls throughout the world have been the result of legislation based on a matter of policy. In England they long have had a penny a mile passenger rate. Fifty years ago England adopted that rate as a matter of policy and the penny a mile clause was put in the charters of all railways. The original charter of the Grand Trunk calls for a penny a mile service and if we are not getting it it is because the law has not been enforced. I have had something to do with trying to vindicate that law and the decision of the Railway Commission and of the Supreme Court of Canada is that the Grand Trunk Railway is bound to give the people of Canada transportation at two cents a mile. Reduction in rates does not come as a matter of inquiry or a matter of statistics, but it comes as a matter of policy and legislation for which the government and parliament are responsible. A railway has two sources of income, its passenger earnings and Its freight earnings and this parliament can say if it wishes, or the Railway Commission can say, that passenger rates shall be ten cents a mile and that freight rates shall be fifty cents a ton, and Mr. SPEAKER.
in that way allow a railway to earn enough money to pay the cost of its operation and interest on the investment. The ratio between the charges for freight and the charges for passengers may not be fair to the public, and yet the railway would have a fair return for the money invested, so that it is not a question of statistics as I say but a question of policy which adjusts railway rates. Practically all countries have adopted the penny a mile as a maximum standard. In England everybody travels at a penny a mile and in European countries they travel at less, and they do so because legislation has provided for it. In New York, in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklo-horna, and a dozen other states they have two cent a mile transportation not as a result of hearing evidence of experts by a Railway Commission, but as a result of the voiee of the people expressed through the legislatures, and the legislatures have made it law even though there are Railway Commissions in these states. In the southern states which are not nearly so thickly populated as Ontario or Quebec, the penny a mile transportation was provided for by the legislature but it went to the courts and the Railway Commission compromised at two and a half cents per mile. I agree with the opinion expressed by the leader of the opposition that the Canadian Railway Commission is overloaded with work, but this parliament can relieve it of some of that work if it follows the examples of other legislatures throughout the world and makes two cents a mile the maximum standard passenger rate. If the companies lose in any way they can get some relief in regard to freight rates. If parliament fixes the passenger rate then the commission will have nothing else to attend to but the freight rates. I believe that this question will never be settled by the Railway Commission; I believe the only proper way is for parliament to settle it. It has been argued in this House and out of this House that if we reduce passenger rates, freight rates must go up. I do not believe that necessarily follows but if it does follow and must follow then it is only right that the freight rates should go up because freight rates have often been reduced in Canada and passenger rates have never been reduced. It is the general opinion in America and in Europe to-day that passenger Tates ought to be made low in the interest of the people and that those who travel should only pay a fair proportion of the maintenance of the railways. It is all very well to say the farmers want cheap freight rates, and so they do, but the farmers also want cheap passenger rates and the farmers of every country in the world are getting cheap passenger rates by legislation. I can bring the evidence of the whole railway world to prove that where-ever passenger rates have been reduced by Acts of the legislature the earnings of the

railways have not been reduced. In Ohio where the two cent a mile passenger rate was pasesd a little over a year ago the earnings of the railways have increased, ithe expenses of the railways have not increased, and the accommodation for the public has been improved.
The question, therefore, to the average man is that if this question has been settled in Europe by legislation and in the United States, why should we not settle it in this country in the same way? That certainly would be the quickest and easiest way. It would relieve the Railway Commission of a lot of labour and allow that commission to devote all its energies to the solving of the many questions that arise in connection with freights, telephones, express and telegraph companies. And I venture this prediction that it will be years before the Railway Commission, with the vast amount of additional labour which has been imposed on it, will be able to collect these statistics spoken of. It appears to me a matter of the simplest kind of reasoning that parliament should deal with the question; and if it does, the public will be satisfied. I can give instance after instance in the United States where the passenger rates have been better accommodated. The leader of the opposition mentioned the case of Michigan. That is a country very like Ontario. In that state the Grand Trunk Railway does a large business, and it carries passengers there at two cents a mile while charging Canadians in this country three cents a mile. The Grand Trunk Railway are making money in Michigan'at two cents a mile. Their income is increasing by reason of this reduction and that is the experience with all the railways. Not only that, but the Grand Trunk Railway will take through passenger traffic from Michigan into Canada at two cents a mile the whole way, so that while they charge a passenger who started outside of Canada two cents a mile on Canadian territory they are charging Canadians three cents a mile for the same service. To my mind the matter is not one of statistics but of legislation. This parliament ought to have the courage to deal with it as other legislatures have done. Great Britain, Germany Italy, Russia, Denmark and France have regulated passenger rates by legislation and not as a matter of statistics; and the result is that the best railway travel, where there is greater speed and better accommodation, is within those countries where parliament has intervened. Fifty years ago the people in this country started to regulate rates as a matter of parliamentary procedure, and they enacted a clause making it obligatory on the Grand Trunk Railway and two or three other companies in the province of Quebec to carry passengers at a penny a mile. That is exactly the same clause that they have in England. All the cheap travel in England is due to legislative enactment. The companies there must run one train each day at a penny per mile. If we enforce that law to-day against the Grand Trunk Railway-and I believe that we shall have in four or five weeks a decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council in England declaring that law obligatory-we shall have a penny a mile transportation all over Canada, for, under the Railway Act, which directs that there shall be equality of treatment to the people, the Grand Trunk Railway cannot give a two-cent a mile rate between Montreal and Toronto without giving it on all other portions of the system.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman Is discussing another question than that before the House. The question before the House is an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read the third time and the amendment is that it be referred to the Railway Commission for investigation.


William Findlay Maclean: I am strictly in order in arguing that this is a question to be settled by parliament rather than by the Railway Commission as the amendment proposes. I sympathize with the object of the amendment, but after most careful inquiry, after looking over all the legislation on the matter, I am of the opinion that the place to deal with the question is in parliament. In that way it will be speedily settled and settled to the satisfaction of the people. Then should there be anything wrong or unfair to the railway companies, there may be readjustment of the freight rates ; but my impression is, from the evidence taken all over the world, that the reduced rate of two cents a mile must increase the income of the railway companies.


George Perry Graham: The question raised by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, although apparently a question of method as to the best way of reaching the object desired, opens up the whole question; and the question is such a large one that it is difficult to discuss it intelligently on very short notice.


Robert Laird Borden: It only opens up the question of inquiry.


George Perry Graham: That necessarily would have to be based upon certain facts for if it could be shown that no injustice is done anybody by the present rates, there would not be any need for any inquiry. The record of this House will show that, in so far as itself is concerned, it is unanimously in favour of cheap rates on the railways ; and that being the case, it would be a laudable ambition on the part of hon. members to wish to extend, in a measure, the benefits they enjoy themselves to those who support them throughout the country.


George Eulas Foster: In a measure?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) has raised the question of freight rates and passenger rates. His contention is that instead of in-

vestigating to find out the facts we should take it as granted that passenger rates should be two cents a mile, no matter what effect that might have on the freight rates; but If parliament should enact a two-cent passenger fare-and I am not now discussing the advisability of our doing that-and if afterwards it became clear from investigation and experience that the railway companies could not afford to give a two-cent passenger rate without raising the freight rates, the question suggests itself as to whether we should discriminate against the one In favour of the other. Then the question arises, if we are to establish a cheap rate for some class possibly at the expense of some other class, going on the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number, which is the greater number? I am inclined to think we would come back to the proposition that there are more people interested in cheap freight rates than there are in cheap passenger rates. The average man throughout the country does not spend a great deal in travelling on railways, while every man, woman and child is interested in freight rates.


Hr.   W.@: I'. MACLEAN. I am sorry to hear the minister suggest that there is no Canadian who does not travel, and I would hope that they would not be put in that position.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that they did not travel; I said that they did not spend large sums of money on travelling, and are not interested in that as they are in freight. The farmer travels say 100 miles each year. If he paid 3 cents a mile instead of 2 cents, he wTould pay a dollar more, but if he were shipping the produce of his farm an increase in freight rates would amount to a great many dollars.


William Findlay Maclean: He would only have to make up the*doilar he was shy on the passenger rate.


George Perry Graham: Leaving that aside for the moment, it is a large question and worthy of the consideration of the people of Canada, and I am not averse to having it discussed. I want to point out to the leader of the opposition that if I were selecting a time to make an investigation to prove the contention of the railways that the rates are not sufficiently high, I would select this year and this time to do it. There has not been a time in years when the income in the railways has fallen off as it has during the past few months. Suppose we ask the commission to investigate now the question whether the railways ought to carry our passengers cheaper than at present, they would at once be confronted with the immense falling off in traffic. The railways would put up a stronger ease in 1908 than they would have been able in any past year, or I hope will be for many years to come. In May the


George Perry Graham: income of the large railways, including the Canadian railways, fell off all the way from a quarter of a million dollars to a million dollars. Our own two leading railways, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway, had a decrease in revenue during May, roughly speaking, of over $SOO.OOO each. That being the case, it would be a poor time for investigation if the object was to help the people get cheaper rates.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then the government should have accepted that proposition made two years ago.


George Perry Graham: I am not criticising what happened two years ago, we live too rapidly to do that. We must remember, too, that we cannot compare our conditions with the conditions iD older countries as far as rates are concerned. I have here a few figures. We have in Canada 89 railways. The passengers carried last year numbered 32,137,319. The gross earnings from these amounted to $39,184,437. The average earning per passenger was $1.22. The gross earnings from all sources of our railways were $146,738,215. So the revenue from the passenger traffic was about 22-75 per cent of the whole.
The net earnings from all sources were $42,987,537. The passenger train mileage, to which the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) referred, was 30,220,401 miles. The cost of running a train one mile in 1907 was approximately $1.25. That would show the cost of the passenger service to be $37,745,355. Figuring that out, it would give us a profit on the capital invested in the passenger service, not dealing with watered stock or anything of that kind, of something less than 4 per cent. But some railways charge now more than 4 cents a mile. The leading railways cannot charge more than 3 cents a mile. I do not agree with my hon. friend, particularly as far as Canada is concerned, in saying that if we reduced the rate to 2 cents we would have a greater passenger traffic in Canada. That principle applies more thoroughly where the population is dense, where you have something more to work on. In Canada we have not a dense population.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are the figures the minister gave prepared by the railways or by government investigators?


George Perry Graham: They are figures prepared by the Department of Statistics.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the information from railways or from government officers?


George Perry Graham: It is information sworn to under the Act, which has to be given every year.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: By the railway officials ?


George Perry Graham: Yes ; surely my hon. friend will not take any exception to it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not admit that.


George Perry Graham: These are from statistics which are accepted as authoritative in all parts of the world by all governments. If we had a dense population such as they have in some other countries I can readily see that we could increase the passenger traffic very much by offering lower rates. But with 6,000,000 spread over as large a territory as the United States with 80,000,000. it will be seen that there must be a vast difference in the amount of money that can be got out of the people for passenger or freight traffic. We have a limited number of people, and only these can travel as far as the population of the country is concerned.
I think it is fair to say that if we reduce the rates-from 3 cents to 2 cents, or 331 per cent, we would reduce the income by 20 per cent. If we take that as a basis, we find that instead of receiving $39,184,437 in 1907 the railways would have received $31,347,450, or a reduction of $7,836,887 in their income. In other words, instead of a balance on the right -side of $1,439,000 they would have a loss of $6,397,805. Perhaps when I say the income would have been reduced 20 per cent I am placing the reduction a little too high, but given any appreciable reduction and you will find that the railways could not afford a very large reduction in their income from passenger traffic unless they added something to the freight rates. It must be remembered that 20 railways in Canada operated at a loss, 12 had net earnings less than $10,000 and 15 had net earnings less than $50,000. But my hon. friend will say in reply that in addition to the passenger traffic the railways have the express and mail carrying, which we ought to add and which does not come in in the way I have figured out the cost.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, and they charge a lot of their profits up in big salaries.


George Perry Graham: I have never met any one who will not take a big salary if he can get it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But their profits are in the big salaries.


George Perry Graham: The man who is competent to manage a big railway is worth a big salary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But my point is that he gets five times as much as he could get in any other walk of life.


George Perry Graham: He may require a good deal of a certain kind of ability that you do not find in ordinary business life. However,- I am not discussing that question : I am discussing the facts. Take it another way :	The returns from passenger service, including express, in 1907 were $45,730,652. Deduct the $7,836,887, being 20 per cent to which I have already referred, and you have remaining $37,803,765, or practically, taking everything into account, you wipe out every cent of profit the railways have, so far as the passengers are concerned. Now, last year the railways did a good deal to improve the passenger transportation service. The train mileage was increased by 2,148,813 miles. New track was added to the extent of 1.099 miles, and there were added 50 locomotives and 323 passenger cars. A few^ years ago the mixed passenger train service was 54 per cent of the entire train service; at present it is only 19 per cent-showing that the poor service by means of mixed trains is being wiped out and express train service substituted.
Now, I come to the real point, and that is that we shall have to consider in this question, the population. I am not going to say that we are not advancing toward the two-cent rate, and, for my part,
I am willing to have a two-cent rate as soon as possible, if we can get it consistently. But I wish to put myself on the side of so dealing with the rates that we shall help all the people from a freight standpoint as well as from passenger standpoint, getting all the benefits we can in the way of passenger transportation on a fair basis. The crucial test, to my mind, is the density of population. Where you have a thickly-settled country and carry ten passengers on a train as against two in a less densely populated country, you can afford to carry them at a less rate-there is as much difference in this as between the wholesale and retail trade in any business.
Compare the density of -population in Canada with that of other countries ;
Persons.
In Canada to every mile of railway.... 289 United States to every mile of railway. 381 Great Britain to every mile of railway. 1,821
Square
miles.
Canada, per mile of railway	
United States, per mile of railway.. .. 13 bl Great Britain, per mile of railway.. ..	5:29
You see we have railways much more scattered through the country according to population in these older countries than in Canada. Another point, where you have a dense population, your passengers travel in greater numbers and shorter distances. Now, full trains emptied and refilled frequently are the trains that pay. Take that as a standard and compare the figures:
Miles.
Canada, average journey per passenger 64 United States, average journey per passenger	 31 at
Continental Europe, average journey
per passenger	 I-5
Now, I find that in Canada, owing to the sparseness, of population iu proportion

to territory, the average passenger travels a large number of miles, and the long haul


William Findlay Maclean: The long haul is cheaper.


George Perry Graham: The country where the average passenger travels but'a short distance is the country where the trains are well Ailed-they are emptied and filled rapidly. You cannot judge this matter by the standards that suggest themselves ou a merely surface consideration of the subject. Now, this province of Ontario has the highest railway mileage of any province in the Dominion-nearly 8,000 miles. Yet, according to the census of 1901, it contained only 9:8 persons to the square mile. The Dominion contained only 1-5 persons to the square mile. In England, whose cheap rates have been quoted, there are 600 persons to the square mile and in the United States 24. New York has been mentioned. If we compare the province of Ontario with the state of New York, we find that the density of population is as 10 to 126. In Massachusetts, to which also reference has been made, the density of population is nearly 32 times as great as in Ontario. Besides, New York and Massachusetts have many advantages in running railways which we do not possess, such as cheaper coal. But take the average passenger rates and consider them in relation to the question asked me by my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. .Haggart). In considering the net rates it is only just to include, for instance, our fares and those of other persons who do not pay on the railways. Not only those who pay the amount I am going to quote, but all who are carried by the railways, whether they pay or not, should be included. On that basis we find that the railways of Canada realize per passenger miie as follows :
Revenue of Canadian railways per passenger mile:
Canadian Pacific Railway	 ] -844
Grand Trunk	"	 ] '839
Canadian Northern	 2'835
Intercolonial	 1-7G2
Thus it will be seen that the railways in Canada average less than 2 cents per mile on the passengers they carry. If we make the law to provide that they must not charge more than 2 cents per mile it would interfere a great deal with the passenger transportation service of the country. Whatever the condition, or whatever point of view you look at it from, the fact is that the railways of Canada to-day are not getting 2 cents per mile for the passengers they carry. Now, take the number of passengers carried per mile of railway in 190T. In Ontario the number was 91,286. In the states of Massachussets, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, forming group No. 1 of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Mr. GRAHAM.
the number was 316,623, while in the states of New York and Pennsylvania it was 275,365. This bears out my contention that the thickly-populated country is the country that gives the passenger traffic with the short haul and the full train. The railways of New York and Pennsylvania carried in 1907 299,382,054 passengers as against 32,187,319 for the whole Dominion. That is, in these two states alone the railways carried eight times as many passengers as were carried by all the railways in Canada last year. Apply the business method of any other business, that the price is regulated to a certain extent by the amount of business transacted, and we must come to the conclusion that we are not in the same position to give cheap rates as is the United States.


William Findlay Maclean: Does my hon. friend know of a small city having a five cent street railway fare and a large city having the same fare? The size of the cities makes no difference. He must compare places like Ontario and Michigan, or Quebec and Ohio, and not take in the whole of Canada with its millions of square miles where there are no inhabitants.


George Perry Graham: But my hon. friend must remember that if he puts this in the standard tariff at all, it must apply to these very conditions. I am pointing out that we have not the same density of population, and we cannot make a cast iron tariff. Perhaps in cities the rates charged might be too much, and in small towns too little. If he will look at the profits in large cities, he will find that if some of the profits were not going to the city there might be some trouble about high rates. I do not want to discuss this thing at any greater length, and I do not want to put myself in antagonism to the movement for cheaper rates. I am. in sympathy with anything that will tend to get | us the cheapest possible transportation facilities in the Dominion. But I want to point out on the other side that we must be fair in making up the comparison. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railway is cited as a railway of cheap fares; so it is. Last year this railway carried 580,000 passengers one mile per mile of road, while the railways of Canada only carried 91,000 passengers one mile per mile of road. This same railway last year carried 32,000 passengers per mile of its road, while the railways of Canada only carried 1,400. On this railway last year the average haul per passenger was 18 miles, while in Canada it was 64 miles. The train load of passenger trains last year on the New York, New Haven and Hartford, was 40 per cent higher than on the Canadian roads. Now that railway has 2,032 miles of road while in Canada we have 22,452 miles of road. Yet you. see the great number of passengers the Am-

erican railway carries as compared with the Canadian roads. They had only about one-eleventh of our mileage to keep up. A few more figures. In reference to the density of population and the size of the country, in New York and Pennsylvania, with a combined area less than half that of Ontario, they had a passenger traffic nearly ten times that of Canada. Take these two states alone, and they were mentioned by the non. gentleman as giving cheap rates. They are not half as big as the province of Ontario alone, still they provide ten times as much traffic as the whole Dominion of Canada. That will tend to show the necessity of care in making our comparisons between countries as to the rate at which the railways can do business. Now this question of rates is a large one, one that involves many things, it involves the whole transportation question, which I dare not enter. But it is one worthy the consideration of the House. I agree with my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. P. Maclean) that we have in the Railway Commission all the power, all the ability, and all the desire to investigate rates that we will have should this motion carry. It is the object of the Railway Commission, not to deal with passenger fares alone-as they have to deal with that subject to a certain extent

but it is also their duty to run over the whole field, to find out by inquiry from the records of the railways, to find out from their own experience with the railways, not only what will benefit those who travel, but what will benefit the larger number, those who are interested in freight rates. I do not think any good will be accomplished by passing such a resolution as this. True, we are enlarging the commission. That was found absolutely necessary, for the commission has enough work to keep itself busy for the next six months to catch up with the arrears. To pass a motion insisting that they shall forthwith go into the question of a two-cent rate, I think will not accomplish the object. What I desire the commission to do, what parliament desires the commission to do, what the country thinks we appointed the commission to do, is to view this matter of rates from the standpoint of all the public, not of any particular part of the public; and whilst seeing that the railways give fair tolls on their traffic, also to see about the greater question to us, namely, that the people are treated fairly both as to passenger rates and freight rates. If any good were to be accomplished by the passing of this motion leading to cheaper rates. I would be accord with it. But I submit that no good can be accomplished. But the commission is now going along the lines of doing work for all the people of Canada, and will perform that work as efficiently as they can, with the enlarged board.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: Would the minister tell me any good reason why the government owned road should not be brought under the control of this commission? I brought up this question some time ago.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That question hardly seems to arise on this amendment.


Alexander Martin: I will take another opportunity to refer to it. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to the extraordinary charges on some of the government roads, and to induce him to put the Intercolonial under the control of this commission in that respect.


Mr. SPROULE.: I think the minister's comparison was hardly fair with regard to the population of the United States and Canada. If he had compared the population to the mileage of the railways in these two countries, it would be a much fairer comparison than the one he made. A comparison of the population between New York and Canada, or Ontario, is not a fair comparison. The hon. member for York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) said a fairer comparison would be between Michigan and Canada. I think a fair comparison might be instituted there. Now with regard to the remarks of the Minister of Railways, he says the Railway Commission are charged with the duty of making all kinds of inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining whether passenger and freight rates are too high, or whether they could not be properly reduced. In a genera! way it is their duty; but, although it may be their duty for many years they may never institute a special inquiry with regard to this particular subject to ascertain whether or not railways could afford to reduce their passenger rates. This motion seeks at securing a special and intelligent inquiry with that object in view and, from my point of view, I see no reason why it should be refused. I think it would do a great deal even if it might prove that we could uot afford to compel the railways to charge two cents a mile. It would satisfy the people that the railways were unable to reduce their rates without doing themselves a great injustice and the people would stop clamoring for it. If, on the other hand, the inquiry brought out the fact that the railways are in as good a position to give a two cent a mile passenger rate as the railways in other countries and that in all human probability if the rate were reduced their earnings would be increased, it would convince the railways that it would not only be their duty but that it would be in their interest to reduce the rate. We found the same argument advanced with regard to the rate of postage year after year. It was felt by some members of this House that the postage could be reduced and that the revenue would increase. We heard practically the same arguments against it but afterwards

when the government reduced the postage and found that the revenue had increased, every one admitted that the argument that the revenue would be reduced was fallacious. So it may be with regard to a two cent a mile rate. The railway companies themselves may be deceived as to what would be the result if they reduced the passenger rate to two cents.
House divided on amendment (Mr. R. L.
Borden).	YEAS:
Messieurs	
Alcorn,	Lennox,
Ames,	MacLaren,
Barker,	McCarthy (Calgary),
Barr,	Martin
Bennett,	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Blain,	Northrup.
Borden (Carleton),	Owen, I'erley,
Bristol,	
Chisholm (Huron),	Porter,
Christie,	Roche (Marquette),
Clare,	Schaffner,
Clements,	Sproule,
Crocket,	Stanfield,
Daniel,	Staples,
Poster,	Taylor,
Henderson,	W ard.
Herron,	White,
Hughes (Victoria),	Wilmot,
Lake,	Wilson (Lennox &
Jjaneaster,	Addington),
Lefurgey,	Wright (Muskoka)-10,
NAYS:
Messieurs	
Aylesworth,	Lemieux,
Black,	Logan,
Borden	Maclean (York, S.),
(Sir Frederick),	McColl,
Bourbonnais,	McCool,
Boyer,	McCraney,
Brodeur,	McIntyre (Perth),
Caldwell,	McIntyre
Calvert,	(Strathcona),
Carney,	McKenzie,
Chisholm	McLean (York, C.),
(Antigonish),	McLennan,
Conmee,	Major,
Delisle,	Marcile (Bagot),
Demers,	Marcil (Bonaventure)
Iiesjardins,	Martin (Wellington),
Dubeau,	Michaud,
Dugas,	Miller,
Fielding,	Oliver,
Finlay,	Paterson,
Finlayson,	Parent,
Fisher,	Pickup,
Fortier,	Pugsley,
Galliher,	Ratz,
Gauvreau,	Reid (Restigouche),
Geoffrion,	Rivet,
Girard,	Roche (Halifax),
Graham,	Ross (Cape Breton),
Greenway,	Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Hughes	Savoie,
(Kings, P.E.I.),	Schell (Oxford),
Kennedy,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Knowles,	Smith (Oxford),
Lachance, Mr. SPROULE.	Templeman,
Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier
(LlAssomption),
Law,
LeBlanc,
Turcotte,
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Watson,
Wright (Renfrew)-74.
PAIRS:
Messieurs
Ministerial.
Zimmerman,
Par melee,
Talbot,
Adamson,
Bureau,
Burrows,
Car veil,
Caron,
Cash,
Clarke,
Crawford,
Devlin,
Walsh (Montreal, St.
Anne),
Emmerson,
Dvment,
German,
Gervais.
Gordon,
Grant,
Guthrie,
Hall,
Johnston,
Loggie,
Macdonald,
Lavergne,
Maclean (Lunenburg), Pardee,
S if ton,
Sinclair,
Sloan,
Belaud,
Macplierson,
German.
Opposition.
Tisdale,
Worthington,
Bergeron,
Reid (Grenville), Seagram,
Kemp,
Osier,
Monk,
Powler,
Elson,
Leonard,
Morin,
Broder,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Pringle,
Cockshutt,
Armstrong,
Smith (Wentworth), Marshall,
Lalor,
Forget,
Macdonell,
Beattie,
Jackson (Elgin), Paquet,
Walsh (Huntingdon), Boyce,
Brabazon,
Lewis,
Thompson,
Avery,
Ganong,
Haggart.
Amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden) negatived.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: When this Bill was in committee some months ago the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) put on the Order Paper a notice that in Committee of the Whole he would move an amendment with regard to section 237 of the Railway Act After some discussion this was accepted by the Minister of Railways as an amendment which might be made possibly to advantage, at all events without harm. The section of the Railway Act in question gives jurisdiction to the board to provide how an existing highway may be carried above or below a line of railway and the view of the hon. member for South Toronto was that there was not by this provision jurisdiction conferred upon the board to require a railway to be carried either above or below tiie level of an existing highway. The Minister of Railways did not share that opinion and since then there has been a distinct pronouncement upon the subject by the present chairman of the board who held that the

board has under the existing law power to require the line of a railway to be elevated where it crosses a great number of streets in the city of Toronto. But, that the matter may be abundantly clear it certainly can do no harm to amend section 237 of the Railway Act so as to provide as the hon. member for South Toronto proposes that the board shall have power not only to direct the highway to be raised or depressed but also to hive the line of the railway raised or depressed. To carry out this intention I beg to move seconded by the Hon. Mr. Brodeur :
That the order for the third reading of this Bill be discharged and thet Bill be referred hack to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend it by adding the following as section 12 of the Bill :
12. Section 237 of the Railway Act is amended by inserting the words ' the railway be carried over or under the highway or that ' immediately after the word ' that ' in line 4 of subsection 2 of the said section; and by inserting the words ' the railway to be carried over or under the highway or ' after the word 'orders 3 in line one of subsection 5 of the said Section.
Section 24 of the Railway Act is amended by inserting the words ' by which any railway is carried over or under any highway or ' immediately after the word ' structure3 in line one of the said section.


George Perry Graham: This is practically a confirmation of the decision that the chairman of the board gave the other day that he had jurisdiction to compel the elevation of tracks. I have always held that, but I think there can be no objection to this amendment.


William Findlay Maclean: It makes it clear.


George Perry Graham: I told the hon. member for South Toronto that I saw no harm in inserting an amendment of this kind.


William Findlay Maclean: The practical effect of the amendment will be that the settlement of the Esplanade problem in Toronto can now go on without a reference to the Privy Council. If we do that so much the better.


George Perry Graham: I would not like to be drawn into expressing a legal opinion.
Amendment agreed to in committee; Bill reported as amended, read the third time and passed.



CONSTRUCTION OF DRY DOCKS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 119) to encourage the construction of dry docks, be concurred in. He said : The amendments are trifling. Subsection 2 of section 11 reads iu the Bill as follows :
2. The Governor in Council may at any time disallow the whole or any part of such tariff or of such by-laws, rules, regulations or conditions, and may require the company, within
a specified time, to substitute other tariff, tolls, by-laws, rules, regulations or conditions in lieu thereof, and, in default, may, fix and prescribe others.
The Senate, by their amendment, have inserted in the second line, after the word ' tariff,' !the words ' or substitute other tariff.'
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER moved that the amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 169) to amend the Yukon Act, be concurred in. He said : The only amendment made by the Senate is to add the words ' both included ' in the last line of subsection 3 after the words ' 30th March.'
George Eulas Foster: Has Mr. Girouard resigned his position as member of the Yukon Council?


Mr. OLIVER.: I imagine that his resignation would be tendered to the Commissioner of the Yukon. Inasmuch as his position as a member of the Yukon Council is dependent upon his holding employment under the government, and inasmuch as that employment has ceased, his resignation will be a mere formality, which I presume has been given, or will be in due course.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 189) to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Fisher.
On section 29-salaries.
Sections 53 to 57 of the Civil Service Act, both inclusive, are repealed and the following are substituted therefor:
53. The salary of a deputy head administering a department shall be $5,000 per annum.
George Eulas Foster: What is the present salary?


Mr. FISHER.: It begins at $3,500 and rises to $4,000 by annual increases of $100.


George Eulas Foster: Why is it proposed to make the salary, which mu^t be the minimum, $5,000, which is higher than the present maximum, and is there any provision for an increase?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The reason why we have adopted this change is the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. They recommend in their report that the minimum salary of a deputy minister should be at least $5,000. They also recommend that the salaries of deputy ministers ought to be alike, but in another part of their report they say that there is no doubt a difference in the qualifications and duties of some deputy ministers, which would indicate the possibility that they ought to

1163ft
have more pay. We have decided, therefore, to adopt the report of the commission and make the ordinary salary of a deputy minister $5,000 a year as they recommend. As was stated the other day, when this Bill was drafted we had proposed by statute to make special exceptions in the case of some deputy ministers under certain conditions and circumstances. As those conditions and circumstances may not arise, we thought it better to make the salary of a deputy minister a flat salary of so much, and when those special circumstances did arise to make a difference by voting by name an addition to the salary, which -would be contingent upon those conditions.


George Eulas Foster: Are there yearly advances?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this cover the clerks of the two Houses and the librarians of parliament?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was not quite clear that it would, and I propose to amend the section by adding after the word ' department ' in clause 53, the words :
And of the clerks of the House of Commons and the Senate and of each of the librarians of parliament.
I also propose to strike out sections 54, 55, 56 and 57. That makes the clause provide for a fixed salary of $5,000 a year for a deputy minister, including the clerks of the House of Commons and the Senate and each of the librarians of parliament.


William Findlay Maclean: How many would that cover?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Including the Auditor General who is provided for by another section, the clerks of the Houses and the librarians of parliament, I think twenty.


George Eulas Foster: What are the salaries of the clerks of the Houses and of the librarians?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $4,000 a year each.


George Eulas Foster: What are the reasons for increasing the salaries of the librarians and the clerks of the two Houses? There is no such recommendation iii the report of the Civil Service Commission that I know of.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know that they are specifically named, but they have the rank of deputy minister and they administer what is a department. The only reason that the title is required to be put in here is to make it perfectly clear. The Civil Service Act does not say that the staff of the House of Commons or the Senate or the library is a department, but I think, speaking from memory, that the Acts creating those staffs do, and as those officers occupy to those staffs the same position as a deputy minister does to the staff of a depart-Mr, FISHER.
ment which he administers, we thought it was only fair and right they should have the same salary.


George Eulas Foster: It is a delicate matter to-discuss, but I intend to discuss it even although we have to discuss our own officers. Of course it will be quite well understood that I am discussing it as a matter of duty. I do not consider at all that there is any comparison between the clerk of the Senate or the clerk of this House and a hard worked deputy minister of one of our departments, either as to the time he is held herein Ottawa or as to the work he does while here. Whilst I have no objection to a hard working and very responsible deputy minister receiving a good salary I do not see that we ought to be extravagant in the salaries we give them. It is quite probable that the commission was a little partial towards that grade of clerks because one of the members of that commission was himself a very hard-working and a very capable deputy minister and he nodoubt argued largely from the position he-himself had and the work which he had to perform.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: This remark is suggested to me. Does not the hon. gentleman think that the duties of the clerk of the House of Commons for instance during a session like this, are perhaps more arduous than the task of the ordinary deputy minister?


George Eulas Foster: No, I do not think they are.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The clerk is obliged to stay here night and day during eight months. I think his duties are as arduous as those of a deputy minister, just from the standpoint of physical endurance.
Mi\ FOSTER. That is a matter for argument. It does not strike me that the duties of the clerk of the Senate or of this House are as arduous or as onerous or as taxing as those of the hard worked deputy ministers who are here practically the whole year, whose duties are constant and whose responsibilities are very great. The what you may call mechanical duties of the clerk of the House are taxing to a certain extent but they do not involve that amount of responsibility which is thrown on the shoulders of a deputy minister who transacts the business of a large department, with the expenditure of two, or three or four or eight million dollars with reference to which he must constantly feel the responsibility that is put upon him, as in a sense, the general manager and supervisor of the whole. There is every difference between that class of responsibility and the responsibility which falls upon the clerk of our own Llouse. That argument is greatly strengthened when we come to speak of the duties of the clerk of the upper House. It may be a delicate

matter to discuss that, the two are equal in dignity but it cannot be contended that the two are equal in work. The Senate meets a few days in the year and it meets very seldom during any night of the whole year. The duties involved in that office are duties not of a responsible kind nor are they of a very onerous kind. I think that will be readily admitted. Then again I have some objection to fixing this matter as to the clerks of Parliament by a statute as was said during the conversation we had last night I think that we ought to have control of our officers and the fixing of their salaries as we certainly agreed to do last night-and the clerk of the House comes within that category.
Now, coming to the deputy ministers, there are deputies and deputies. Some are very hard-worked and some have very great responsibilities; others are not so hard-worked and have not so great responsibilities. I should think it would be more reasonable and fairer, on the whole, to fix the salary for the deputyship as a deputyship. Fix that at what you may consider a fail-rate. Then particularize, for instance, your deputy of the Railways Department, which deputy, it seems to be conceded, in order to carry on the duties of his position, must be an engineer having a practical and thorough knowledge of railroading. He acts as deputy of the department, doing the business of the department, but he has to be of a higher grade of practical knowledge and experience than one who acts as deputy, for instance, for the agriculture department or the Department of the Secretary of State. If the salary be fixed for the deputyship, then the deputy of the Railways Department, for instance, may have also the salary which applies to that part of the duties distinctly representing engineering ability and experience. Then, if the time ever comes when we have to employ a deputy in the department, a man simply to do the business, and to have alongside of him an engineer of proven ability and great experience, there will be a natural division of the two positions ; and so with reference to two or three of the other deputies who receive special votes because they nave special duties. I think that, for a mere deputyship $5,000 is too large an amount as minimum salary and that when, simply by a stroke of the pen, you raise the clerks of both Houses and the two librarians of parliament simply because you put them in this grade, it is making a pretty high advance ; we run the risk, I think, of making advancement at the top of the list and doing less than our duty by the hardworking employees of the country in the other grades.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that, with the exception of the last remarks of my hon. friend, the proposed section carries out exactly what he has outlined. That is, it fixes the salaries of a deputyship without
regard to which deputyship it may be, or to the person who occupies it. The suggestion here is that there shall be the same salary for all deputies, with the announcement that, in the case of some deputies, if they fill special positions, or if their duties require special qualifications and attainments, they shall have a special vote in the estimates of the year. That is exactly what, as I understand, my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) suggests. As to his suggestion that $5,000 a year is too high, it is to be remembered that our deputies in the past have had $4,000.	[DOT]	. -i


George Eulas Foster: That has been the maximum.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This Bill provides for a general levelling up and increase of all the salaries by the classification; and we think it is right and fair that that should apply to the deputies as well as to the other members of the public service. We have the additional reason that the Civil Service Commission deliberately stated that $5,000 a year was the least that any deputy, with the responsibilities of his position, should have. We know that it is difficult to get good men who are fully qualified for the responsible and onerous duties of deputy minister, while it is comparatively easy to get men in the lower classes of the service where the responsibilities are less or even none. When the field from which a choice can be made is restricted, it is always necessary to give a higher inducement to people to take a position. Therefore, to engage business men, with the qualities necessary to carry on the work of a department generally, it is necessary to give salaries commensurate with what these men could earn in other walks of life. My hon. friend seems to think that there is a difference in the different departments. I do not want to make invidious distinctions. The hon. gentleman mentioned the Department of Secretary of State and seemed to think that it did not require such qualifications or attainments, or did not involve so much work as the deputyships in other departments. So far as the work is concerned, that may be possible. But, taking that instance, it is to be remembered that the deputy of the Secretary of State has to deal with the important diplomatic despatches which pass between the government of Canada and other governments, especially with the home government. He has very responsible duties and very important work in connection with things of that kind and must have qualifications, experience and knowledge which, perhaps are rarer in Canada than are such attainments as those of the engineer or the lawyer. It is true that these are attainments which, probably would not be gained except in the experience of public life. And, when the proper man can be found and placed in the responsible position

of deputy to the Secretary of State, he certainly is worth a great deal; I do not think that $5,000 a year is too much for the service that he can do for the country. As regards the other deputies, there is no doubt there are differences, as there are in any other walk in life. In the lower classification some' clerks will he more hardly worked than others, yet, being in the position, they receive the same salary as those who do less. That is a necessary concomitant of the organization of people under classification. If we had an irresponsible head of the whole public service who could examine what each man was doing and pay him according to what was believed to be the value and measure of his work, that might work out;-it might prove arbitrary, and unjust, and unequal, in some cases, but it might work out. But no public service could be so managed; we must make rules and classifications, we must have gradations and ranks in the public service. The hon. gentleman has spoken of the clerks of the two Houses. I am not going to quarrel with him concerning what he has said as to the officers of the Senate. I will not express the same view, but I am sure he will appreciate that, if we were to undertake to discriminate against the officers of the Senate on the ground that they do less work than the officers of the House of Commons, the Senate would rebel. He knows also that it would be contrary to the established practice of many years.


George Eulas Foster: They fix their own salaries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Possibly. But we might as well fix it for them and make it an Act of parliament, instead of leaving it for them to do. As a matter of fact I think I am safe in saying that all the employees of the Senate service are paid just as highly, if not more highly, than those of the House of Commons, though it is well known that the Senate does not sit as long hours or as many days as the House of Commons.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Does the minister make provision for the abolition of the Senate ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, we have nut reached that point yet. Therefore I think it would not be possible to discriminate against the clerk of the Senate. With regard to the clerk of this House, I would only say that while his work does not continue during the whole year, as does the work of the deputy ministers in the departments, yet during the actual session of the House he is working longer hours and with more assiduous attention than some of the deputies, though not all of them. It has been the invariable practice for many years that the clerks of the House should receive the same salary as the deputy ministers.


Samuel Hughes: I think he works more hours than any deputy minister.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is quite possible. There are some deputy ministers who work very long hours, 12 or 15 hours in the day, but others do not. Certainly the clerk of the House, during the time that the House is sitting, has to work very long hours and very assiduously, and the duties he has to perform are very responsible. Under these circumstances I think the .clerk of the House of Commons is worthy of the increase which we propose to give him.


George Eulas Foster: It has been the practice heretofore to give the minimum salary to the new person who comes in and then increase it by yearly accretions. In this case you simply set the maximum salary first, that is, a newcomer coming into the deputy-ship or the clerkship gets the $5,000. Would it not be the wiser jjlan to make the salary $4,000 to commence with, and then let him progress upwards towards the maximum, as in the case of all the other grades?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The reason was that the commission said they considered $5,600 was the least salary a deputy minister ought to have. The logical conclusion of the hon. gentleman's argument would be that if they begin at $5,000 we should increase it up to $6,000. We do not do so, although circumstances may arise when the House will be justified in voting an additional sum.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that it will have a dispiriting effect on the man who is appointed deputy, with ten years' experience behind him, to know that he will practically stand where he does on the first day of his asccession to office, so far as the amount of his remuneration is concerned, We do not find any condition of that kind in the everyday affairs of life.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You do in the case of judges.


Robert Laird Borden: Judges generally take that position pretty well on in life, and there are exceptional advantages and exceptional rules for them. But I am speaking more particularly of men who are entrusted with particular duties in the great business affairs of the world. They usually undertake a particular post with the expectation that zealous and accurate work in that post will receive its fitting compensation as the years roll by in some increase in remuneration. The opposite principle which is adopted by this Bill seems to me disadvantageous in many respects. In the first place, the officer has nothing to look forward to, if you observe the literal terms of this statute ; if you do not observe them, you place the deputy in a position of dependence on the head of his department in respect to opportunities for an increase of remuneration. More than that, it may lead to applications, possibly in some cases, to intrigue and solicitation of outside influence, and many other evils which could be pointed out.


William Stevens Fielding: The principle of graduated salaries has not always been in ihe Givil Service Act as respect deputies. The member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) will remember that in his days deputies were paid $3,200, except one or two who, for special reasons, had larger salaries. But there was not a graduated salary at all. Several years ago, when the salaries were revised, the principle of an increase from year to year was adopted. But it seems to have been open to some objection. I would remind the House that the principle of graduated salaries has only been in operation for a short time.


Robert Laird Borden: Did it in the opinion of the minister work fairly well?


William Stevens Fielding: The effect of it is that you begin at a lower rate. The idea seemed to be that an officer having the responsibility of a deputy should from the beginning be dealt with in a liberal way. But it is a fairly debatable question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to say on this question that I think we are making a mistake in putting the employees of this House and of the Senate under the Civil Service Act. It always seemed to me that we should keep them under our own control. They are the servants of parliament, and parliament should control them. I do not think they should even be under the control of a minister or of the government ; they belong to parliament as a whole. There are reasons why I think this should be so. Once you take the employees of this House from under the control of parliament, they may do a great many things that would be disagreeable and unpleasant to parliament, or to individual members of parliament, and in reality there would be no redress for either the individual member or to parliament as a whole. Take the ' Hansard staff, if you will. You put them under the control of a commission, and under its control parliament may find that things are not going right, and you cannot do anything, you have no power. They are the servants of this House, and if they are under the commission they are not the servants of this House. I think parliament has been denuding itself of a right that it should not give up. I think it is a great mistake, and there is no precedent for it that I am aware of. I think we will live to learn that it is a mistake. It may have some advantages, but to my mind there will be many disadvantages. Another thing is that I do not think the Senate will be disposed to agree with this new move either. They have always shown an independence of this House in regard to the control of their own employees and the regulation of their salaries and that kind of thing. I do not know whether there has been a conference with the Senate to ascertain whether they are agreeable to this, but from what w7e know of the Senate
I do not think they would complacently consent to give up the control over their own employees.


William Stevens Fielding: I can hardly agree with the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). Nothing would be more laughable than that this parliament should desire to pass an Act to reform the civil service and apply it to every other department except itself ; that is to say, that the House should be willing that everybody else should be denuded of patronage but itself. That would be a strange view of civil service reform. My hon. friend used the word ' control,' taking away the officials from the control of parliament. I think he is mistaken there. This Bill does not propose that the Civil Service Commission shall have control of anybody. The control and management of the various departments will still be in the hands of the minister or deputy minister of the department, but when there are vacancies and offices to be filled


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who is the minister at the head of this House?


William Stevens Fielding: The Speaker will be the minister for the purposes of this Act, and the chief clerk of the House will be the deputy minister. But the control is not taken away from the Minister of Agriculture, for instance, and given to the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission will have certain duties to perform with regard to the nomination or examination and appointment of officials, but once they are in their positions .as officials of the department or officers of this House the control of the minister or deputy minister will remain exactly as it is at the present time. Take, as an example, the ' Hansard ' reporters, who have' been referred to. These gentlemen are performing a very valuable work in this House, and they are doing it remarkably well. The ' Hansard ' reporting of this House is most excellent, the staff is a most capable one, and I would be happy to see anything done that would be helpful to these gentlemen. But that is no reason why they should not be subject to the general rule which is applied to other officials. I cannot see why we should take the position of saying that the Minister of Finance shall denude himself of the patronage of his department, but we shall take precious good care that the House of Commons shall keep its patronage. I grant at once that if these officials w.ere 'to be brought under the control of the Civil Service Commission there would be good ground for objection. But there is certainly no good ground for objection when that control will remain the same as it is to-day. They will simply have the function of the nomination of officials, of inquiry, of examination, in some cases of competitive examina-

tion, and in some cases of such other examination as shall serve the purpose best, but I do not think the House of Commons is going to give up any of the powers or privileges which it now possesses if it allows its own officials to come under a law which it has deemed to be wise to apply to every other department of the government.


Mr.   SAM@: HUG-HES. What is the custom in the British House of Commons?


William Stevens Fielding: I could not answer that.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that the House of Commons in England has control of its own appointments and officers. The kon. gentleman has referred to the fact that the Minister of Finance is to be deprived of a certain amount of patronage. It is not a question of patronage, it is a question of securing the proper men. The appointment of a ' Hansard ' reporter is a very different thing from the appointment of a clerk in the Finance Department. It requires a different kind of knowledge, and that knowledge can best be obtained by those who are in association with the 1 Hansard ' reporters and with other reporters in the House and in the country. Speaking of the work of the clerk of the House and comparing it with that of a deputy minister-not that I am making any comparison at all-the clerk of the House spends from seven to ten months every year here, and I am satisfied there are very few deputy ministers who spend very much more time in the performance of their duties.


William Stevens Fielding: With respect to the English practice, my impression is that the officials of parliament in England are not so absolutely under the control of parliament as my hon. friend thinks. Nor is it so here. Parliament to-day does not have its officers under its control to so great ail extent as some hon. gentlemen seem to think. The principal officer of parliament is to-day appointed by the Governor in Council, not by this House at all, and nobody ever thought that this involved a loss of power, or dignity, or authority on the part of parliament, or that it was an infringement of its privileges.


Samuel Hughes: I had particular ref erence to the ' Hansard ' men.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite agree that there is a peculiarity about their work, but I am quite sure that the ' Hansard ' men will not suffer under this arrangement at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister may think so. They may not suffer, but the members may suffer. If you put the * Hansard ' under the control of the Speaker and the Speaker is elected by the government, it practically becomes part and parcel of the government. Suppose there is something Mr. FIELDING.
wrong, suppose there is an injustice done to a member, suppose that pressure is put upon the ' Hansard ' reporters to make the reports different from what they should be, or to interfere with the report, what control has the House over it? The House will have absolutely none in future.


Samuel Hughes: You may raise a row over it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You may raise a row, and that is all. You may raise a row with regard to any employee, but the government has the majority and votes it down. We have certain rights entirely independent of the government which we always guard jealously, and we do not desire to part with them. This is, in my judgment, a parting with rights that certainly belong to the House of Commons. I mention the ' Hansard ' reporters specially, because they are more intimately eounected with the House ; at least they come under our control to a greater extent than any other officials, but we will practically have no control over them in future.


William Stevens Fielding: I think, that every officer in this House to-day, who is not appointed by the Governor in Council, is under the control of the Speaker. The idea that members of the House individually have control over the officers of the House is a mistake. I think that the control of every officer of the House of Commons comes under the Speaker, and we either appoint them by order in council and then leave them to the control of the Speaker, or they are appointed by the Speaker himself, who acts in co-operation with the Internal Economy Committee.


Samuel Hughes: Are not the ' Hansard ' reporters supposed to be appointed by the Debates Committee? Was there not an officer recently appointed on the motion of the chairman of that committee?


William Stevens Fielding: I believe there has been some question in the past touching that. I believe that precedents can be shown in both ways. I believe that some one recently took the trouble to look the matter up, and he found that years ago it was contemplated that the ' Hansard ' reporters should be appointed by the Committee on Internal Economy. There seems to be a little uncertainty as to the proposed status of the ' Hansard ' reporters, but I do not think it is a very serious practical question, because their services in any case would be under the direction of Mr. Speaker, and I cannot imagine that a gentleman who would be selected to fill the high position of Speaker of the House would, in dealing with this matter, exercise the slightest partisan feeling. I am quite sure that any gentleman who might be chosen for that high office by either political party would be absolutely fair and just



190S

[Stage Direction]
in the discharge of his duties, and that if any question should arise as respects discourtesy or neglect of duty on the part of any officer of the House it would be determined by the Speaker without reference to partisanship.
Robert Franklin Sutherland: In so far as I have made a study of the Bill, I cannot see that it is going to do away with the effect of rule 58 of the House. That rule says :
The clerk of the House is responsible for the safe-keeping of all the papers and records of the House and has the direction and control over all the officers and clerks employed in the offices, subject to such orders as he may, from time to time, receive from Mr. Speaker or the House.
If that rule is in effect, and if, as I believe. it is not affected by this Act, then it is perfectly plain that in the future, as in the past, the control and direction of the officers and clerks, which includes all the permanent officers and clerks, I take it, in connection with the House, is to remain under the clerk, subject to the orders of the Speaker or of the House itself. So that our control remains as absolute in the future as it has been in the past in that respect.
Mr. SPROtJLE. What orders can the House give if the staff is under the Civil Service Commission?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is not under the Civil Service Commission, except insofar as the suggested amendment, with reference to appointment, classification, promotion and salary, is concerned.


George Eulas Foster: And dismissals.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Dismissal is a matter that remains with us. We are not proposing to embody in the amendment the question of dismissals or to convey that power to the commission. In so far as the ' Hansard ' staff is concerned-I understand that the Bill is not to be disposed of finally today-there is a nice question to discuss, not so much a question of control, but still a disputed question. The Debates -Committee have been in the habit of recommending appointments and salaries and I think that sometimes these recommendations have gone through the House at once violating in principle the constitutional rule that all expenditures at Ottawa should be introduced by a responsible minister after sanction by the Governor. For that reason it "has been contended from time to time by successive Speakers and members of the cabinet, and members of the House, that before any such recommendation from the Debates Committee should be carried out. after it has been submitted to the House there should be a motion sending it as has been done frequently to the board of internal economy for the purpose of getting the sanction of that board on which there 360
are four members of the government, and thus introducing it finally to the House under that constitutional sanction. That point is still a question of dispute so far as the general control of the ' Hansard ' staff is-concerned. Further, one point that the members of that staff make and which is worth while considering before this Bill is finally disposed of, is: that their duties are obviously for the session, and that if this Bill passes in its present form it makes them officials for the entire year and robs them of the privilege they have at the present time between sessions of doing other work and earning other money, and that if that is to be the effect of the legislation they say that then their salaries should be very largely increased. On the other hand if that is not the intention, then the members of the staff should still be allowed between sessions to do work, if they can get it, either from the government, or reporting the work of the Railway Commission, or outside entirely of the work of parliament and the government. There is one official in this House-I am not going to add a word to what the Minister of Agriculture has said about the clerk of the House-there is one official of the House whom I think should be paid a very much better salary than he has at present, and that is the assistant clerk whose salary is now $2,800 a year. The clerk of course has supervision over matters which the assistant clerk has not, but the assistant clerk has very onerous, tiresome and responsible duties, and he discharges them in the most capable way, as I can testify after an experience of four sessions as Speaker. The salary of the assistant clerk is only $2,800 after a continuous employment in the House of over ten years, and I hope when I come to classify the officers of the House, the Internal Economy Board will support me and that the House will agree if we place the assistant clerk In a class which will enable him to get a very much better salary than he has at present.


George Eulas Foster: I think in the first place we ought to try and get a very clear idea of what the appointment of the Civil Service Commission and the carrying of this Bill does interfere with and what it does not interfere with. I sympathize with every member of this House who does not want to give up one single iota of the rights of the House. We are a House of parliament, which is different from the government. and our work is controlled by ourselves and ought to be controlled as largely as possible by ourselves. Now, in the first place the appointment of the Civil Service Commission does not give to that commission the power to appoint a single officer either in the House or in any department of the government. Let us remember that clearly. They have not the right to make



a single appointment from the lowest form of officer up to the highest; they have not the right to promote a single man from the lowest to the highest; they have not.the right to dismiss a single man from the lowest to the highest; they have not the right to classify a single department or branch from the lowest to the highest; they have no authority whatever except under the direction of the government and of this House. They sift and classify out by process of differentiation through examination, record as successful competitors, suitable persons whom the department and this House may employ, without the right of making that employment final, and it is not (final until the department or the House has by its term of probation approved of the capabilities of the appointee. So that after all the Civil Service Commission is simply tbe mechanism by which we sift out from the great body of applicants by process of examination, experience, record and the like, a suitable number of candidates whom we ourselves in each special department or branch select, put to work, approve, dismiss, or keep on as they do their work well or ill. If that be clear what is it that this Civil Service Commission will take away of the powers of this House, provided we do not give away the powers of the House by our legislation. The Speaker says we ought to classify our own officials. So we ought and it ought not to be the Privy Council that classifies them. The very point he makes of the assistant clerk shows that. Here is a case in which the House would not go to the Governor in Council or to anybody else. The House wants to get the opinion of its Speaker as to the capabilities and the remuneration of the assistant clerk and when it gets it the House approves or not. There is, of course, only one machinery by which ultimately that takes effect, but it commences on the motion of the House and it proceeds upon the wisdom of the House.


An hon. MEMBER.: Must it not be approved by the Governor in Council?


George Eulas Foster: After we have taken action we have to get the assent of the three branches of the government, the Governor General, the House of Lords if it be in the House of Lords and the Common Democratic House of which we are members, if it be in this House. That is the form of procedure under which we are placed so far as the salary is concerned and only so far as the salary is concerned. Now, with reference to the Debates Committee. Various tributes have been paid to the ' Hansard ' men and none of the tributes that have been paid them have been any too great or any too hearty. I have had my speeches taken for twenty years or more in the House, and I have never had less trouble with the revision of what I do say than I Mr. FOSTER.
have had within the last three or four years under our present staff of ' Hansard ' reporters. I believe we have an ideal staff. What is the Civil Service Commission going to do? Are we going to let loose the Civil Service Commission on that devoted and accomplished ' Hansard ' staff and scatter them to the winds? Not at all. The Civil Service Commission cannot take away one iota of their salary, it cannot dismiss them, it cannot control them, it leaves them exactly where they are to-day. The effect of the legislation would only be that this Civil Service Commission, just as it finds a technical officer for a technical branch, or as it finds through the sifting process an officer for some other branch, will take the best process known to it and record after its examination one, two, three or four men as capable of doing that work. One of them is then selected. But by whom ? He is selected by the same power that selects him now, and he is put on the work and his probation period commences. If he proves himself good and true and capable he is kept on, and if he does not prove himself good and true and capable he is put off by the same power that would put him off today. The only point is what Mr. Speaker referred to and that can be easily ax-ranged in one or two ways. The preferable way I should think to arrange it is this : Leave the 1 Hansard ' men exactly as they are They work well for us while we are here and that is all we want of them. After we are done with them at the end of the session let them go out and give their sex-vices as they desire. Now, it was said here that the depxxty head or that certain other officers shall not engage in any other wox-k; make a clear exception for the ' Hansard ' staff. Let it be that as their duty ends when the session ends and as their duty begins when the session begins and while in that time they do their work well and work long and hard, let it be provided that they shall have a perfect right to do just as they are doing now and make all the money they can in any sphere that opens up to them durixxg the x-ecess. I do not think the Civil Service Commission is the bogie that some think it is. or that it has any power to run amuck among the different departments and dismiss the efficient men we have in our service to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: Touching one of the points mentioned with regard to the employment of ' Hansard ' reportex-s during x-ecess, I shoxxld mention that a suggestion has beexi offered and has been under the consideration of the Committee on Internal Economy, but xxp to the present has not matured as there appear' to be greater difficulties than we anticipated. The ' Hansard ' officials rather claim that although employed for a portion of the year, this practically cuts them out from other work

outside the session, inasmuch as when a man has to leave any business during several months in the year, he cannot easily pick it up again. The idea occurred to us that it might be a good policy to give them a considerable increase in salary and ask them to hold themselves, after a proper vacation to which their arduous work entities them, at the disposal of the government to do any government work that might arise, and which work is done at present by ' Hansard ' men and others as matters of private contract. The idea was to have a list of those available kept by the head of one of the departments, for instance the Secretary of State, in case any government reporting required to be done. In some years there might be a good deal and in others very little, and we thought by that means we'might give them a handsome increase in salary' and make a satisfactory arrangement with them. However that suggestion has not reached maturity, but that was one means which suggested itself to us for dealing with this matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As regards the statement that the ' Hansard ' reporters shall not be controlled differently from what they are to-day, one of the greatest pontrols is that of salary and promotion and so on. This will have to be exercised in the regular way, under the Civil Service Bill, on the recommendation of the head of the department concurred in by the Governor in Council. That certainly takes the control out of the power of this House and puts these gentlemen under another authority.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We had yesterday considerable discussion on this question of the employees of the two Houses and the library of parliament. There was an amendment suggested by the officers of the House of Commons, but my hon. friend the leader of the opposition pointed out certain difficulties that might arise, and I have been considering to-day how the working out of the various clauses of the Act might be made to harmonize with that proposition. I think it could be worked out by a general clause which would substitute for the Governor in Council, in those cases in which the Bill provides he shall take certain action, the House of Commons, and that could be provided by resolution or in whatever way might be thought best by the House. That would refer only to the employees of the House of Commons and the Senate. As regards the employees of the House of Commons, this House would act and the Senate would act as regards its employees, and both houses would take joint action as regards the employees in the parliamentary library. A clause could he drawn in such a way as to substitute in regard to these officials of the Senate and the House of Commons, the re-3694	[DOT]
spective Houses for the Governor in Council. I hope on another occasion to be able to move such a clause. As regards the ' Hansard ' staff, they are employed practically during the session only. There are a good many other employees whose services are also not required except during the session. I think that some clause might be devised which would provide that while these officers shall be, so far as classification and salaries and so on are concerned, under the operation of this Bill, any privileges or advantages they now have during recess shall not be interfered with by the operation of this Bill. I think that such a clause will meet the necessities of the reporters and translators or clerks of committees and others who are not required to be in Ottawa outside the session.


George Eulas Foster: Would you be justified in leaving the clerks of the House and the two librarians in the position in which you are putting them ? You are putting through legislation merely for the purpose of grading them, with the primary idea of increasing their salaries by $1,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not a fair statement.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has himself just now stated that he proposes an arrangement by which the appointing power shall be left exclusively in the House of Commons for its own employees and in the Senate for the employees of that Chamber and in both Houses jointly for the employees of the library.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not so far as the clerk of the House is concerned.


George Eulas Foster: You are putting through a piece of legislation which automatically raises the salaries of the clerks of both Houses and the two librarians, but in the case of the other officers the salaries are raised by a resolution of the House itself. Leave the question of salary to be determined by the House in every case and then you will be on a basis absolutely logical, i do not like the idea of simply, by a piece of legislation, adding $1,000 or more than $1,000 to a man's salary. I would prefer that instead of fixing a salary, which will be the same at the start as at the finish, you should provide for a gradual increase to be gained by experience in the office. That is the principle acted upon in all business concerns. A young man who teaches his first school does not get the same salary as after ten years teaching, when he has acquired greater competency. He grades himself up. but if he got the same salary the first year as in other years, that would he a death blow to his ambition and his striving to advance himself. You take your young deputy head who is being promoted

from a chief clerkship, and you give him $5,000 a year at once without any hope of increase. One of two things will happen. He will say : I have got my $5,000 salary and it is all 1 can expect; I will do the best I can for it, but I am not going to exert myself any too much. Or if he is a high-minded man. he will go on and improve himself every year, but he does it under the sense that be is not getting any advance for all the added experience and ability he acquires. I think that is a wrong business principle. You do not find it acted on in any bank or mercantile house. I would place the salary of a deputy head at something lower and allow him to grade up and improve himself. I think $4,000 would be a good limit as the minimum for the salary of a deputy head. If X were going to be a deputy head. I would rather have it that way.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As regards the clerk of the House, his salary lias been fixed by statute and be is appointed by the Governor in Council. The 11 on so has never anything to do with his salary beyond passing the statute, nor has it ever had anything to do with his appointment. The clerk of the House occupies a position analogous t|o that of a deputy minister, and lie ought to he in the same position.
On section 33-employment of certain temporary clerks.


Mr.   R.@: Jj. BORDEN. Under what section is authority given for the employment of temporary clerks and what is the nature of that authority ? I do not observe it in section 23 or section 33 or section 18. Section 18 for instance, does not give authority, it merely directs how the appointment shall be made.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it gives the same authority as for permanent clerks.


Robert Laird Borden: The deputy head could not ask for any clerk unless he had authority under some provision of the law to employ him. The same thing is absolutely true of clerks of a temporary character. It seems to me you are liable to fall into confusion unless you supply that omission from tlie Civil Ser vice Act in some way.
. Mr. FISHER. I think the only authority is the authority of a vote of parliament for the expenditure of money which the department has to utilize and which asks for such clerks as will be required to do the work. If there is no authority to carry out the work of the department no clerks, permanent or temporary, can be asked for.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Kecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 34-salaries of messengers, porters, &c.


George Eulas Foster: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I wish to move an amendment by substituting the figure S for 7 so that the minimum salaries for messengers, porters and so forth should be $8<)0 instead of $700. In addition to that, there is no provision in the Bill for increases of salaries to messengers, and I wish to add the following to section 34 :
1.	And unless the official record, to be kept ill tlie manner hereinafter mentioned, show him to be undeserving thereof, every person holding such a position may receive an annual increase of $50 until the maximum is reached.
2.	Every person holding any such position in the service, whether permanent or temporary, at the time this Act comes into force, shall be continued ill the like position hereunder at his then salary, and with the same tenure of office as if appointed to such position under this Act and shall be eligible for annual increases as above provided.
At present there are in the service temporary and permanent messengers, and they are practically on the same footing in every respect except that they are under different designations. We wish ro treat them all alike. There are men called temporary clerks in the service who have been there for ten or thirteen years and have received their annual increase. By this amendment they are brought in as permanent.


Robert Laird Borden: It is possible to get into some confusion by usinr the word ' temporary ' in the statute. In departmental parlance it may have a sense which is understood, but if you use it in a statute you might get into difficulty when it became necessary to interpret the legal sense of the word.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The term is .used in the Civil Service Act all through. The Civil Service Act provides for the appointment of temporary clerks under civil government contingencies. . That was in the Act of 1S94.
On section 35-salary on appointment.


Robert Laird Borden: You speak here of a recommendation based on the report of the deputy head accompanied by the certificate of the commission. But it does not express the character of the certificate or what shall be required.
Mr! FISHER. The clerk should have a certificate to show that he is qualified for the position. We might say ' certificate of qualification.'


Mr.   R.@: Tj. BORDEN. That certificate must be given in any case.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Practically it would mean that the clerk, being qualified, would have special consideration at bis starting point, that it might not be necessary for him to come in at the minimum of his class. There are a number of positions in tlie service which we expect will be in the second division and people will come in

after competitive examination for the second division. But there are special positions which you can hardly expect a man to accept at $800 which is the minimum salary. This makes provision where, if a person of technical or some other peculiar qualification comes into the service after passing the examination, instead of beginning at $800, which is the minimum of the subdivision into which he will have to come, he may come in at a higher salary. I will give my hon. friend an instance of what has occurred and what may occur in future. I have in my department patent examiners. With reference to these gentlemen, I have made it a rule that they shall have a university degree in the science which relates to the particular class of work they will be called upon to do. For instance. I require a man who is to examine electrical patents to have a degree from a university in electrical science. Men who examine mechanical appliances are required to have a degree in mechanical engineers. I could not get these men at $800 and therefore this section authorizes me to take them in at a higher salary, probably $1,000. The same is true of the architects division and of the engineering branch of the Public Works Department where they could not get properly qualified men to come in at $S00.


Mr. R. B. BORDEN.: The section seems rather bald if it is intended to express what the minister has just now stated. I would think it might have been more happily expressed. For example, it might have been said :
In any case where exceptional qualification is required a further sum not exceeding $500 may be added to the said salary by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the head of the department, based on the report of the deputy head accompanied by the certificate of tile commission, that the person proposed to be appointed possesses such exceptional qualification.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that perhaps would be better. I will write out about what my hon. friend has said.


Mr.  R. L.@: 'BORDEN. May I suggest that if the minister is making any amendment to the section he should stipulate that the report of the deputy head should he in writing ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I have been doing that all through. The other evening the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) made that suggestion and we have been putting it into the different clauses as they come up. It is understood that it will be in all the clauses.
On section 36-salary on promotion.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a clause in the present Act and it has been in all the Civil Service Acts.
On section 37-status preserved.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I wish to strike out that and substitute another clause. I therefore move :
That clause 37 be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
37. Nothing in this Act shall be held to reduce the status of any officer, clerk or employee in the service; and if the salary of any such officer, clerk or employee is less than the minimum of his subdivision or position under the provisions of this Act, his salary may forthwith be increased to such minimum.
The difference is that instead of using the word ' clerk ' we say ' officer, clerk or employee	 'of bis subdivision or position ' because it will apply to those who are not in subdivisions.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 38-salary on transfer from outside service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would ask that this section be allowed to stand. If there are some amendments made in sections 3 and 21 this will also have to be amended.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 39-annual Increase.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That clause 39 be stricken out and be replaced by the following:
39.	1. There may be given to every officer in the firpt division an annual increase of $100 until the maximum of his subdivision is reached.
2.	Unless the official record, to be kept in the manner hereinafter set forth, shows- him to be undeserving thereof, there may be given to. every officer, clerk or any employee in any subdivision of the second or third divisions an annual increase of $50 until the maximum of his subdivision is reached.
3.	In case of exceptional merit a further increase not exceeding $50 may be given in the second and third divisions.
i. The said increases shall only be authorized by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the head of the department based oil a report of the deputy head, and in the case of officers, clerks and other employees of the second and third divisions to whom a further increase is recommended, accompanied by a certificate of merit from the commission.
The change is due to the proposed change with regard to the annual increment of the first division which is made $100 instead of $50. and as the cases of exceptional merit are only intended to apply to those in the second and third division.


Robert Laird Borden: Do you intend to insert a general provision that all the reports of the deputy heads shall be in writing ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The officials of the first division are not to be subject to any record.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. At the present time the officers of this class are not required to sign the attendance book or to be under the same regulations as other officers are, and we thought that we would not adopt the principle of a record with regard to the officers of that high class.


Mr. BLAIN.: Are these special increases to be made on the recommendation of the Governor in Council ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are to be authorized by order in council.


Richard Blain: Why not upon the special recommendation of the commission ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The initiative would be taken by the head of the department, as in all cases of promotion. But it would be based ou the certificate of merit of the commission.
On section 40,
40.	No salary or additional remuneration beyond the regular salary of the office he holds shall be paid to any deputy head, officer, clerk or employee in the civil service, or to any other person permanently employed in the public service, except by a special vote of parliament, in which the name of the person who is to receive the remuneration shall be given; and no vote expressed to be made generally ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act' shall be deemed sufficient to authorize the payment of any such additional salary or remuneration.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is practically section 90 of the old Act, but it is made more stringent. We have found that, where money is voted with the proviso, ' notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act,' it has been held to be general in its character, and to be an authority to pay money to members of the Civil Service in addition to their ordinary salary. AVe wish to make it clear that unless the civil servant is specifically named who is to receive the additional pay, he cannot receive it.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest that the words ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ' should be put in inverted commas.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.
Mr. FOSTER, Have you repealed section 90 of the old Act ?
Mr. FISHER, Yes, it is repealed by section 4 of this Bill.
On section 41,
41.	Any person chosen by a minister to be his private secretary may, without examination and irrespective of age, be appointed for a period not exceeding one year, and paid as


Sydney Arthur Fisher: a clerk in subdivision B of the second division, and after one year's services as such secretary he shall be deemed to be permanently appointed to such rank. .


George Eulas Foster: This is a section that, I think, will bear some study, I did not like it on the first look of it, because it seemed too much of an interference with the basis of the civil service. We have a great many ministers in these days, and we have a great many changes in ministers. In the course of the incumbency of a ministry, it would be quite within the possibilities that fifteen or twenty persons would be injected into the civil service without showing the qualifications which were deemed essential in order to allow any one to be in the service. My experience has led me to think that it is rather a piece of hypocrisy to take a young man and make him a private secretary and then make him a third-class clerk or a second, classify him in some division of the civil service. For, all the time that he is private secretary, he is not doing the work of the division, he is not doing the work of a civil servant at ail. And so you have in the civil service a foreign body, receiving the salary, yet doing no work of the civil service. I do not think that the effect of that is good either on the division in which he is or on the man who has the nominal place and status and the salary of a civil servant. I would much rather see the private secretary of the minister the private secretary of the minister simply and solely, given what is sufficient for the private secretary and with that status and that status alone. His work is to do what his minister has for him to do. He attends to the private correspondence, does a good deal of the political work, does a great deal of the confidential work. In every respect, his work is political and personal and not at all departmental. I think it would be much better to let the private secretary take his chances. He comes in with the minister and does his work and you should pay him sufficient for that, and if he wants to enter the service let him get in by the proper way. He has the privilege of passing the examination if he wants to go into the service, and if he does so, then when the minister's little round is played and he passes off the stage into the twilight of common life this young man can take his place in the civil service. How does that strike the minister ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are some reasons for what the hon. gentleman has said, but I do not think there is any danger of any large number of clerks, nor of any one else who would not make an efficient clerk, being introduced into the service in that way. The private secretaries of ministers have to be well educated, competent and efficient, and in their career as private secretaries they get a general knowledge of the department which would tend to their competency. It would be an advantage to

the service that such men should come into it. Unless there is some assurance of future employment in the service the minister would have difficulty in getting, a qualified private secretary. He cannot be a mere boy ; he must have some experience in business life, or office work, or as a newspaper man, as many of them have. Occupying these positions there is a possibility of their rising in their own career, and it would be quite impossible to get a man of that kind to drop all his chances to be private secretary to a minister for a few years. As a rule in this country, the life of a minister is perhaps seven years, often it does not last more than four or five years, and if a man has been private secretary for that time it is hard for him to go out in the world and get as good a position as he left to become private secretary. As a matter of fact, one of the most efficient clerks in my department was private secretary to one of my predecessors, and his position has been improved probably as much as any one in the service since I have become minister. Another very efficient clerk whom I promoted was also private secretary to one of my predecessors, but he has left the department and occupies a still higher position in the public service. My experience is that it is an advantage to the public service to get men who have been private secretaries to ministers to enter it, and that they do credit to the service and to themselves.


George Eulas Foster: What I want to guard against is a clerk getting the salary of a clerk and the increases of a clerk while he does none of the work of a clerk. My experience also is that private secretaries to ministers have been men of a very good class, and many of them have attained important positions in the service after they have ceased to be private secretaries. They get a pretty wide experience in their position as private secretaries and a good knowledge of the department they are in, and it seems to me that if it could be arranged that there should be a provision by which the private secretaries would be allowed to compete to enter subdivision A, they would have the assurance of a good salary and there would be no incongruity. That may be unworkable, but I think it is a good idea. I quite agree that unless you can hold out inducements to a young man to come to a minister as private secretary it will be very difficult to get a suitable person.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no objection to his having a certificate of qualification?


Robert Laird Borden: It would be unfortunate to restrict the office of private secretary to such an extent that competent persons could not be induced to take the position. I do not know that even with the provision of section 41 there is going
to be a specially great inducement to the class of men whom a minister would desire as private secretary. The private secretary of a minister ought in the course of a few years to receive a training that would be of very great use to him in the public service, and especially in the department with which the minister was connected. If, as the result of any legislation, you would prevent him obtaining a position in the public service, I am inclined to tjjink the condition would be worse instead of better. There is one particular expression in section 41 which seems to me to be unfortunate. I do not know that I would be prepared to pronounce upon its precise legal effect, But literally it would oblige a private secretary to remain permanently in the second division without any opportunity of promotion, the language being:	He
shall be deemed to be permanently appointed to such rank.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the word 'permanently ' ought to come out, and I move that it be struck out.
On section 42,
42.	A record of the conduct and efficiency of all officers, clerks and employees below the first division shall be kept in each department.
2.	Such records shall be established by means of reports, to be furnished to the deputy head at least every three months by the chiefs of branches.
3.	At the end of each year, and oftener if required by it, copies of these reports shall be sent to the commission by the deputy head.


George Eulas Foster: Would it be wise to give the commission power to indicate the lines of the report provided for in subsection 2?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My own idea is that their regulations would cover that.
On section 43,
43.	If a person dies while in the public service, after having been at least two years therein, an amount equal to two months of his salary shall be paid to his widow or to such person as the Treasury Board determines.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have thought it advisable to insert this because at present while the practice is to pay two months' salary in the case of those who die in the inside service out of unforeseen expenses, there has also been the. general idea that people in the service all ought to be considered in some respect in this way. It has always been doubtful whether we could do that except by special vote in the estimates. I know that (payments have been made without that vote, but in most cases these votes have been put in the estimates.


George Eulas Foster: Has it been given to all officers, or what is the rule


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It lias not. The rule lias been that it should be given, but frequently it has been overlooked or forgotten, and the result has been a certain inequality which we think undesirable. We have thought it fair that it should be given, in the case of all public servants who have died in the service, as a gratuity to their heirg and successors.


Mr. LENNOX.: I have been requested to ask that if a messenger, belonging to the House staff, has attained his maximum salary, which is $700, he will be benefited by this legislation?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. he will then go up to $800. The limit now is $700.


Haughton Lennox: Could lie be put into any other class at any time?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would depend on the rules and organization of the House staff. It would denend on the Speaker and a resolution of the House.
Ou section 44,
41. Any person who directly or indirectly solicits or endeavours to influence a member ol the commission in favour of his appointment, promotion or increase of salary, shall be deemed to be unworthy of such appointment, promotion or increase, and it shall not be accorded him; and if he is employed in the civil service, he shall be liable to immediate dismissal.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I want to add another clause :
It shall be unlawful for any person, either directly or indirectly, to solicit or endeavour to influence a member of the commission in favour of the appointment of any person to the civil service or of the promotion of, or increase of salary to, any officer, clerk or employee in the service.


Samuel Hughes: What is the object of that? At first sight I can see one aspect of the case where this would he necessary. But how are these gentlemen of the commission to know anything about the fitness of a person for an office unless some one speaks to them? Can they by some mystic or occult process decide "that without consulting anybody else? I would think it perfectly proper that these gentlemen should be approached by some one wtho is in a position to let them know who are fit and who are unfit for office and promotion, and it will be for them to judge. Such a clause as this would not be observed twenty-five minutes.
Mr. FISHER, I cannot agree with my hon. friend. It would be very undesirable that the commission should be badgered by people from any part of the country telling them that this one or the other was fit for a position in the service. The commission will not use its judgment on information acquired in that way. It holds an examination, and the result of that ex-Mr. FOSTER.
animation will be the basis of its decision. The commission might be solicited or attacked or approached to deal leniently or strictly tvith some one in an examination, and that would be very improper. That would certainly be very improper, very wrong. They should Hot be approached in any way whatever, and I do not suppose for a moment the commission would yield to suc-b solicitation.


Samuel Hughes: Then why insult them by this provision ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because I want to free the commissioners from it.


Samuel Hughes: And leave it to a few ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not at all.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly, it is done in England to-day.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It says that no one shall do it.


Samuel Hughes: Then why does the minister say, as he has done in the House, that the civil service in England is run by petticoat influence ? Every one knows that the civil service there is run by back door influence.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Ob. I cannot allow that to go unchallenged. If the hon. gentleman knows that I do not believe that any other gentleman in the House does.


Samuel Hughes: It is absolutely known.


George Eulas Foster: On reading it over I feel bound to agree with the spirit of the proposal and "so far as 1 can see I think the language meets it completely. I had a section drawn and it is almost the same as the minister has proposed. I am very glad for my part to see it form part of this section because it seems to me very lame to put the whole thing on the young man or woman applying. I do not agree at all that it is perfect nonsense, I believe it is a wise provision. We want to accomplish what we started out to do, to eliminate from the entrance and promotion in the civil service, political or partisan or undue influence of any kind. My hon. friend asks how the commission are to know. The commissioners are to know by their examination for one thing, they are to know whether the man is of good moral character by making inquiries. I think there is provision here for certificates of health, of moral character and of habits. These certificates will be obtained from justices of the peace or clergymen or any other sources that commend themselves as fair, and that settles that part of it.


Samuel Hughes: Who furnishes the certificate of the character of the gentleman furnishing the certificate ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The public position he occupies will tell that.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose we will go as far as we can and then stop. This seems to me to g'o one step towards eliminating what has been the evil of the service and what the commission has clearly set forth as the great evil of the service, undue influence, and I am very glad to see that the minister has met the condition.


Samuel Hughes: I would draw attention to the second part of the clause which speaks of directly or indirectly using any influence. Here is one poor unfortunate hayseed who comes up and his friend says :	I would like to get this gentleman
appointed, he has passed the examinations, he sits in the front seat in church, his father is bald-headed from the draughts, lie has attended Sunday school from his youth. That man under the law would be liable to the penitentiary. Another gentleman who has a friend whom lie wants to get into the service, meets the eommis-sioners, has them out to dinner, has the young lady or gentleman who is a cndi-date present; they promenade on (he piazza, around among the shrubbery and dance to the music and all that sort of thing and it incidentally comes out-that the person is an applicant for the position in the service. Does any one mean to say that is not an influence. The minister forgets that in answer to a sarcastic remark of mine to the effect that the standard of public life in England was high, lie flew off the handle quickly and said he was not ready to admit that it was as high in England as in Canada. We should aim to get strong men as commissioners and let every one bombard them as they choose and then hold the commission responsible. To my mind the section looks childish.
Mr. M'. F. MACLEAN. What is the penalty ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When a thing is declared to be unlawful the penalty is defined by the criminal code.


Samuel Hughes: The highest penalty would be a year's imprisonment.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: Would the minister say that if a person said to one of the commissioners that any one was in the service and was a good servant he would be liable to imprisonment ? I think the minister said that although we had this legislation on the statute-book for some time it was more honoured in the breach than in the observance ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not quite that.


Uriah Wilson: Nearly that. The penalty may be there, and some persons may suffer' the consequence, but the interference will go on just the same.


Mr.   I@: Is there any law against it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. There is an order in council forbidding any member in the service from getting a member to exercise influence in iiis favour for promotion &c., and it was to that I referred. I think it is quite time that something more definite should be enacted against that kind of thing.


Samuel Hughes: What harm does it do ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The whole intention and object of this Act is to prevent and remove from either appointment or promotion or increase of salaries, political influence in the civil service. And that any undue influence, and any favouritism or any discrimination should be exercised in any of these cases is opposed to the best interest of the Public service. That is the aim, object and intent of -this amending Act. The machinery provided is intended to be for the best working out of that object aud intent, and I think that one of the most important parts of that machinery is a declaration, definite, clear-cut and without equivocation against anything in the way of undue influence or favouritism.


Samuel Hughes: Why not use the term ' undue influence ' ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Any influence would be undue influence.


Samuel Hughes: Why, if I happened to introduce him to a pretty girl-there would be an influence

. Mr. FISHER. Very decided. And very wrong.


Samuel Hughes: And I would be liable to punishment for that.


Uriah Wilson: If a member of the House happened to meet one of the commissioners and asked him to appoint a certain person to a position, would that mean that that member would be liable to punishment?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that the magistrate before whom the case would be tried would exercise common sense and judgment on the question of penalty.


Samuel Hughes: But he might have as little common sense as the parliament of Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not admit that.


Uriah Wilson: I think the law ought to show common sense and not to depend only upon the common sense of the magistrate.


Samuel Hughes: I move that the section be amended by inserting the word ' undue ' before the word ' influence.'


William Stevens Fielding: Then the hon. gentleman would have to explain the word ** undue.'


Samuel Hughes: I think the House should show some common sense and not make itself look absolutely ridiculous, as it certainly does by this provision.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that any influence would be undue influence. Better leave the section as it is.
Amendment (Mr. Sam. Hughes) negatived.


George Eulas Foster: There is another point in connection with this section 44. We have had discussions many times on the civil service taking part in the campaigns of polities. Now, we have started in, I hope, to eliminate political patronage in the civil service. And the House having spoken- as it has-declaring that while civil servants have a perfect right to exercise their franchise, they ought not to be permitted to engage in active political campaigns, we ought to still more entrench ourselves in that position by making this declaration a part of this Act. In Great Britain that is absolutely the rule. Whilst the civil servant has a perfect right to have his own views and to express those views, he has no right to take part in party campaigns, serve on committees or anything of that kind. In the United States this is expressly prohibited. Last year the duty of investigation into cases of participation in elections was given over to the Civil Service Commission, and with it the power to apportion punishment and carry out the law. For some time past the law was ineffectively carried out, but last year President Roosevelt, by proclamation-by which means they bring in so much of their civil service law in the United States-gave that power into the hands of the commission. It is an outrage upon fair men who are not partisans, and will be acknowledged to be a wrong even by partisans, that a civil servant, who is primarily appointed to look after public affairs and paid from moneys contributed by all parties alike, should use his position-which always carries a certain influence-to do the political work of the party in power. For, of course, the party in power will take good care to punish the civil servant who works against them, but they will connive at and actually support the work of their partisans in the service taking part in the elections on their side. We know that that has been done in every election in this country since we have been in politics, and that it is not a good thing to do. So I would like to see this added to the Bill :
An employee under the Civil Service Act, whilst having a full right to vote as he pleases end to privately express his political opinions, shall take no active part in party management or party campaigns.


Samuel Hughes: 


Samuel Hughes: Why should a civil servant be allowed to express his opinion privately? That provision would encourage him to go about it in an underhand, sneaking way.


George Eulas Foster: I think a man has a right to express his opinion. But that is altogether different from getting on the platform and berating one party or standing up for another.


Samuel Hughes: If he were to express his opinion on the street, that is public.


George Eulas Foster: He would have the right to express his opinion on the street. The corollary of having the right to think is to have the right to express opinion. But it is a question, in some respects of decency in other respects of expediency, how far an employee of the government shall go in advocacy of partisan opinions during a party campaign.


Mr. CONMEE.: Is there any abuse now?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, a great deal ; constant abuse ; there is no doubt there has been an abuse for years.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose a civil servant spent his evenings going from house to house and talking politics 'privately,' would not that be a violation of the principle laid down?


George Eulas Foster: I think that would be met by the last line.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the hon. member (Mr. Foster) has taken this amendment, perhaps not verbatim, but in general form, from the American civil service system. Now, in the earlier part of the discussion on this Bill I said I did not like that as a model. In that country questions of political organization so permeate every part of their social system and their governmental and departmental system, that no doubt some such clause as this is necessary. Besides, the party organizations have a legal status in that country, and so it is a good deal more easy there to say whether a man shall be allowed to take part in political campaigns or not than it is here. Our party work here has no legal status. A man may belong to an organization nominally and have nothing to do with its management, or he may have a good deal to do with its management, yet nobody be able to prove that he belongs to it. The difficulty of proving whether a man has or has not taken an active part in a campaign here is much greater than in the United States. Still I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposal. This House has declared itself, I think, officially in a resolution against any public servant taking an active part in a political campaign. Part of this motion, at all events, would be the natural corollary

of that position. I think perhaps it would be well to embody something of that kind in the Act. I do uot like that part of the motion of the hon. member for North Toronto which speaks of privately expressed opinions. There is no necessity for that. I think all that is necessary to say is that a civil servant shall be allowed to vote, but must not take an active part in * political campaigns. I am in favour of saying that he shall not take an active part in party campaign. 1 am not prepared at the moment to accept this amendment, but I will ask that the clause stand for consideration.


Richard Blain: When the minister is considering that clause, I would like if he would remember that one of his colleagues the other evening defended a civil servant who had accepted the position of deputy returning officer, and taken an active part in one of the recent campaigns. I hope the minister wil make his amendment to cover such a case, and say that no civil servant shall have a right to accept any office for the taking of any vote.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend would not say that that was taking part in a political campaign. The returning officer and deputy returning officer are practically judicial officers.


Richard Blain: But they have taken part in a political campaign.


William Stevens Fielding: If they have, that is an improper exercise of their power. The hon. gentleman would not say that a deputy returning officr is taking any part in a party campaign.


Richard Blain: I differ with the minister. It is a well known fact that in the recent election that took place in the province of Ontario, as an example, I have no doubt that ninety-five per cent of the deputy returning officers belonged to one political party; and when the election comes on for the federal House in the same province, 95 per cent of the deputy returning officers will belong to the hon. gentleman's political party.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 'Very likely.


Richard Blain: I cannot understand therefore how any man can suggest that the position is a non-partisan position. I hope the hon. gentleman will draw his amendment so that no man occupying the position of a civil servant shall have a right to leave that position and become deputy returning officer in any political election.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not prepared to say anything about that. What I said was that very likely 95 per cent of the deputy returning officers in any election belong to the party in power. It is one of the positions which is in the gift of the party in power. But it does not at all follow that the deputy returning officer is acting as a .partisan when he is filling that position. When
a member of this House leaves his position and is appointed a judge, it does not follow that when he goes on the bench he continues to be a partisan. But it would be proper for a political party to appoint deputy returning officers from among their own friends, as they appoint men to other offices. But when a gentleman becomes a deputy returning officer and is administering the functions of that office, then he should cease to be a partisan.


Richard Blain: When my hon. friend is proposing to remove the civil service as far as possible from partisan influence, does he take the position that it would be right to allow a civil servant to abandon his duties and accept the position of deputy returning officer in a political election?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think he should accept such a position if it interferes with his duties as a public servant. But at the same time, appointing him to a non-partisan office would not involve any partisanship.	,


Richard Blain: Would the hon. gentleman allow a civil servant under this Bill to leave his duties, as this gentleman did, for a holiday on election day, and go over to Hull and accept a position as deputy returning officer? If his Bill would allow that, the people will have no faith in the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: Speaking for the province of Nova Scotia, I am bound to say that, irrespective of party, the returning officers and deputy returning officers are regarded as men who hold a semi-judicial position, and it is a rare tiling that we hear any complaint made against the absolute impartiality of those officers. My hon. friend says that when the federal elections come on 95 per cent of the returning officers will be Liberals. Well, unless something occurs entirely different from our past experience, 99 per cent, and 100 per cent, of the returning officers in Nova Scotia I presume, will be the sheriffs of the province, who have been appointed irrespective of partisanship in days gone by; and as for a number of years they have been chosen from the Liberal party, in process of time nearly all these sheriffs have become Liberals. But the returning officer in every case, although the law does not require it, is the sheriff, and he feels it to be an obligation to choose for deputies men of fairness and intelligence. They have to be partisans, and nearly all the intelligent men of this country are partisans. A man who is not a partisan and boasts of it-it practically means that he is not taking an intelligent part in discussing the affairs of the country. A man may be a partisan and still exercise the function that is assigned to him in an absolutely fair manner. It is rare indeed that we hear any complaint as to the fairness of our deputy returning officers. Now my hon. friend would object to

a Dominion government official acting as deputy returning officer. Well, in many rural districts it is difficult to get men qualified and willing to take the position of a deputy returning officer.


Samuel Hughes: That may be in the hon. gentleman's district. But in 05 per cent of the rural districts there are men just as capable as gentlemen in cities and towns, to act ns deputy returning officers.-


William Stevens Fielding: In our rural districts men are so busy that they are not always willing to act as deputy returning officers for the paltry sum that is offered them. But it often happens that some official, may be the local postmaster, or the collector of customs, or an officer of that kind who is in the habit of doing clerical work, and is as a rule better informed than many of his neighbours In regard to the laws-that type of man is often appointed deputy returning officer, and unless some abuse is shown, I would not consider it an evil at all.


Richard Blain: Does thdt class of men come under the Civil Service Bill ?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon.' friend proposes that no employee of the Dominion government should be allowed to act.


Richard Blain: I did not say anything of the kind. My hon. friend misunderstood me. What I said was that the amendment of the minister should provide that no civil servant should have the right to act as deputy returning officer in any political election. I am assuming that no postmaster or customs house officer in a rural district would come within the scope of this law.


William Stevens Fielding: Under the law you may bring the outside service in at any time. At the moment my hon. friend would be right; these officers would not come in but the Bill does contemplate that at a later stage, step by step, the outside service may be brought in.


Richard Blain: The law is so strict that a customs house officer in any country town in Ontario cannot even accept a position on the school board. That is a law that lias been in force for many years.


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment seems to be taken from the law of the United States. The Postmaster General of the United States, in issuing instructions to the officers and employees of the Post Office Department, distinguishes very clearly between the classified and unclassified service. He says :
As to political activity, a sharp line is drawn between those in the classified and those in the unclassified service. Postmasters or others holding unclassified positions are merely prohibited from using their offices to control political movements, from neglecting their Mr. FIELDING.
duties, and from causing public scandal by political activity.
A person in the classified service has an entire right to vote as he pleases, and to express privately his opinions on all political subjects, but he should take no active part in political management or in political campaigns.
I do not know that there would be the difficulty that the minister fears in distinguishing between private and public expressions of opinion. A man who spoke from a public platform or who rose to make some remarks in the course of a public meeting would undoubtedly be expressing liis opinion publicly. A man who, in the course of an evening's conversation with a friend, declared wrhat his political opinions were, would undoubtedly come within the exception in the proposed amendment. While the Minister of Agriculture expresses sometimes his disdain for anything that has been done in the United States in the direction of reforming the public service I am not at all inclined to agree with him in that view'. The men in the United States who are responsible for the reformation of the civil service are men who stand in the very forefront of the life of that nation and in the forefront of the life of the w'hole intellectual world. Men like Seth Low', Carl Schurz, President Roosevelt, and a score of others that might be mentioned are not men w'hose efforts can be lightly put aside by any member of this House, not even excepting the Minister of Agriculture himself. While I fully realize that for practically all purposes w'e should look to the traditions of. the mother country, nevertheless, we must also recognize that in some respects the conditions in this country are more like those in the United States* than in Great Britain, more especially perhaps in connection with some aspects of our civil service. I am not prepared to accept anything from the United States or Great Britain merely because it is from one or the other of these countries, but I am not prepared to reject anything simply because in dealing with that along a certain line we are following the example of the United States. I do not think it makes very much difference about the exact wording of the proposed amendment provided we follow substantially the lines of the resolution which was proposed iu this House three or four years ago by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), which was accepted by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and which was unanimously adopted by the House.


William Stevens Fielding: On the point of a private expression of opinion I am afraid there is a greater difficulty than my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) suggests. He says that if a man goes on the public platform and makes a speech of a political

character that is a public expression of opinion. We will all agree with that. My hon. friend says that if a man is talking-to a private friend and expresses a private opinion that would not be an objectionable proposition. While that in itself may be a very innocent proceeding it might 'also be a very dangerous one. Suppose I saw fit to invite a dozen persons, whose politics were doubtful, to dine with me ; that is a private transaction but I could discuss politics and express my own opinions and in that way I might be influencing these men.


Mr. BRISTOL.: You would break the election law enacted by this parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: That might be a further reason.


Edmund James Bristol: Under the Ontario Act you could do it but you could not under the Dominion Act.


William Stevens Fielding: That -might be the case immediately at the time of an election but the danger would be that in the case of the private expression of opinion a person would be found to be doing a little canvassing and I would not leave any open door for that purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: I am content to leave that out but I do not think there should be any danger in leaving it in because you should not penalize a civil servant or prevent him saying to one of his friends what his political opinions are.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Leaving these words out would not interfere with that. I would like to say to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)- that he has misunderstood me in what I said about the United States. I appreciate as much as he does the work of a number of the leading citizens of that country in regard to civil service reform. What I had reference to when I spoke of the model of the United States was the fact that in the United States the political evils that they have to combat and overcome are not the same evils that we have had. There are things in their Act which we do not require and which would not be suited to the condition of affairs in this country.


Edmund James Bristol: It is pleasant to have the testimony of the hon. Minister of Finance on behalf of the deputy returning officers of Nova Scotia but the hon. gentleman should not extend his evidence beyond the particular jurisdiction with which he is acquainted. In Ontario he may probably know that we have a particular brand of Liberalism which produces returning officers and deputy returning officers of a very extraordinary character, such as those who were employed in West Elgin, West Huron and Brockville, gentlemen who were
expert in switching ballots and putting ex-, tra marks on ballots, and he can readily understand why some members of this House take exception to the appointment of any man as deputy returning officer in the belief that it is a non-partisan position we quite agree with him.


Mr. D. ROSS.: Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bristol) ever hear of a man named Freeborn ?


Edmund James Bristol: Of course, if my hon. friend wants to go over the whole .continent of America he may do so if he wishes but it has nothing to do with the observations I am offering as to whether it is desirable to have civil servants acting as deputy returning officers.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Ross) aware that Freeborn was in the pay of the Liberal party, that he was paid to go to the United States and that he is very probably being paid to stay out of the country to day ?


James Conmee: He was paid bv lion, gentlemen opposite to go to Manitoba.


Edmund James Bristol: It seems that the political state of affairs which has been so charmingly described by the hon. Minister of Finance as existing iu Nova Scotia does not exist in the rest of the Dominion and so I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture to receive in the proper spirit what my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) has said in that regard.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 44 stands.
On section 45-administration of Act and report to parliament.
. Mr. FOSTER. It seems to me that there is some weakness in the Act as to the examinations and the power cif the commission over the examiners. I notice that the Act puts the appointment of all the examiners under the Governor in Council, and I do not think the commission itself has any power over these examiners unless it be the power of recommend ition. I do not see why the Governor in Council should bother itself with the matter of examiners at all. Having appointed your commissioners and given them the standing of judges and the salary they get, you ought to have two excellent men, and would it not be better to leave to them the minutiae of the examinations. If I am allowed to speak of the example of the United States -if it will not offend the Minister of Agriculture who lately seems to have had a certain hydrophobic bias against the United States-I may say that the commissioners there have the subject of examinations absolutely within their own control. They appoint the examiners and have the

power to make investigation into any difficulties that occur during examinations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I propose to do that in this Act.


George Eulas Foster: Very well. The examination system may be expensive or comparatively inexpensive. The examiners in the United States are appointed entirely from federal officers in the different districts by the Civil Service Commission and first-class men are obtained and their time in conducting the examination is allowed to them for that work. The commission models the character of the examination and it is done in that inexpensive and effective way. I think it would be better that the commissioners should look after that rather than it should be given to council, which, in all conscience, has enough to do with larger matters.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under the old Act the present board of examiners have certaiu rights with regard to the conduct of examinations, and I propose in section 12 to allow the commissioners to appoint such further examiners as are necessary.


George Eulas Foster: As to certain things which are to be kept on record a good idea would be that notice should be given in writing by the appointing power to the commission of the person selected for employment, the place of residence, all transfers, resignations, and so on with the reasons therefor. In Great Britain these are furnished to the commission and published in the official 1 Gazette,' so that the whole public may have the knowledge. I think the commission should be authorized to do that. Then the roster should always be kept up to date, names will be dropped from the list of successful competitors, some may die or leave the country or take other positions and provision should be made to have the list revised to date.


Samuel Hughes: There is no proposition I hope that appointments to office shall be made in the order resulting from some examination?


George Eulas Foster: All civil service systems which provide for ail examination must, to be effective and real, take from a graded list according to the standing of the competitors or otherwise there would be no raison d'etre for a commission. All civil service systems make a limit of eligibility, and there should be power to extend that if there is reason for it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I agree with most of what my hon. friend has said, but I think it all will be provided for by the regulation of the commission.


George Eulas Foster: I think that could be done.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 18 provides that the Auditor General and the Treasury iMr. FOSTER.
Board shall be notified of appointmmts, and the records should show all the other information spoken of.


George Eulas Foster: That should be open to inspection.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think there could be any objection to that.


Robert Laird Borden: Who are the present civil service examiners whose status is confirmed by statute?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Dr. Thorburn, president, Dr. Glashan, Mr. Decelles and Mr. Foran, secretary.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no desire to suggest that we should interfere for the present with the status of the present examiners but it must be recognized that the value of this statute will depend in considerable measure upon the civil service examiners who will be under the control of the Civil Service Commission. It is desirable eventually to have these examiners appointed by the Civil Service Commission in order that the commission may be held responsible in every respect for the working out of the statute.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I approve of that and I will carry it out.


Robert Laird Borden: When the regulations come to be framed by the Governor in Council I hope some guidance to the commission and to the examiners will be found in these regulations similar to that which is in the civil service regulation of the United States, namely, that the examination may be a practical examination and not one purely of a literary character or which might be described as academic. It should be something more than the ability to answer questions, to display a good memory or even acquaintance with particular branches of learning. You might go somewhat along the lines required from candidates for the Rhodes scholarships, which is something more than mere intellectual ability to answer questions or discuss a given subject.


Samuel Hughes: That is the very idea I tried to impress on the minister a few days ago. The mere passing of an examination does not necessarily imjaly that the one who passed is fitted to make an excellent civil servant.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend and I have the same ideas except that he restricts the word ' examination ' in the way I do not. I would understand that in the word 1 examination ' all things would be included.


Samuel Hughes: That is the point I made the other day. The examination should be much broader and not merely technical. In conversation with a number of civil servants of recognized ability, who have had a good deal of experience-and

though we hear a great deal about the inefficiency of the service and its drawbacks and its derelict members, I can say, from a good deal of experience one way and another, that I have found here in Ottawa that our civil service is most efficient, taking it all in all-I have often heard them express the opinion that the man who could successfully pass an examination was not always the most capable official. I myself cannot see why we should have all this furore about the service. When the Conservatives were in power there was never any complaint about the abuse of patronage. In fact I never knew who had the patronage, and I never had but one man appointed during my term while that partv was in parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: What did he turn out ?


Samuel Hughes: He is a credit to the postal service to-day. I am very particular not to recommend anything but the very best. I do not know that there is anything very seriously gone wrong with this government-although they are very much to be condemned in many other respects -in their management of the service.
I think the service has been fairly well conducted by them and I know the officials are well up to date. If there is any reform needed, it is rather in the methods of conducting business than in the personnel of the officials. But men prominent in the service have stated to me that the very best officers they have are not the men who have received the highest scholastic education but rather those who have a fail-education. The latter show frequently greater aptitude and ability in the positions they hold than those of more scholastic attainments. As there have been a good many amendments made to this Bill, I would sug'-gest that it should be reprinted before getting its third reading.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly. I quite agree that on the character of the examination will depend the successful working out of this scheme. If the commissioners should undertake to submit a purely academic series of papers, which could be answered by any one who had gone through a system of cramming and memorizing, it would be an absolute failure; but that has not been the character of the papers used in England for the civil service examinations there, and my hon. friend from Toronto tells me neither is that the case in the United States. I have not had the opportunity of examining many of the papers in the American examinations as I have had of the English papers ; but those I have examined are quite of the same character as those used in England, and the questions are framed in such a way as to bring out the real practical knowledge of the competitors and place those who have that knowledge at the head
of the list. I think that our commissioners will follow the same plan. I do not think it would be possible, in framing the Act, to use words which would bring that out successfully, and we had better leave that to-the commissioners themselves. These commissioners, specially qualified in such -matters will no doubt, after careful thought and study, make recommendations to council which will be accepted as a matter of course, and those will embody the ideas to which hon. members have given expression.


Samuel Hughes: I would point out, as one who has had in days gone by a good deal of experience in examinations, that the best teacher in many respects I ever knew could never succeed in taking a second-class certificate. When he set to work to answer the examination paper, he became so nervous that he could not do any justice to his ability, yet he became one of the best teachers I ever knew. To my mind the examination should be even broader than a written examination or than one as to scholastic attainments.
On section 46-provisions- as to payments.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is taken almost verbatim from the Civil Service Act of 1903, by which certain changes were made in the salary classification. It was found necessary at that time that a clause of this kind should be adopted so that notwithstanding the changes, the Act might be carried out with the moneys voted for salaries and where money was needed it could be taken out of the consolidated fund to meet the demands created by the Act.


George Eulas Foster: It is a large power.
iMr. FISHER. It is large, except that it is limited by the provisions of the Act.


George Eulas Foster: Would it not be possible to have a calculation made as to the amount that would be needed in addition to the present requirements, under the new law. That could be made for everything except possibly promotions and most of the promotions would be provided for in the estimates. I would also like to have information as to how many this will affect in connection with the third-class and temporary clerks. Provision has been made that temporary clerks shall be made permanent by tbis enactment. I would like to know in each department the number of temporary clerks who are paid out of civil government contingencies, and how many temporary clerks paid otherwise than out of civil government contingencies will be affected by this Act in each department.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will try and get that.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might give the names of the parties as well as the number.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would make a good deal of extra work. When I stated, I think last night, that there were no clerks paid out of civil government contingencies except those who had passed a qualifying examination. I spoke too strongly. I find on examining the estimates that in three departments, I think the Finance, Privy Council and Post Office Departments, the words ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act' come after the civil government contingencies vote, so that in those departments there may he some who are paid. That may not lie the reason for the ' notwithstanding ' clause as sometimes it is inserted by reason of age or something of that kind.


William Stevens Fielding: I would imagine that some rough estimate might be made as to the amount, but even so I think it would be well to leave the clause in its present form as you cannot foresee quickly every case which would come under the operation of this Act and which might call for some increase of salary. It would be unfortunate if we should discover that through lack of proper examination some man to whom we wished to give the advantage of this provision could not be given it.


George Eulas Foster: I would have no objection to have it in some form.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would ask the committee to return to clause 35 in which the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. It. L. Borden) made a suggestion which I undertook to carry out. 1 move that section 35 be amended by striking out the words ' in exceptional cases ' in lines 17 and IS, and substituting :
In ease the qualifications required for the performance of the duties of a position are of an exceptional character.
And by putting after the word ' commission ' in the 20th line the words :
That the qualifications required for the performance of the duties of such position are of an exceptional character.
That is to say, the certificate of the commissioner shall say that the duties are of an exceptional character.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister think that goes quite far enough ? The commission might be absolutely correct in saying they are of an exceptional character, but it would be a difficult point to determine as to whether they 'were of such an exceptional character as to warrant the advance proposed. I should think that the head of the department would be the better judge hoiv much extra pay should he allowed. That is, in the case of an appointment to a position in the civil service. I should think that the departmental officers would know better Mi, FOSTER
as to the nature of the special qualifications than the commission and the commission would be quite qualified to refuse to give that certificate unless they thought the arrangements were reasonable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have drafted an amendment in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R.
L. Borden), which I have handed to that lion, gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: The first part is what I suggested, but not the second. What I suggested was a certificate for the person, but this provides for a certificate from the commission as to the duty.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would propose to strike out the words ' in exceptional cases,' and substitute the following :
In case the qualifications required for the performance of the duties of a position are of an exceptional character, and to add after ' commission ' those words ' that the person proposed to be appointed possess the qualifications required for the performance of the duties of the said position/


George Eulas Foster: What are the exceptions?
ilr. FISHER. I instanced a case this afternoon. I have in my department patent examiners. My rule is to appoint only university graduates. I cannot get men to come in at $S00, the minimum of the class in which they would come, sub-division B of the second division. I have to give them $1,000 or $1,200. Therefore, there must he authority in such cases to grant more than the minimum salary. The same occurs in connection with the architects' and the engineers' branches of the Public Works Department.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Referring now' to section 10-duties of commission-I have an amendment which I think will meet the suggestions made. I propose to amend subsection (a) to read :
(a)	To test and pass upon the qualifications of candidates for admission to the service and for promotion in the service, and to issue certificates with respect thereto where required
| under this Act or regulations made thereunder.


George Eulas Foster: Would that include transfers?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I think that is satisfactory.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I propose to amend subsection (b) to make it read :
(b)	Of its own motion to investigate and report upon the violation of any of the provisions of the Civil Service Act or this Act or
i any regulations made under either ot said

Acts, and upon the request of the head of a department, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to investigate and report upon the organization of the department, the conduct and efficiency of its officers, clerks and other employees and any other matter relative to the department.
2b. In connection with and for the purpose of any such investigation the Governor in Council may invest the commission with all or any of the powers vested in a commissioner appointed under part 2 of the Inquiries Act.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest that, these having been read, the minister should allow them to stand for further consideration. Or let them be passed if the minister wishes. Then let the Bill be reprinted, and we can have a day to look over the matter. It is pretty hard to take them in as they are read.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman will observe that in addition to the provision of subsection (b) as it stands, this subsection authorizes the commission to investigate and report upon, not only the organization of the department, etc., but also report upon the violation of any of the provisions of the Civil Service Act or of this Act, or any regulation made under either of the said Acts.


George Eulas Foster: Would the hon. minister make it read ' the workings of or violations ' of these laws and regulations? That would not take in a minute inquisition, but it would always be held as their duty to see that the Act was really working well. They could give us the benefit of their information on that point.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think there is any objection, but I do not wish to give the commission too inquisitorial powers. I wish to give them every opportunity to aid in perfecting the working of the civil service. However, I do not see any objection now, but I would like an opportunity to look into and consider the matter. There is another part which I think it is necessary to explain in that connection. At the present time we have a Board of Civil Service Examiners. Those civil service examiners, under the present Act, have certain duties and privileges. I want the duties and privileges of that civil service board to be transferred to the new commission.


George Eulas Foster: Then what became of that board ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That board will practically cease to exist. The civil service examiners will continue as examiners under the control of the new commissioners, but the old board will cease to exist. But there are certain powers under the present Civil Service Act which I want the new commission to exercise, and I wish to substitute to the present clause 2 in section 12, the following :
The powers of the civil service examiners as a board under sections 7 and 15, both inclusive, of the Civil Service Act, shall be vested in and exercised by the commission, and for the purposes of the said sections, either one of the members of the commission may exercise any function or power vested by said sections or any of them, in the chairman of the board.
The present board has a chairman, and there are certain things which the chairman is authorized to do that the other members of the board are not authorized to do, and we wish to give either of the new commissioners the powers that the chairman has. Then clause 3 of section 12 would read :
The provisions of the said sections shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to examinations under this Act mutatis mutandis.
These sections chiefly regard irregularities in examinations and improper actions. We wish the new commission to have the powers of the old board. Then I would take the present clause 2 of section 12 and make it clause 4 of the new section 12, and I would amend it in the way we were speaking of a few minutes ago.
Such further examiners as are deemed necessary may be appointed by the commission.
I do not think we need say anything further. I will have these put in proper form in the reprinted Bill for the third reading.


George Eulas Foster: I quite agree with the minster in all those amendments. When we see them in print we may think of some other improvements. No doubt you will have to abolish the old board. We have good authority for saying that you cannot put new wine into old bottles. You have now a board of Civil Service Commissioners who have certain duties, and when you form your new commission you cannot have two boards, you cannot amalgamate them. It is necessary that the old board shall disappear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have been discussing and preparing amendments which will affect sections 3, 4, 24 and 38. These sections depend on one another, and amendments in any one of them will affect more or less the others. I ask that they stand until I can get these amendments worked out. I would like to say that I will prepare one general clause in regard to the employees of the House of Commons, the Senate and the library, in which the Governor in Council will riot deal with them in the same way that he deals with the other departmental officers. The amendments which I propose to make to sections 3 and 4 in regard to the employees of the House, will, I hope, cover the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. James Division, Montreal (Mr. Ger-vais).


Samuel Hughes: I hope the minister will take into consideration the amend-



ment that was suggested to-night about not approaching the commissioners.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have to thank hon. members for the way in 'which they have expedited the progress of the Bill, and I will now ask that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Public Works, chargeable to income-New Brunswick - Buctouche - channel through beach, $2,000.
['I was not aware that that was definite. If so it will take precedence over my statement.']
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I understood that my hon. friend from Prince, P.E.I., desired to say something with reference to public works in his province.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I wanted to ask particularly about the repairs at Tignish. I have brought the case of Tignish to the attention of the House several times during the session. Petitions were sent from responsible men in Tignish, from Caraquet in New Brunsiwick and from the West Prince Board of Trade asking that Tignish harbour be enlarged to allow the fishing fleets to find a place of refuge. The minister said the department were taking the matter into consideration. He said that they had received a petition from the Alberton and West Prince Board of Trade and also from the people of Gloucester county, and the matter was in the hands of the resident engineer for a report which they would have to await before any opinion could be expressed on the matter.


William Pugsley: There is an item in the Main Estimates which has been passed for certain work at Tignish consisting of general repairs to breakwaters, in the way of planking, fenders, piling, floor stringers, ballasting and brush work. With regard to the further improvements which have been asked for no conclusion has been arrived at. There has been expended in various years at Tignish quite a large amount of money. I understand that further improvements are urged by people who are interested in the harbour, and the most I can say to my hon. friend at present is that the matter is still under consideration.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: This is a matter of very great importance to the fishermen there and there is no port along the coast of New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island where the fishing fleet can seek refuge. The question should be decided without any delay. Having brought this matter to the attention of the minister in February last I had hoped that by this time some decision would have been arrived at. This is not a matter that can be deferred indefinitely. It should receive the atten-Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
tion of the department at once and I have no doubt that it would meet the approval of the minister if he would look into the situation. I trust that before the House closes the minister will have an amount in the supplementary estimates to provide for this work being done. Along the whole coast there are a number of public works needed. When the minister talks of so much money being expended at Tignish I would say to him that since confederation the whole sum expended on public works in Prince Edward Island is very little more than three times the amount expended in Nova Scotia in one year. We have a big coast line around Prince Edward Island and there are a great many public works needed. In my own county there have been very small amounts appropriated for urgent public works. Our fisheries cannot be carried on without breakwaters and wharfs to enable the fleets to bring in their product and to shelter the boats. I would like to impress on the minister the necessity of having a' vote for the improvement of Tignish harbour and of having the work started and completed before the bad weather comes on when it is most necessary that these boats should have shelter. I would like also to call the minister's attention to the necessity of a wharf at Higgin's shore.


William Pugsley: The necessities at Higgin's shore have not been brought to my attention.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: They were brought to the minister's attention on December 16.


William Pugsley: If they have been it has escaped my memory.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: On December 16, I asked the minister if he had received a request for an extension of the wharf at Higgin's shore to make it available for small trading vessels and the minister replied :
Yes, a request has been made and the matter is under consideration.
The minister is not paying much attention to the needs of Prince Edward Island in the matter of public works. Since confederation only one and a half million dollars have been spent in the whole province of Prince Edward Island for public works, and on the whole coast line of Prince county, for several years past there has only been an average expenditure of $11,000 per year.


William Pugsley: How much was spent in Conservative days ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: About $11,000 per year in Prince county and it is about the same under the Liberal administration. At Higgins shore the people are ten or fifteen miles away from the railway and certain inexpensive improvements are absolutely needed there to give accommodation. Then as to Hubbard's cove, was not a petition
11681	JUNE 30, 1908	11682
received from the people there accompanied by a chart showing the coast line and explaining the necessity of a wharf at that point?


William Pugsley: I hope my bon. friend will not think I am discourteous to him, but there being no items in the estimates now before the committee for these works I have not with me to-night the information which he seeks.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I can understand that, but at the same time I have brought every one of these matters to the attention of the minister at different times during this session.


William Pugsley: And no doubt I gave the hon. gentleman answers.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Yes, but your answer was last December that the case of Tignish harbour and Higgin's shore were under consideration and your answer is the same to-night. These works are badly needed for the convenience of the fishermen, and as seven months have elapsed since the minister first told me he was considering it, it is time the people should know when they will get relief.


William Pugsley: There is no one more desirous than I am of affording to the people living along the coasts of the martitime provinces, along the shores oif the great lakes and of our navigable waters generally, every facility for the carrying on of their means of livelihood in the way of improvement to harbours and protection for fishermen. My hon. friend will recognize that there are innumerable demands from all sections of the country, and were I to comply with all these demands the estimates would have risen to such proportion as to cause parliament to think that I was not justified in asking for such a large expenditure. I have brought the best judgment I could to bear on the information at my disposal in order to provide for these works which are at present most necessary. As to the works to which my hon. friend has called attention and which are not now provided for, careful inquiry will be made and action taken on the basis of the reports furnished me. I do not admit for a moment that Prince Edward Island is receiving unjust treatment from this parliament or this government. In the matter of building branches and extensions of the Intercolonial railway


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We are not considering the Intercolonial Railway now; we are talking about your department.


William Pugsley: But my hon. friend must consider and the people of Prince Edward Island must consider and the people of the country will consider the expenditures made on the various public services in the one province or the other. I
believe there is a disposition on the part of parliament, as there is on the part of the government, to treat Prince Edward Island not only fairly, but, as a smaller province, even generously.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not see it.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said that in Conservative days the average expenditure upon the harbours of Prince Edward Island was about $11,000 per year.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What I said was that the expenditure in the county of Prince was $11,000 per year.


William Pugsley: Well, I do not know what the expenditure in Prince Edward Island was in Conservative days, but in the main estimates that are before parliament I have $85,000 for wharfs and improvements in that province, and I am inclined to think that when the supplementary estimates are brought down my hon. friend will see a still further disposition on the part of the government to deal justly with Prince Edward Island as well as with other provinces of the Dominion. With regard to the particular works to which the hon. gentleman has called my attention, all I can say is that they are under consideration. When I say they are under consideration, I mean that they will be carefully considered with the view of meeting, in this and all other respects, the reasonable requirements of the people of Prince Edward Island.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The minister has said that I complained about certain things when I merely pointed out to him that certain works require to be constructed in Prince Edward Island. This I did many months ago and he then gave exactly the same reply. He tells us that he is dealing with the island with a lavish hand and that he has $85,000 in the estimates for public works in that province. But the bulk of that item is made up of a $50,000 vote for a breakwater in Summerside harbour. If the hon. gentleman were familiar with the history of that breakwater, he would not boast of that expenditure. Away back in 1900, when I was running an election in Prince county, the Liberals got out a big poster, a few days before the polling, telling the people what an immense sum they were going to spend on this breakwater and what an amount of employment it would give a great number of men. Well, we have had that vote in the estimates every session since 1900. The work was to have been completed about a year and a half or two years after the vote was first put in, so that I do not think the minister can take very much credit out of this $85,000 when he subtracts $50,000 from it. However that work is going on, and I presume will be completed in a few years. But what I do complain of is the small amount of money we have been annually get*-

ting to meet the necessities now apparent of onr very large coast line and which need instant remedy. The minister says he is not prepared to give the information asked. All I can say is that it is customary to give such information, especially when the matter has been brought to the attention of the minister before and when the necessities have been urged on the minister by the different boards of trade. If the minister inquires he will find that he had ample data in his department to have enabled him to give the information to-night and to have justified him in promising the people on this coast additional harbour accommodation at Tignish. One of his engineers went down there and said the work could readily be done for about $20,000. If the hon. mnister is so willing to do everything possible for Prince Edward Island, he ought not to hesitate giving a first-class harbour to the people along that coast, which would only cost $20,000. In reply to an inquiry I made on February 11, the minister informed me that:
The proposed improvements leave no doubt that the space between the breakwaters would scour out so as to carry a depth of from four to five feet at low water which will be sufficient for the class of boats usually making use of the harbour. The estimated cost of the work would be $20,000.


William Pugsley: That is about as much information as to the work itself and its cost as I can give to-night.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: But you did not have information and were not prepared to say what would be done. When the minister had this information on February 11, I think he should have been able to-night to say whether this work would go on or not. There are a number of other places to which I would call his attention. He can look them up in his department and possibly will give me the favour of an interview when we can talk these matters over more intimately. I would call his attention to some other places which have been pointed out to him by the people of Prince county and also by myself in this House. There is other work needed at Mimminegash and also at Kildare, concerning which a petition was sent the minister. There is a long coast line there which is absolutely bare and it is frequented by some forty or fifty boats. The work is not of very great magnitude and would be of great service to the fishermen. Petitions have also been sent in for the dredging and improving of Bray harbour. There is also needed at West Point further accommodation for the fishermen there, and a light is much needed on the breakwater at that point. What is being done with the ferry wharf at Table Point, Lennox island ? I believe that work is still going on.


William Pugsley: I am informed that there is no work going on there at present.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What has been done ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 


William Pugsley: I haye no memo, to-night with regard to that. The requirements of the island have been carefully considered and the additional provision which will now be made for various works will be made in the supplementary, estimates. My hon friend could not expect me to anticipate what may be the action of the government with regard to the different public works until the estimates have been passed by council and submitted to parliament.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The minister is wrongly informed. On May 14, in answer to a question of mine, he said that the contract had been let for building the Lennox island ferry wharf, that the contract price for the landing wharf is $625 and that $150 had been paid on account. There must be some further expenditure as the work is not completed.


William Pugsley: I would be very happy to give the information, but if my hon. friend desires information regarding any particular work, he should have given me a memo. I have already answered when he put the question in the House. I do not come here tonight prepared to answer any questions except those which pertain to the items under consideration. We have certain items in the main estimates, and it will be my pleasure to answer fully regarding them, but I cannot be expected to have the information offhand as to any other work not included in the estimates.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: If the minister cannot give me the information to-night I shall have to have a personal interview with him.


Mr. CROCKET.: I notice that this Bue-touche contract is by day labour and a man named Cormier has been foreman. Who is responsible in such a case for the purchase of supplies?


William Pugsley: For supplies such as lumber, iron work, &c., the foreman of course must act under the direction of the resident engineer whom we hold responsible.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are tenders asked?


William Pugsley: In this particular case the larger part of the work is dredging.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There is $55 for stone supplied by Mr. Irving, a lawyer.


William Pugsley: He is engaged in other business besides law.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Would tenders be asked for the stone or would the foreman take the responsibility?


William Pugsley: There were no tenders, it would be purchased by the resident engineer who is responsible for the price. The expenditure to October last was $2,917, and it is expected to be completed this year by this vote, making the total cost about $5,000.

Campbellton wharf-extension and repairs,


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this for the completion of Mr. Glover's contract and will it complete the work?


William Pugsley: This is Mr. Glover's contract. We will require a further appropriation in the Supplementaries. The work is to be completed by December, 1909, and the contract price for the extension is $35,475.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was not a wharf built there two or three years ago at a cost of $35,000? I understand this money is to extend that wharf.


William Pugsley: Yes, an extension of the new deep water wharf at the eastern end. The extension is 314 feet long and 45 feet wide and there is dredging required as well. Eight tenders were received of which the highest was $44,469. The chief engineer's estimate was $38,000, and the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The report of the department speaks of a contract with Glover for the building of a wharf 200 feet long and 45 feet wide as a western extension at $16,000. Is that completed?


William Pugsley: That is the old contract and it is completed.
Caraquet wharf, approach, ice-breakers, &c., $3,90(1.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much have the wharf and approaches cost to date?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure in connection with this up to March 31, 1907, was $68,345. The present work is for the completion of the third ice-breaking pier for the efficient protection of the outer end of the wharf and the total expenditure for this work is supposed to be $5,400.
Mr, CROCKET. This is the wharf for which an appropriation was first voted in 1902, and concerning which not long ago the member for Gloucester ((Mr. Turgeon) stated in this House that the time had not yet come to demonstrate the utility of that wharf. I have already stated that the wharf had not been used for any purpose since its completion on March 31, 1905, except drying fish nets. I believe that this year one small boat did land at the wharf, it seems to me that the people of other constituencies and sections of the country where there is much need of public works have reason to complain of the expenditure of such a large sum as this for a wharf which, as the member for the constituency in 1908 admits, has not found any use up to this time.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the government acquired title to the railway leading from the highway down to the wharf ?


William Pugsley: Yes, the title has been acquired.


Oswald Smith Crocket: From whom ?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


Mr. TURGEON.: From the different parties interested. All the titles have been got, some from Blackballs, and some from other parties. The road crosses four or five farms and the different parties have given titles to their property. These are in the Department of Justice, I suppose.


Mr. AMES.: Who paid for the construction of the road ?


Onésiphore Turgeon: The department. It was made under the supervision of the resident engineer.


Herbert Brown Ames: The department built a quarter of a mile of road down a side hill to reach the wharf, and charged the expense to the wharf ?


William Pugsley: Roadway to the wharf is always provided.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have information from Gloucester county that there is a claim against the government for compensation for a portion of this roadway.


William Pugsley: What is the amount ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am informed that the claimant is Mrs. Blanche Blackhall, widow of Richard Blackhall. It appears that the land through which this roadway passes was formerly owned by a man named Wilson, who abandoned possession of the property and removed to Scotland about half a century ago. Blackhall subsequently went into possession of the property-


William Pugsley: Apart from the details of the title, what is the amount of the claim ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is $400. I will state to the minister the information I have-


William Pugsley: It really is not necessary ; the matter goes through the Department of Justice.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I will state it whether the minister deems it necessary or not. Blackhall went into possession of the property, occupied it for twenty years and established a statutory title by possession. When this wharf was completed, negotiations were had with Blackhall-or, it may be, with his widow after his death-to acquire title to the property. I am informed that the engineer recommended that the property was worth $400, and that the department agreed upon Mrs. Blackhall executing a deed and affidavit setting forth the occupation for twenty years, to pay over the same. The deed and affidavit were executed. But, subsequently, and not very

long ago, the member for the county Informed Mrs. Blackhall that the Justice Department had advised against the paying of the compensation agreed upon, for the reason that one Wilson who was the son of a cousin of the former owner of this property, had bobbed up as a claimant to the land, notwithstanding that he had taken no proceedings for over a score of years to dispossess the Blackballs. And the member for the county (Mr. Turgeon) informed Mrs. Blackhall that if she would pay, or agree to pay, Wilson $100, the matter might be put through and the amount paid. Now, this Wilson, I understand, is a collector of customs, one of the appointees of the hon. member for Gloucester, and it is reported to me that he is a very active political partisan of my hon. friend. And it does seem to me that, if these negotiations were carried on with Blackhall or Mrs. Blackhall, as alleged, and if there was an agreement to pay her $400 on the execution of the deed and affidavit, it is not very creditable to find the member for the county, backed up by the Justice Department, at this time endeavouring to land $100 for a political friend who does not seem to have any legal claim to the property in the way described. I do hope the minister will have the matte? investigated and see that the rights of Mrs. Blackhall are protected, and that the agreement which seems to have been entered into will be carried out.	.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I am sorry that my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) is not well informed on the facts of this case. So far as friendship is concerned, Mr. Blackhall was all his life, a most particular friend of mine, and his widow and family had all my sympathies. When the road in question was to be taken over by the department, nobody in the county, probably, ever thought of any claim being filed against the widow. The department had dealings in the matter and agreed to pay $400 or thereabouts. While the payment was delayed, the family of Wilson brought in a claim of which I never heard before. One Mr. Wilson filed his claim in the Department of Justice and so delayed proceedings.
I remember one day, on her invitation I called on Mrs. Blackhall and she admitting to me that there might be a certain claim on the part of the Wilsons on a portion of the land taken over by the resident engineer for $400. She was anxious for an immediate settlement. I did advise her that, if she thought her claim was not perfect, it would be better to give up $100 of the full claim and settle the matter at once and avoid further delay in legal proceedings. That, of course, was a matter for her to consider. The case has been before the Department of Justice, hut is not yet decided. They have an agent in the county and correspondence I Mr. CROCKET.
has been exchanged between him and the department. So far as political feiendship is concerned I owe both families all consideration.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The member admits, I understand, that the department did agree to pay Mrs Blackhall $400 upon the execution of a deed of her title-


Onésiphore Turgeon: No, she agreed with me to let the other claimant have $100-


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did not the hon. gentleman state-


Onésiphore Turgeon: I am reported to have stated, but I am giving now what I said.


William Pugsley: What the hon. member (Mr. Turgeon) stated was perfectly clear. The department agreed to pay $400 for property of which it was represented Mrs. Blackhall was the owner. At that time the claim of Wilson was not heard of. But subsequently, that claim was presented to the department by Wilson. Naturally the deputy Minister of Justice would look into the matter and consider how he could get a good title or whether it would be necessary to expropriate. Then it was, as the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) said, Mrs. Blackhall admitted that perhaps Wilson did have a good claim, and she agreed to allow $100 to secure a settlement of her claim. I do not think there is anything to warrant hon. gentlemen in suggesting that the hon. member for Gloucester has acted in any but a proper manner in this case. Surely, as soon as it came to the notice of the Justice Department that there was another claim, it was the business of the deputy minister to stay his hand and not pay out public money until he was sure there was a perfect title.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was not the agreement made by the minister with Mrs. Blackhall to pay her $400 upon the completion of her title?


William Pugsley: Assuming she could give a title.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The whole matter was referred to the agent of the Justice Department at Bathurst, Mr. Byrne, who had full knowledge af the facts, and this agreement was made with full knowledge of the fact that he was getting just as good a title as Mr. Blackhall had, a title established by occupation for over twenty years. She was to receive $400, and then this man Wilson, who never had made any claim to the property and could not establish anv title


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman know that he could not establish a title?


Oswald Smith Crocket: He could not establish a title against the occupation that Mrs. Blackball proved to the satisfaction of the agent of the Justice Department ; open and adverse occupation for over twenty years gave a title which the department agreed to accept. It seems strange that this man, who was a son of a cousin of the former-owner, should be recognized by the Justice Department, and that the member for the county should make a demand upon Mrs. Blackball to pay his friend Wilson $100 and the matter would go through.	.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I did not make a demand upon Mrs. Blackball. She avowed to me herself that possibly the Wilson family had a title, that the twenty years was merely a matter of memory. There was no deed showing possession at all, it was merely a matter of memory-it might be nineteen years or twenty-one years.


George Taylor: Does the minister propose to expend $08,000 on a wharf that has never been used and never likely to be used?


William Pugsley: As I understand it, when this wharf was constructed an application was made by the people of the locality for certain dredging work to be done, and owing to the demand of other places, the dredging work has not yet been done. But I am glad to be able to inform the committee, or those members of it who take an interest in the proper and reasonable development of that section of Gloucester county, that the dredging will be done, and before long ocean steamers can come to this wharf and do the business for which it is intended this wharf shall make provision. There is another thing which is needed, and which my hon. friend who represents Gloucester so efficiently is urging, and that is that some provision should be made for the building of a spur line from the Caraquet Railway down to this wharf There will then be a very efficient and valuable deep water wharf giving connection between the railway and the steamers, and I am sure that when the dredging is done, even if the spur is not built-though we expect it will be-it will be found that this wharf will afford very much needed accommodation.
Mr. AMEiS. What is it expected the dredging will cost, and what depth will be attained?


William Pugsley: I have not an accurate estimate of the cost, but it is expected to give 22 feet depth at low tide. The dredging will be continued gradually.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is a question whether the dredging or the pier should be the first work to accomplish. After the pier has been built, you cannot approach it on account of the lack of dredging.


William Pugsley: The department could not do both at once.


Herbert Brown Ames: The pier will wear out before the dredging is completed.


Onésiphore Turgeon: When the department decided to build the wharf the dredging was provided for. For the last ten years, in the maritime provinces, we have been asking for more dredges. We could not get them. Fortunately, the present Minister of Public Works has not waited to have more dredges built, and he has asked for tenders to do dredging which will improve the north shore of New Brunswick.
Mr. AMEtS. We are entitled to know about what the engineering estimate is of the cost of making the Caraquet pier approachable by vessels.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The hon. gentleman from York, says that the wharf had been used to dry one fishing net. Of course there are a great many fishing nets in Gloucester county. We just heard an hon. member from Prince Edward Island complaining that the Caraquet fleet fills up Tig-nish harbour in his province.	All these
schooners have been using the wharf. There are to-day sixteen feet at low water in that channel right along the bar. which has to be dredged before ocean steamers can come in. Meanwhile the coasting trade and the fishing fleet are benefited by the wharf. We have also other services that will be benefited. But the main object in view is to connect the wharf with the Caraquet railroad, scarcely a mile away, and the Caraquet wharf has been built with the idea of connecting it with the railway. The moment that is done, there are millions of feet of lumber waiting to use this wharf, which is the only one that they can use. I have in my pocket letters from lumber manufacturers complaining that the wharf is not yet connected with the railroad. I suppose that is the business of the railway company, but perhaps they were waiting until the dredging was done. The moment that connection is made trade will be developed. To-day the lumber interest is suffering on that account. When that connection is built Caraquet will be one of the best harbours in the maritime provinces. No doubt the movement in the maritime provinces in favour of the federal government taking over the branch lines in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, has had some influence upon the owners of the Caraquet Railway, who in that case would avoid the expenditure of this construction.


Herbert Brown Ames: I hope the hon. member does not understand me as objecting to the construction of the wharf. I am only asking for information. I had the pleasure of visiting Caraquet wharf last year, and I I know its location, and I know the work

that is constructed there, in a place where uoubtless it will serve a large community. But the question which arose in my mind was this : Until the dredging is done the wharf can only be approached by small boats. Now, when is the dredging going to be done, and what estimate has been made of the cost of dredging so that the wharf can be approached? We know that a considerable expenditure has been made upon the wharf ; now, how much is it going to cost to make that wharf of real service to the neighbourhood? There is no use of putting the railroad down there until the dredging is done.
, Mr. TURGEON. Small vessels can come in now, but big vessels drawing 24 feet will not attempt it.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the depth of water over the bar?


Onésiphore Turgeon: Sixteen feet to-day, at low7 tide.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do you mean to say that vessels drawing 16 feet can come in from the open sea to that wharf?
Works stated it would cost $20. In the following year the minister stated that the title to the right of way down to the wharf had been obtained at a cost of $20 Now we discover, in 1908, that the question is still open and that this unsettled claim alone amounts to $400. I would impress upon the minister the importance of having the claim of Mrs. Blackhall dealt with. If it was the agreement that the department was to pay her $400 for the title, the department should carry out that agreement and not let the interests of anv political partisan interfere.


William Pugsley: The department will not let the interest of anv political partisan interfere.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will the minister say that he will look into that and let us know w'hat agreement was made with Mrs. Blackhall ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I see that Mr. Byrne charges $173.90 for legal services.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I think vessels drawing 18 feet can come in.
. Mr. PUGSLEY. I cannot give off-hand information of the cost of the dredging. We have had a preliminary examination made, but it would be largely guess work to say the cost of the dredging. I could not come to it within $20,000 or $25,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) is to be congratulated upon having so taken time by the forelock and got a wharf completed five or six years before he has been able to find any use for it.


Herbert Brown Ames: If the right of way was promised for $20 the government have evidently found that they could not carry out that agreement, because I see in the Auditor General's Report for 1906-7 the following payments :
a.	prme oi sice ana ngnt ot wav: G.
Albert, $200; J. A. Albert. $50; J. G. Blackhall, $300; W. P. Foley, $550, $1,100.
How much more was spent we do not know.


George Taylor: What confidence can you put in a minister's statement ?


Onésiphore Turgeon: If we could have had that dredging done and the spur between the wharf and the railway constructed we would to-day have had the full benefit of it. The lumber interest is suffering on account of the delay. If we had had to wait until to-day to commence that work we would have had to wait two or three years longer before being able to make use of it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I quite understand that. What has the department paid for the right of way to this wharf ?


William Pugsley: It sometimes happens that people say they will give the right of way and when the government settles" down to business they change their mind. But, I will look into this.
Dover-wharf on Petitcodiac river, $800.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will the minister explain why it is that the department is building a wharf on the Petitcodiac river and that the department refuses to bear the whole cost of wharfs on the St. John river ?


William Pugsley: I cannot give that to my hon. friend to-night but I will get it from the Department of Justice and give it to him before we get through with the Public Works Estimates.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When this matter was first submitted to parliament in 1902, I see by Hansard ' that when the question was asked in reference to the ownership of the land upon which the wharf was to be constructed the then Minister of Public Mr. AMES.


William Pugsley: With regard to the St. John river, the department has been pursuing the custom which was inaugurated some fifteen years ago, in the time of the previous government, when the hon. member for North Toronto was Minister of Finance. Previous to that the Dominion government had not built wharfs on the St. John river. The hon. member for North Toronto inaugurated that policy and it has been pursued from that time down to the present.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand the policy has been to construct wharfs only on tidal waters.


William Pugsley: I am telling the hon. gentleman what the policy has been with regard to the St. John river. X am not drawing any distinction between the, St. John river and tidal rivers because the tide does rise and fail in the St. John river to a limited extent up to iSpringhjll or Fredericton. All I am saying is that the policy of the Dominion government, paying half of the cost of wharfs on the St. John river, was inaugurated some 15 years ago when the hon. member for North Toronto was Minister of Finance. That policy has been pursued from that time down to the present, and in later years this government has been contributing more frequently towards wharfs on the St. John river than before, Since I have become minister I have not refused to build wharfs there. On the contrary, in addition to carrying out and continuing the policy of paying half the cost of such wharfs as the provincial government may undertake. I am prepared to ask my colleagues to allow me to go still further and to build some wharfs absolutely at the expense of the federal government so as to give reasonable accommodation to the people living alone- that very important highway.
Harbours, rivers and bridges generally-repairs and improvements, $17,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would like to ask the minister what is the method when work is
done by day's labour. Who appoints the foreman ?


William Pugsley: The foreman is appointed by the minister after inquiry as to his qualification arid reference to the resident engineer.


Herbert Brown Ames: On whose suggestion is the foreman appointed ?


William Pugsley: The minister appoints him. Inquiry will be made of the inember for the county supporting the government. He is usually asked to name an experienced and reliable man for the position, he makes a recommendation and then the minister causes inquiry to be made independently as to his qualifications.


Herbert Brown Ames: I want to ask the minister whether it is customary to send a letter of this character to the resident engineer. This is a letter dated May 4, 1907 :
Sir,-I am directed by the hon. minister to authorize you to proceed by day labour with the works at the following places, for which appropriations have been granted by parliament, during the session just ended. Will you please apply to the persons mentioned for the names of competent foremen or for any other information you may require in connection with the works in their respective counties.
Then follows the county and the name of the local member.
You will please bear in mind that the above mentioned sum must, on no account, be overexpended, and I would ask you to give positive instructions to the foremen to that effect. The foremen are to be paid at the rate of $2.50 per day, unless you are otherwise instructed.
In other words, there issues, at least in the province of Quebec, a departmental letter signed by the chief engineer instructing the local resident engineer to supply the- foremen for all the works that are to be done by day's labour and instructing the local engineer to apply to the local member provided he is a good supporter of this government, for these foremen. That is the case with regard to all the day's work practically that is carried on in Quebec. I want to know if in the province of New Brunswick the same method is adopted and whether the local members who represent the counties of New Brunswick have an absolutely free hand in naming the foremen without any reference to the engineer. The local member having the naming of the foreman none but the faithful will be asked to work under him. Is it a fact that the whole pay-roll in New Brunswick is made up of the friends of the local member as is the ease in the province of Quebec ?


William Pugsley: The same rule prevails now^as has always prevailed since confederation. Where a public work is done by the day and the amount is small the resident engineer is instructed to inquire of the local member supporting the government for the name of a competent, reliable, suitable man to act as foreman of the work. If that man is found not to be efficient and watchful the resident engineer has it impressed upon him that it is his duty to inform the department at once, and then the engineer would be authorized to make another appointment. I presume it is the same in Quebec as in New Brunswick. We do consult our friends as to the appointment and we always endeavour to get reliable men. If the work is important a recommendation is made to the minister and the minister makes inquiry as to the suitability and reliability of the appointee.


Herbert Brown Ames: In this case it is not merely a suggestion from the local member, but the department writes to the resident engineer :
I am directed by the hon. minister to authorize you to apply to the local member for the nanje of a competent foreman.
The engineer has no discretion there ; the local member is the czar of the situation.


William Pugsley: If the foreman is not efficient the resident engineer knows his duty.


Herbert Brown Ames: Could you cite a case in which the foreman was ever dismissed where the local member did not consent to it?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Mr. BENNETT.: I would like to know it.


Herbert Brown Ames: I wish to put myself on record as absolutely and utterly opposed to a system under which it is said to the local member :	Whenever a public work
is to be carried out in your constituency the resident engineer has to apply to you to name a political friend to put in charge of the expenditure of that money. That principle is entirely wrong. Foremen should be chosen by the department entirely because of their ability and efficiency without interference on the part of the local member.'


William Pugsley: I don't suppose the hon. gentleman would confer with his opponents.


Herbert Brown Ames: Under this -system nine-tenths of the money is expended for no other than political purposes and a large share of it is absolutely squandered because a foreman knows he is a political appointee and those under him know they are appointed by political favouritism. The whole system is rotten and corrupt right straight through. If we are going to construct by day's work let it be done in a businesslike way. For the department to send out a letter of that kind is carrying the patronage system to an extent which is utterly demoralizing, which gives us wretched work and which makes the Department of Public Works a political machine and nothing else.


Mr. W. CHISHOLM.: The very system which the hon. member (Mr. Arnes) has denounced so vehemently was rampant under the Conservative administration. I know a case in which the representative of the county was in opposition to the Dominion government, the local member happened to be a friend of the party in power and all these works had to be carried out under the dictation as well as the direction of the local member and that was done under the Conservative regime.


Herbert Brown Ames: We are' supposed to be advancing in civilization.


William Pugsley: If you get good honest work there can be no objection.


Herbert Brown Ames: But you don't.


William Pugsley: We do get honest and faithful service.
Lower Newcastle-wharf on Miramichi river, $2,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the cost?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: The probable cost $2,300 to be done by days work.
Madawaska river-extension of dyke on east side of river at Edmundston southward, $10,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was this work commenced and when will it be completed?


William Pugsley: Contract let May 20 last, to be completed May 20, 1909, contract price, $10,440.


Herbert Brown Ames: How is it you make an expenditure on a tributary of the St. John and you will not make an expenditure on the St. John river itself?


William Pugsley: We do make expenditures on the St. John river.
Moncton wharf-enlargement of, $16,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was the contract let?


William Pugsley: Two or three months ago. Four tenders received; lowest $14,925 and highest $19,765.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How does the department come to build this wharf at Moncton?


William Pugsley: For the public convenience.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There is more traffic and more navigation at Fredericton than at Moncton, and I do not think the city of Fredericton ever had the advantage of a wharf being built by the government. In these estimates three wharfs are provided on the Petitcodiac, and yet the minister justifies the government in refusing to pay the cost of these wharfs on the St. John river.


William Pugsley: What is the use of saying that? The government is paying for the wharfs on the St. John river, and proposes to do it more than ever.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The government is not doing it. We have this year in the estimates for the St. John river the statement: * Contributions to local government not to exceed one-half the first cost of local wharfs.' Why is there a discrimination made against the St. John river and in favour of the Petitcodiac ?


William Pugsley: Do you oppose this item?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not opposing the item, but I want a square deal for the St. John river. I find appropriation after appropriation going through for wharfs in every other river, but when it comes to the St. John river, which is so important from the standpoint of the business interests of New Brunswick, this government takes the position that the local administration should

build the wharfs. The minister may say what he likes about his willingness and his policy in that regard, but he did take the position the other day that it was still uij to the government of New Brunswick to go on building wharfs on the St. John, and the most he was prepared to do-to use his own sweet words-was ' perhaps increase to a reasonable extent the grants that had been made.'


William Pugsley: You would not expect me to Increase them to an unreasonable extent?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would expect you to do what you promised the people in the last election campaign. There the hon. minister made several speeches and many promises. He said it was unjust to the province that it should have to build its own wharfs when the other provinces were having them built out of the federal treasury. That is the injustice we complain of. We complain that we are not in the same position as the other provinces, and until the Minister of Public Works provides for the building of all the wharfs required on the St. John river out of the federal treasury, that Injustice will stand.


William Pugsley: When did it first dawn on you that there was an injustice in this particular?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Ever since I have been in this parliament I have protested against it. I have drawn it to the attention of the Minister of Public Works every session. I have here a declaration made by the minister at Chatham in the last election when addressing a public meeting. He said :
Another advantage to be accrued from the two governments working in harmony would be the relieving of the province from maintaining the wharfs in these waters. Thus more money would be released for roads and bridges.
The minister pointed out that it was plainly conditioned on the people condoning his manifold offences in administering their local affairs and continuing in office a government with which he could work in harmony, that he would build their wharfs. But I venture to say he will not take that position in this House. He promised the people of New Brunswick that they would be relieved of the expense of building and maintaining their wharfs and be put in that respect in the same position as the other provinces, and until he does that he cannot make much claim on their consideration. It should not make any difference whether the people of New Brunswick have refused to continue in office a government with which he himself could have worked very harmoniously. It has, however, been discovered since, on examining the public accounts of that province, that the harmony was more profitable to the minister than the people.
Richibucto-extension of piers, &c., $3,300.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that under contract ?


William Pugsley: Mr. John Jardine had the contract for the main work which has been completed. The contract was for $17,000. This is for a small extension.
River St. John, including tributaries, $2,000.
River St. John, wharfs and tide water-contribution to local government, not to exceed one-half of cost of wharfs built by it, $5,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I wish to point out, as I did last session, the condition of St. John I'iver channel between Fredericton and Woodstock. A year ago I called attention to the need of deepening this channel and my hon. friend from Carleton supported my demand. The then acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fisher) promised to take the matter up, and I believe did so. I furnished him with a memo, of the several points along the river where dredging was required. The matter was referred to the resident engineer, but since the present minister has taken office nothing has been done. I have been in correspondence with him and was very much surprised to receive a letter from him in April last saying he was not convinced that any improvement could be made without the expenditure of a very large sum. In 1902 a dredge was built to be used exclusively for low water work in the St. John river. That was in the late Mr. Tarte's time. It was put at work on Springhill but was shortly moved down the river and nothing has been done, since. There are many places in the channel between Fredericton and Woodstock which require clearing and deepening. As a result of the neglect of the government in this matter the people living along the valley of that river have been deprived of their only means of communication between Woodstock and Fredericton, as the boat had to be withdrawn because of the condition of the channel and the impossibility of making more than 15 or 20 trips in a season. The minister, when attorney general of New Brunswick, and in the campaign to which I have referred, said that the interests of the people in that section were very dear to his heart. These people expected to have the advantage of being on the line of the Transcontinental Railway. This they feel they were unjustly deprived of by this government, and now, in consequence of the neglect of the river channel by the government, they have lost their only means of communication between Fredericton and Woodstock.
'Mr. PUGSLEY. My hon. friend will be pleased to know that some time ago I received a memorial from the town of Woodstock which was presented by the member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) who urged upon me the necessity of making these improvements. Recently I was waited on

again by that gentleman and by an influential gentleman from Fredericton who again pressed the matter and convinced me of the desirability of taking early steps for the purpose of determining whether or not it is possible by the expenditure of a reasonable amount to improve the navigation of the river. I have much pleasure in saying that during the present year I intend to put an engineering staff at work there to ascertain if it is possible to improve the navigation at a reasonable cost.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business will be taken up on Thursday ?


William Stevens Fielding: Two bills standing in my name for third reading, those relating to government annuities and to lead bounties, the Bill of the Minister of Public Works in relation to the hotel site, and after that we will continue in Supply with the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.


George Taylor: I understood there was an arrangement for the Election Bill ?


William Stevens Fielding: I was not aware that that was definite. If so it will take precedence over my statement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 2, 1908.