1909-02-02

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 

THE RESTAURANT COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) moved that the second and final report of the joint restaurant committee be adopted.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What are the functions of the committee?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: They are set put in the report which was made by the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, and which was appointed last session. The motion is that their report be adopted, and that these four gentlemen be appointed members of the joint committee. Their duties will be to take charge of the operations of the restaurant, and will be those of the ordinary club committee.


Mr. FOSTER.: The House would like to have a little information as to these operations. What is it that is going to be established and how is it going to be paid for?


William Pugsley: I shall have to get the report of the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the report been printed ?


William Pugsley: I think not. It was submitted by Mr. Sutherland, and he asked me to make this motion. I regret that Mr. Sutherland is not here as he presented the report, and was on the joint committee of last year when he was Speaker of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no very urgent haste in the matter. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will take some means of having that report made available to members in printed or some other form. I appreciate very much what has been done in connection with the placing of the restaurant on a better basis, but at the same time it would be well to know what we are doing before taking these steps.


George Eulas Foster: Has the report been printed in the Votes and Proceedings ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: Yes, a few days ago.
Motion withdrawn.



BY-ELECTIONS CARLETON AND COMOX-ATLIN.

Wilfrid Laurier: Yesterday my hon. friend asked me if the writ had been issued for the Comox-Atlin election.


Robert Laird Borden: And Carleton.


Wilfrid Laurier: The writ was issued yesterday for Comox-Atlin, and will he issued to-day for Carleton. The nominations will take place on the 22nd of February. Mr. Tierney is the returning officer.



THE MARINE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION

Robert Laird Borden: When will the balance of the evidence taken before Mr. Justice Cassels be printed. There is a very considerable amount of evidence yet to be printed, and it would expedite business if it were placed before the House at an early date so that we might come to a conclusion whether a debate is necessary.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State).: When a similar inquiry was made a short time ago, I sent to the Printing Bureau and found that the work was in progress and that considerable time was involved in getting the remaining volumes printed. I have asked for a definite statement to-night as to the time it will take to complete them and will try and have definite information for to-morrow.



THE INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS TREATY.

Robert Laird Borden: Is there any further information as to when we may expect to have presented to the House the terms of the recent treaty with the United States regulating the waterways ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say I have no information to give to my hon. friend; but I am in daily expectation of receiving a despatch on that subject which I will be glad to communicate to him.


George Eulas Foster: Turning to page 74 of the Votes and Proceedings, I find the information is chiefly remarkable for what it does not give. We shall have to have something more than a line or two stating that we have appointed a committee in the interim. What the House would like is some knowledge of what it is^ proposed to^ do, how it is proposed to do it, and what is to be the outcome.


William Pugsley: I will endeavour to get the information.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 8) to amend the Dominion Lands Act.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for House again in committee on the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the head of a department based upon a report of the deputy head, may grant to any officer, clerk or employee under the deputy heads in the inside service as defined by the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, who was in the public service at the time of the coming into force of that Act, an increase of salary of $150 a year, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained: that in the case of any officer,
[Stage Direction]
clerk or employee who has received an increase of salary upon organization and classification under the said Act, such increase shall be offset against the increase which such person might otherwise receive under any Act to ibe founded on this resolution; that no increase under any Act to be founded on this resolution to any officer, clerk or employee shall exceed the difference between his present salary and the maximum salary of the subdivision in which he has been placed upon organization and classification under the said Act of 1908; that all increases provided for hereunder shall take effect from the first day of September, 1908; that all sums of money voted by the parliament for the financial year ending on March 31, 1909, and applicable to the payment of salaries or increase of salaries of persons in the inside service shall be applicable to the payment of increases of salary granted under the Act to be founded in this resolution, so far as such sums are not required for the specific purposes for which they were granted; and during the said financial year there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada such moneys required for the payment of increases of salary hereunder as have not been voted by parliament.
^T- FOSTER. Before the Speaker leaves the Chair, I would like to ask the minis-*?r question. I have in my hands a classification of people in the inside service, by Order in Council, 25th of January, 1909, as on the 1st of September, 1908. I find a long list of names with the divisions, and evidently the positions of the different persons, with former salary and proposed salary. Is that all that is contained m the order in council respecting a reclassification of the departments?
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: So far as I know, it is. I have not looked at this, but I think it is an exact transcription of the order in council. Possibly with slight exceptions, that is all. There may be others. In one case, the Justice Department says, a certain gentleman who had been in" the outside service in receipt of $3,000 a year, must go into subdivision A of the first division, that seems to be absolute under the law. That is an office which, when it ceases to be occupied by the present incumbent, I think ought to be in subdivision B ofi the first division, and I directed that an addendum should be made to the order in council declaring that. There may be others, I do not know.
House went into committee on the resolution.


George Eulas Foster: I find a great deal of difficulty in proceeding with this resolution at the present time, on account of lack of information, and I will frankly explain to my hon. friend where I find the difficulty. This makes provision for adding $150 to each member of the Civil Service who, since the 1st of September, has been upon the establishment books, as I understand Mr. PUGSLEY.
it, and who has not, having been at the head of the class, received already an increase by virtue of classification-that is in brief. Well, of course I dissent from the principle of making a fiat increase without any discrimination as to merit or services. But let that go for the moment. There are other difficulties. For instance, suppose that a gentleman or lady has been appointed to the service on, we will say, the 29th of August; is that person to get the $150 flat increase as well ? That is one question w'hich may do for a time. Again, suppose that on or about that time, or not long before, some person in the department received an increase of $100, $200, $300, $400, $500, and then on the next day, the 1st of September, went into the new classification in his proper place; does that person also get the $150 increase? That stands for another type. Suppose another instance. Suppose that some one who was on the contingency list in one of the departments of the inside service at a very small salary, has desired to get into the classified service at a larger salary, and thereupon resigned his position in the inside service and was appointed a few days before the 1st of September to a position in the inside service at an increased salary, and was then transferred from the outside into the inside service after the 1st day of September; does that person also get an increase ? Also, how many of these different categories are there? Unless we get a straight statement from the minister that none of these three classes, or at least neither of the two classes I mentioned last, are to receive $150 increase under this resolution, I do not know that we are in a position to go on with this Bill. We may be doing a great injustice to certain ersons. That information I have asked for y way of question, and by way of a resolution which has already passed the House. It is impossible in a few days to bring this down; but none of these returns with this information ought to take more than two or three days to be put into shape so that we can have it before the House. I do not like to decide a question like this, with so much involved, on the basis of so little information. I am not trying to block the resolution or the legislation, but it will take a little time any way.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In reply to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), I recognize the importance of the information for which he has asked, and I think it is quite right that the hon. member and the House should have that information. It will take a few days to get it, perhaps a week, I do not know until I get at it. But I may say now in general terms that the resolution provides for dealing with the service as on the 1st of September. Whether the individual may have been in the position which he occupied on the 1st of

September, one week, or one year, or ten years, there is no provision in this Bill and no intention to go back of the 1st of September. I may say to my hon. friend that I do not wish to enter into the merits of the various questions he has brought up until the information he has asked for is before the House. But I will just say in general terms that after considerable discussion and investigation it was decided to make this Bill a complement of the Bill of last year. That Bill made a change in the Civil Service to take place on the 1st of September; we believe therefore that this Bill should deal with the Civil Service as on the 1st of September. I dare say that there may be a few instances, I could not tell how many, where people may have come into the service, we will say, within a month of the 1st of September; there may be others where they came in within three months, others within a longer time. We did not consider that any other date than the 1st of September would be as proper, or on the whole as just, a date to take. And if we undertook to deal with it at all, we had to fix a date, arbitrarily-if my hon. friend chooses to use that term- for the Act to begin to apply. I think I have answered almost all the suggestions that the hon. gentleman has made of contingencies that might arise. I do not mean to say that this Act is going to give absolutely the same treatment to everybody in the service. I think that every Act that is framed must necessarily have some slight inequalities in its incidence upon individual members of the service. We have discussed the various ways of doing it, and have concluded that this is, perhaps, the manner in which the least inequality wUl arise, and one which is just and fair. If my hon. friend desires it, I can only ask that the committee wait before concluding this matter. But I would suggest to my hon. friend, and other hon. members, that if there are other points on which they would like to have information, they might make them known now, so that I could be prepared to give all the information desired when the matter is taken up for discussion again.


George Eulas Foster: That is perfectly right. So far as I am concerned, I have gone over the matter carefully, and have put the points on which I wished information, and other members can do the same. There is one other point that I would call to the attention of the minister. He proposes to take general power to withdraw from the consolidated revenue fund whatever is required for the payment of these salaries without taking any special vote. I would deprecate that. Last year, when the House passed the Civil Service Bill and passed the estimates also, the session was about to close. It was absolutely impossible, at that time, to tell how much money would be required for the purposes of this Act. Therefore, we gave
general power to the government to take from the consolidated revenue fund whatever might be necessary for the purposes of the Act. But you are in a different position now. The session is only beginning, and you are not face to face with an unknown computation, but can find out exactly what you will need. Therefore, instead of trying to avail itself of this general power, which should only be given in an emergency, the government should bring down an estimate of what is necessary to pay the Bill and have that estimate passed by the House. The minister, I am sure, quite understands that he had better have as few of these anomalies and exceptions as possible, especially in relation to the appropriation of money.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Would the minister be good enough to bring down a statement showing the number of employees brought in from the outside service and placed on the staff under this Act? My reason for asking is to be found in the figures of the estimates. In 1908, the Civil Government estimates amounted to something over $2,060,000. This year the amount is over $3,960,000. In addition, there will be this $347,000 granted to the civil servants under this proposal for a flat increase of $150 each. It is very confusing when you look over the different departments, and have no means of knowing the number of men brought in under this arrangement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should be glad to bring that information down.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister object to having the names given as well?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No objection.


Mr. TURRIFF.: Has the government come to any conclusion or worked out any plan to put all the service on an equal footing? At present it is most unsatisfactory. One department lets its clerks out at four o'clock, and in the adjoining office the clerks work until five o'clock. This has been a source of annoyance in the service for many years past. We are now granting an annual increase to the civil servants amounting to nearly half a million dollars. I do not object to that; I wish to see the civil servants well paid. But when we are doing this, I think it is up to this House to see that the country gets something in return for this large increase. That can be brought about without doing any injustice to any of the civil servants. I claim that the civil servants who go to work at 9.30 a.m.,-and in some of the departments they go at ten o'clock, for I meet them as^ I am coming up town-and leave at four o'clock, with an hour and a half in the middle of the day, are not giving an honest day s work, and are not giving value for the money we are paying them. I think the service should be put on an equal footing. And, in view of the increased salary we are giving,

if the government insisted that the civil servants should be in their offices at nine o'clock, and work until five in the afternoon, with an hour and a half off in the middle of the day, that would not be asking too much. And I want to tell the House that the best officers in the different departments are doing that to-day. The best officers are at work at nine o'clock in the morning, and stay there until five, and many of them until half past five or six o'clock, and even come back in the evening if necessary. Those who do the least while there are those who come the latest and leave the earliest. This is a matter that others _ beside the civil servants are interested in. The whole country is interested, for the country pays the salaries. I would like to have some answer from the minister as to what the government propose to do in that connection.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I am most agreeably surprised at the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Turriff). Yesterday, he had quite a different speech


John Gillanders Turriff: Not at ail.
Mr. ,T. D. REID. Yes, the hon. gentleman then was quite satisfied that the civil servants should go to work at ten o'clock.


John Gillanders Turriff: No.


John Dowsley Reid: The speech that the hon. gentleman made


John Gillanders Turriff: Read it.


John Dowsley Reid: It was in opposition to the speech that I made. But if he had taken my speech of yesterday, and read it here, he would have seen almost word for word what he has said now. Evidently, he has changed his mind


John Gillanders Turriff: Not at all.


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly. Yesterday he was proving that some of the civil servants stayed as long as half past four, and that was an awful hardship


John Gillanders Turriff: No, no.


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly, he


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I would call the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) to the fact that he is referring to a past debate, which is out of order.


John Dowsley Reid: I accept your correction, Mr. Chairman. So far as that is epneerned, in the remarks I made yesterday


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


John Dowsley Reid: Can't I refer to my own speech ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a past debate.	,


John Gillanders Turriff: 


John Dowsley Reid: Then, I withdraw-that also. For my part, I do not wish to find any fault with the civil servants, for I believe they are good men ; but I agree with what the hon. member for Assinibioa (Mr Turriff) has said that to have the Civil Service go to work at 9.30 in the morning-and many of them seem to go at any time between 9.30 and ten-and work until four, with an intermission of an hour and a half in the middle of the day, is not enough. That is only five hours of actual work, and I claim that eight hours would not be an unreasonable time for these men to work. If they went on at nine and quit at five, as I believe they should, it would only be seven hours work, giving them one hour for lunch, as they have in banks and other institutions. In fact, I believe that in banks and other business houses some of the clerks do not even have as long a time as that for lunch. These men not having heavy work or brain work of a sufficiently arduous character to require shorter hours, should put in a reasonable number of hours' work and I agree with what the hon. gentleman has just said that there should be a Bill or some understanding whereby government employees should work a uniform number of hours. If the government do not bring it in I hope some other hon. gentleman will and if he does I shall support it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The practice is a little different in different departments. I am not prepared to say off hand what it is, but I think the Civil Service Act contains a clause dealing with the hours of work. If not there is a rule laid down under the Act. But I know that the practice is slightly different in different departments. I appreciate the difficulties which arise from that. In my own department some of the officers stayed a little longer than others, it created a great deal of ill-feeling and jealousy and I was obliged to ask my deputy minister to arrange that they should all come in and leave at the same hour. I think there are very few civil servants who do not reach their offices at 9.30, the usual hour at which they are required to be there. There is a book kept in which they have to enter their names with the minute at which they arrive, and the officers who are in charge of the different branches would certainly take to task any civil servant who was frequently arriving after the hour at which he was required to be there. I believe there are rare exceptions-not as many as my hon. friend would indicate. The hours are usually from 9.30 until 4 o'clock, with an hour or an hour and a quarter for lunch. I think in some departments an hour is allowed, and in others an hour and a quarter. I do not know of any department in which an hour and a half is allowed, but I am speaking subject to correction.


George Eulas Foster: That makes a six hour day.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Practically a six hour day, and I think that is the general rule. The question of adding to that, in consequence of the increase in salary now, is one that is worthy of consideration, but it has not been embodied in this resolution, and I doubt,the advisability of it. If it were adopted it ought _ to be by way of an amendment to the Civil Service Act. This resolution is not an amendment to the Civil Service Act. This resolution provides for the introduction of a Bill for one particular thing, and when that one particular thing has been carried out this ceases practically to operate. I did not think it was wise that it should be an amendment to the Civil Service Act because it is of a temporary character and the Civil Service Act is a law which deals with and regulates the Civil Service permanently.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: Does it fix the hours?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know whether the Act actually fixes the hours or not. I am not sure; I would have to look it up to see. If it does not, I do not quite know how it is that the hours are fixed. They can be fixed, I suppose, by ministerial orders in the different departments themselves. It would be very much better that they should be uniform, and that they should be fixed in such a way that they would be definite.


Mr. BARR.: It does seem to me that hon. gentlemen in this House must come to the conclusion that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is wrong in his understanding as to the hours of work of the members of the Civil Service. In visiting the different branches of the service we find it difficult to do business because of the non-arrival of members of the Civil Service, and I do think that they should be in their places during the time the House is sitting. We do know that hon. gentlemen are worked very much harder than the civil servants. We also know that their time is very much engaged and that unless they have an opportunity of doing their business in connection with the different departments before ten or half past ten, their business is interfered with. Committees meet at ten o'clock and we have no other time in which to visit the departments. It is the exception to find these men in their places at half past nine. I would suggest that the rule should be that they should be in their places during the time that the House is sitting and that they should arrive at their offices at nine o'clock.
I do not believe it possible that there is a a tab kept upon them. It seems that many of the junior officials come and go just as they choose. I am informed that while
there is a rule regarding the hours of attendance in some cases, in many instances there is no rule and that many officials have almost a free hand. I do not think that any business man could do business as it is done in our departments. As far as the' deputies and heads of the departments are concerned they are conscientious men and do their work properly, but I think that many of the subordinates are not fulfilling the duties of their positions as they would be compelled to do in a bank, or in the commercial world. I think that the servants of the people should attend to their duties just as regularly and as punctually as men are required to do in any other walk ot life. I do not think that civil servants are underpaid. I think that the outside service have much more work to do and much greater responsibility than the inside service. The whole system should be carefully looked into and a better system devised.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I would like to ask the minister a question that I have asked ot several of the older members of this House and to which I have been unable to get a satisfactory answer. I would like to know who comprise the inside service and who the outside service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like to answer off hand. If my hon friend will read the section of the Act covering that point I think he will see. I could not, off hand, do anything but read the definition in the Act.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would like to ask the minister if there are any civil servants in Ottawa who were not brought in under the Civil Service Act of last year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are in the city of Ottawa the departmental services and also some services which pertain to Ottawa just as similar services pertain to Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg or any other city. The employees of the Ottawa Customs house and the local office of the Inland Revenue Department, for instance, were not brought into the inside service by last year's Bill, but are still in the same position as similar officials in Montreal or Toronto. It is only the departmental services that were brought into the inside service under the Bill of last session. A large number of people were paid out of lump votes of one kind and another in the city of Ottawa in the service and these were all brought in.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister be good enough to bring in a statement of the number of those in Ottawa who were brought from the outside service into the inside service ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Mr. LEWIS.: I would urge the minister to add to the list of those who will receive this increase the railway mail clerks

throughout Canada. They are men _ who loyally perform their duty and who live a hazardous life; they belong to that department which has a surplus, and I do not think there are any harder worked men in [DOT] the Civil Service of Canada than the railway mail clerks.


Mr. B. L. BOEDEN.: Before the committee rises, I would ask whether or not the return just handed to us embodies all the conditions of the various orders in council establishing the reorganization of the different departments ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As far as I know it does; I have not seen the return myself. The instructions were that the orders in council for the reorganization of the departments should all be included. I understand that the Interior Department order is not there as it was not completed. There will have to be also two resolutions of the Senate and of the House of Commons.


Frederick William Borden: I understand that. The statute of last year, section 8, subsection 2, made the following provision:
The order in council shall give the names of the several branches of the department, with the number and character of the offices, clerkships and other positions in each, and the duties, titles and salaries thereafter to pertain thereto.
The return brought down has four headings, first, a name, second the title, character and duties of office or position, third former salary, fourth proposed salary. Under the heading or ' title, character and duties or post or position ' the only thing that I observe is the title of the position which the officer is to fill, and I do not observe anything defining otherwise the character or the duties of the office or position. It seemed to me when we were discussing the matter last year that it would be exceedingly important that the duties of the office should be defined as far as possible. I am not at all insisting that the duties of each officer should be brought down and laid as a return on the table of the House, but I think they ought to be defined in the department, and it seems to me that any order in council dealing with the reorganization of a department which is confined to conferring a title, such as clerk or stenographer or something upon a particular officer and stating whether his salary is the same or greater, is not a compliance with the statute of last year nor does it fulfil one of the principal objects of that statute. I am not so much concerned with the hours of service of the civil servants in Ottawa; in fact I know some institutions where it is absolutely forbidden clerks and employees to do any work after office hours or in the evening for the reason that reasonable hours are given for doing a reasonable amount of work in office hours, and any clerk who is not able to do Mr. LEWIS.
that reasonable amount of work within these reasonable hours is prima facie considered unfit to continue in the service of the institution. I think reasonable hours of service should be assigned, and should be set out with some particularity in order that every person in the service in Canada may know that by virtue of his position in the Civil Service, certain duties are incumbent on him and he must perform this amount of work in office hours, in ordinary conditions at least. I realize that in time of emergency, for instance, during the session, it may be necessary for clerks to work outside of office hours, possibly in the evenings; but the duties should be defined and every clerk should understand that he has certain things to do within certain hours. I mentioned last evening some matters that had been brought to my attention by men previously in the service who stated to me, as one of the crying needs of the service, some means of inspection. I do not know that these orders provide for inspection, but I think the time of the Civil Service Commission might be employed to some extent in that way either through themselves or others. I know that in most great corporations there is a thorough system of inspection by which the heads of the corporation are able to know from time to time, by the reports of competent people, whether every officer of the corporation is able to perform his duties. I was told by a young man not now in the service that the man next to him when he was in one branch of that particular department, occupied nearly all his time in reading novels during the day without any one to inspect or supervise him; and the man next him was occupied in some other manner of as little advantage to the people of this country who were paying him his salary. The same young man told me of another man in the same department who had worked, industriously and indefatigably who had worked after hours night after night and year after year to qualify himself for the duties of his position, who had passed an examination in a certain outside institution which gave him a very high status, and who was working on in the department on a very small salary, having received absolutely no consideration or recognition for the honest, able and indefatigable endeavours which he had made to qualify himself better to serve the people of this country. It is with matters of that kind that if seems to me efforts at reorganization of the departments should be concerned, and I hope that the endeavour of last session to improve the Civil Service of this country will not stop short of some thorough system of inspection such as that employed by some of the great corporations of this country. I trust that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture will take this into consideration, because I think it is vital and es-

sential to placing the Civil Service on the best possible basis.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say to my hon. friend that the Act of last session provided, under certain circumstances, for an inspection ai\d report upon any department by the Civil Service Commissioners. There is not and never has been any provision for regular continuous inspection. I am not prepared to say that that would not be a good thing ; at the same time, I doubt very much the value of it. Such instances as my hon. friend has just adduced are clear evidence that some officials above those described was derelict in his duty. It was the duty of the deputy minister or the chief of the branch in which these persons were employed not to have allowed that kind of thing to go on. I think the responsibilities and duties of the higher officers of the Civil Service would be rather interfered with if any ordinary inspection system were to be adopted; they would perhaps be less inclined to look closely after the details of their administration. I have had opportunities occasionally of administering one or two departments other than my own, and while I have no doubt that while such cases as those mentioned by my hon. friend do occur sometimes, they are rare exceptions to the general rule. As a general rule, the officers of the different departments are kept up to their work by their immediate chiefs, who again are looked after by the deputy minister in a pretty business-like way, though in a large service like this, with upwards of 2,500 employees in Ottawa, a few instances of the kind mentioned may occur, instances which is is hard to overcome. There may be some body who is intolerably lazy or inefficient, and if he were to be dismissed from the service at a time when he could not go on the superannuation list, and after he had been paying into the superannuation fund for a good many years, with perhaps a family dependent upon him, such an action might seem unduly severe. It requires a good deal of determination and perhaps hard heartedness to visit such a man with the just measure which his delinquencies would properly bring down upon his head. But I believe the instances of that kind in the service are rare, and, as a general rule, while the hours are shorter than those in commercial life, and while the salaries are pretty good in comparison, the average civil servant gives a fair return for the salary he is paid; the service is efficient, and the business of the country well carried on. I had an opportunity during the last year of studying closely, in writings at any rate, the systems of the United States and Great Britain, and I venture to say that today the public service of Canada is carried on more economically and more efficiently, in proportion to the number of men employed than the service of either of those two countries.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot concur in the view which my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has advanced as to the possible results of a system of inspection. Under a system such as is carried out in a bank, when a branch is examined, and it is found that any of the subordinate officials are not performing their duties in a satisfactory way, that fact is set down as a black mark against the chief of that branch whose duty it wras to see that the subordinates properly performed their duties. Therefore, a system of inspection, instead of lessening the supervision of the man in charge of the subordinates, ought to increase it.


John Graham Haggart: As I understand, under the Act the theoretical organization of the departments is left to the deputies themselves; the duties appertaining to each office and the salary attached to it are prescribed. In trying to improve the service, why not adopt the system of inspection that exists in England? Why not also adopt the system of registration that exists there? This will show what every man in every department does every day, and the commission could ascertain whether he has being doing his duty or not. You may have efficient heads of the departments, but unless you have a registration of the duties and the work done by each officer you will always have pets in the department who will do nothing while the others will be doing the work.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say that the Act of last session provided for a record of the clerks to be kept. There was nothing of that kind in the former Civil Service Act. The Act of last session did not go perhaps as far as my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) suggests, and I do not for a moment say that what he suggests is going too far; but it did provide for a record of the work of every clerk, so that when his name came up for promotion or increase of salary, that record could be referred to.


George Eulas Foster: I notice running through the papers the last few days some very strange statements with regard to the system of overcharging civil servants for loans. The statement is made by members of the service and parties outside that the departments are the happy hunting ground of loan sharks, especially on pay days. If that be the case, some deputy head or other officer is very lax. The government buildings should not be allowed to be used for business of that description. No doubt when a civil servant is approached by gentlemen of this kind before his fellow colleagues, such insistent gentlemen can get what they like, especially if the official be a little sensitive. Somebody ought to take this mat-

ter in hand and see that traps are set in these preserves for that kind of poacher.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I quite agree with my hon. friend. Some years ago it came to my knowledge that a certain individual was pursuing some of the clerks in my department and I gave instructions that he was not to be allowed to come in at all. I do not think that the departmental offices are the places for that kind of business. It is private business which ought to be done elsewhere and outside office hours. I have read the accounts in the paper and agree that the thing should be put a stop to; but how to stop it I am not prepared to say. No doubt many of those who are in the clutches of the usurers, if they are usurers, have got there by reason of their extreme weakness or more or less laxness in their conduct.


Mr. HUGHES.: They are often unfortunate.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No doubt, but very often their indebtedness is due to gambling and other things they ought not to indulge in. The matter comes within the administration of the criminal law in this province. As I am not a lawyer, I cannot well give an opinion as to how it should be dealt with. But in the public interest the thing ought to be stopped because no man who is in "the clutches of an usurer, and is deeply in debt, can do good work for his employer. In this ease it is the country which is the employer, and the heads of the departments should do what they can to prevent that kind of work going on inside of their departments.


Mr. SPROULE.: The record is not such a one as my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has mentioned. It is simply a record of the efficiency and conduct of the employees. It does not show what work they are doing.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Their efficiency would be gauged by the amount of work they do. If one clerk' did only half as much of the same kind of routine work as another, he would be called inefficient and the other efficient.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that a report every three months by the chiefs of the branches to the deputy head on the efficiency and conduct of the employees does not give much information as to the work they do. It does not give any record of what mechanical work they perform.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope the hon. minister will not lose sight of what I mentioned, namely, that the orders in council do not seem to prescribe the duties in accordance with what the statute demands.
Progress reported.


George Eulas Foster: 



SUPPLY-C. P. R. NEW STOCK.

["There is another point. You have a vote of $10,000 to pay collectors. In 1907-8 all you spent was $4,800. How is it that you want a little more than double that this year?\nAt six o'clock, Committee reported progress, and House took recess.\nAfter Kecess.\nHouse resumed at 8 o'colck."]
Hon.   WM@: PATERSON (Minister of Cus toms) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: I intend to take up the time of the House for a few minutes in calling attention to a very important matter. Had I thought the House would have gone into Committee of Supply to-day, I would have notified the government of the item I proposed to bring to the attention of the House, and I regret I have not been able to do so. But the subject is one of so much importance to my mind that I hope we shall have further opportunity of discussing it in this House. I read in the last annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway the following clause:
To be in a position to provide additional money from this source (issue of stock), if and when necessary, your directors thought it wise to ask the consent of the Governor General in Council to a further increase of ordinary capital stock from $150,000,000 to $200,000,000. This consent has been formally given.
In other words, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the greatest institution in this country, has been given authority, according to the statements of its president, to increase its capital stock from $150,000,000 to $200,000,000. Whether that be so or not, I have only the authority of the president of that company; but in the 'Globe' newspaper of the other day I found this statement:
Small holders of the Canadian Pacific write to 'The Globe' asking why the company cannot give some information as to the basis upon which the new common stock will be issued. Possibly the best answer is that the company itself must first ask the Canadian Parliament for authority to issue the stock. The Canadian Pacific might not be able to say that it was the business of no outsider what method it used to raise new capital, and at the same time benefit its proprietors. It might be able to say this if there were no Railway Commission to fix freight rates, having regard to the profits earned and capital actually invested. The Railway Commission must take into consideration the rights enjoyed by shareholders as well as the dividend return, when considering the application of shippers for the reduction of freight carrying charges. Nevertheless it would be well to remember that in spite of its wealth the C.P.R. is face to face with a good deal of competition, and to meet this will require all the money the road can secure. If the directors prefer to give the shareholders what is practically a stock dividend, instead of a money bonus, from the land fund for instance, they might very easily justify their position. While its control is here, the great bulk of C.P.R. stock is held abroad, and is in the hands of very important interests. It would be unfortunate if the company was

forced to take any position which the foreign shareholders would consider as unfair to them, as the confidence of European and British investors alone has maintained the premier Canadian stock at a high level, and has Been the means of bringing the country itself to the favourable attention of foreign financial centres.
I propose to show to the House that it is of the utmost importance to the people of this country how the capitalization of our railways is increased, and that, for that reason, there ought to be some control of the government over the issue of securities by railway companies. I shall show that the Act for that purpose passed in the State of Hew York in 1897 has been of the utmost advantage to the people of the State. Can it be shown that the giving to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company of power to increase its capital stock from $150,000,000 to $200,000,000 without imposing conditions was of advantage to the public ? I contend that it is in the public interest that such new capitalization should be in the form of bonds, and not in the form of stock. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company could borrow on bonds, probably, at 4 per cent, but if it floats stock, it expects to put aside in its net earnings at least 10 per cent to cover the interest on that stock. I propose also to show that, if the company is allowed to issue stock, that stock should be sold to the public at the highest rate it will bring, and all the money realized should be put into the treasury. But the proposition, as I understand it, is that the ancient and discredited example of the American railways should be followed, and that the issue of stock should be of the nature of what is called ' cutting a melon ' for the benefit of the stockholders. In other words, this $50,000,000, which would bring, perhaps, 150 on the market-it is quoted at about 175 and has been as high as 200-shall be issued at par, which will have the effect of dividing $25,000,000 taken from the people of Canada among the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that this flotation shall be added to the money on which the shareholders ate drawing- 7- per cent with prospects of still greater earnings. I contend, therefore, that, especially when a company is as well established as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, its issue of securities should be in the form or bonds, but, if stock is to be issued, it should be put upon the market for what it will bring, and the money used for the benefit of the road. I totally agree with this idea of ' cutting a melon ' representing $25,000,000 for the benefit of the shareholders, and especially do I denounce it in connection with a company like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which has already been so heavily bonused in money and land, given a great franchise. I learn from the ' Statist ' and the ' Economist/ the two 14
leading financial papers of England, that the Canadian Pacific Railway to-day is establishing surplus earnings equal to 10 per cent on its stock. If it is the intention of the company to take that much out of the traffic earnings, I think that charge is altogether unfair. Suppose that the company wants $50,000,000, as the president says it soon will; if it availed itself of the current price of stock, even discounting to-day's quotation by 25 points, it could raise the money by an issue of $37,500,000 of stock. Or, if it issued $50,000,000 of bonds, it could raise the money at 4 per cent, an annua? charge of $2,000,000. In the form in which they propose to issue it, this will represent a fixed charge upon the earnings of the road, paid by the people, of this country of $5,000,000 a year, or $3,000,000 more than should be paid, and this proposed method of issue capitalized, represents $75,000,000. In other words, this proposal, which some people ignore or say is of no moment, means that the passenger and freight rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway are to be burdened, quite unnecessarily, with a' fixed charge to pay interest on $75,000,000. For, no railway maintains itself except out of the charges it makes upon the public, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company proposes to take from the public, by this unfair, improvident and improper flotation, enough to pay the interest on $75,000,000. Only 38 per cent of the net income of the Canadian Pacific Railway is required to pay the interest on its bond issue. Why should not 60 or even 70 per cent of the net income be used to pay interest on bonds ? To maintain a proper equilibrium between the stock and bond issues, at least 75 per cent of the net earnings should be devoted to the payment of interest on the bonds. If this issue is allowed, there must be heavy unnecessary traffic charges. It cannot be otherwise. The State of California has made the announcement that because of the improper watering of stock of the railways in that state by Mr. Harriman, the traffic charges have had to *be advanced by the amount of $10,000,000 to pay the interest on that water. I have been told that this is no concern of the people. But I contend that it is every concern of the people, for freight charges are based upon fixed charges, interest and dividend charges, and, unless the greatest care is exercised in authorizing these flotations the public will suffer. To show that the public have suffered, I think I can say v ith perfect fairness that the financial troubles of the last few years in the United States have been largely due to the over-capitalization of corporations, and especially railway corporations. Dividends have to be paid on all this water, and the money has to come out of the people.
To show that the American people are not neglectful of the situation, I wish to



point out that in 1897 the state of New York, perhaps following the good example of Canada, established a railway commission, which to my mind is the finest piece of legislation I know of in New York state. I also wish to say that we have in Canada an excellent Railway Commission, and my object mainly here to-day is to see that the government put into their railway law the legislation which has been put into the law of the State of New York governing these things. I will read the provision in the New York law. Section 55 of the Public Service Commissions Act reads as follows:
A common carrier

For instance the Canadian Pacific Railway corporation. [DOT]

or street railroad corporation organized
or existing, or hereafter incorporated, under or by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, may issue stocks, bonds, notes or other evidence of indebtedness payable at periods of more than twelve months after the date thereof, when necessary for the acquisition of property, the construction, completion, extension or improvement of its facilities, or for the improvement or maintenance of its service or for the discharge or lawful refunding of its obligations, provided and not otherwise that there should have been secured from the proper commission an order authorizing such issue, and the amount thereof and stating that, in the opinion of the commission, the use of the capital to be secured by the issue of such stock, bonds, notes or other evidence of indebtedness is reasonably required for the said purposes of the corporation, for the purpose of enabling it to determine whether it should issue such an order, the commission should make inquiry or investigation, hold such hearings and examine such witnesses, books, papers, documents or contracts as it may deem of importance in enabling it to reach a determination.
Now that I contend should be our law. The Governor in Council, when this $50,000,000 was authorized, if it has been authorized, should have exercised some discretion and probably would, if we had it in our law. My chief object in bringing this matter before the House to-day is to urge upon the government the insertion of a clause in the Railway Commission Act of Canada which will give the Railway Commission authority to control all such issues, and that the railways, before they can get such authority, shall be obliged to establish that it is in the public interest that the authority be given. Though that Act was only passed in the United States in 1897, and the commission was organized less than 18 months ago, they have had before them up to the latest date I could get, seven applications for an increase in stock and issue of bonds. It is a very illuminative thing to read the findings of the commission on these various applications. I will read two or three short paragraphs from them. For instance, on an application of a company on April 7, in Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
connection with the Lehigh & Hudson River Railway, and on which decision was given May 7 last, there is this statement, and the commission is living up to it.
It is sufficient for present purposes to call attention to the fact that some obligations may be the proper subject of capitalization and other obligations may not be. One purpose of the Public Service Commissioners Law is to restrain and limit the hitherto irrepressible elasticity of corporate capitalization to the matters which may properly be capitalized, and the same discriminating scrutiny should and will be extended to indebtedness as to other subjects enumerated in that statute.
Now the same sin, and it is a great public and political sin, prevails in Canada today; that sin is the hitherto irrepressible elasticity of corporate capitalization, it must be restrained, it must be limited, it must be directed in channels which will make the least charge on the railway, and therefore on the public. It has got so bad in the United States, as I said before, that the financial panic we have heard so much of is said to be due to this extensive and improper capitalization People say that Roosevelt is the man who brought on the panic in the United States. I say that the panic in the United States is largely due to this over-capitalization that has taken place there; and it will disarrange our finances here and it will make our railway charges here exorbitant if we do not check it. I say the time has arrived when we ought to check it in this country. Here is another deliverance of the Railway Commission in New York:
In other words our order should not operate to increase the interest charges upon this property by one per cent or any per cent for the next sixteen years without some corresponding increase in the company's assets in property or in cash to be devoted to the construction and improvement covered by the case under consideration. Indeed it may be questioned whether a present low interest bearing bond should be permitted to be retired by a bond bearing higher interest in any event when the present bond would run a reasonable period before maturity.
The Railway Commission in the United States says that a railroad company should not even be allowed to substitute a bond of a high rate for one of a lower rate, because it knows that every such increase of that kind is to the detriment of the people and must end in the increase of freight rates. New, if we are to work out the great object that we had in view in establishing this Railway Commission-and we are working it out, the commission is doing good service in this country every day, and I give the government credit for enforcing that commission fairly and strengthening it in different directions-but if it is to do what we intended it to do, that is, to regulate the

freight charges of this country, it must also do another thing, and regulate the security issues of the companies if it wishes to keep the freight rates at a reasonable figure. If unnecessary capital is issued, or if stock at a high dividend rate is issued where a low interest bearing bond will do, we are simply failing to effect a cure, we are stopping a leak at one end and allowing a leak at the other. My main object to-day is to bring to the attention of the government this statement which is made in the Canadian Pacific Railway annual report, that the authority has already been given, and also to draw the attention of the government to the need of making a provision in the Canadian Railway Act which will give the Commission full power to pass judgment on all the proposed increases of capital and bonds of any railway company in this country. I have heard it argued in this House that it is no concern of the people what the amount of stock issue may be. I say it is of great concern to the people, not only the amount of the issue but the character of the issue; and when a railway is once established, its issue for development and extension purposes ought largely to be confined to bonds instead of stock. I say it will be a scandal, a scandal that no public man can justify, if there is to be perpetrated in a few days, as I believe there will be, the cutting of this ' melon ' whereby $50,000,000 of securities are to be issued to the shareholders at par. It is not in the public interest, it is not to the credit of parliament that the law should remain as it is to-day. I ask the government to give the most careful consideration to this state of affairs, and that before this session is over, indeed before this thing can be perpetrated, if the authority has been given, in some way it should be regulated, and that no increase of security shall be allowed until the reasons for that increase, and the nature of the security that is to be issued, shall pass the scrutiny and receive the sanction of the Board of Railway Commissioners of this country.


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested in the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) who has again shown that he pays particular attention to the way in which large corporations are managed and particularly to the railway problem. The question of the financing of these very large concerns is one that cannot be settled off hand and cannot be managed unless it be by men who have given it a great deal of attention and who, year after year, have profited by the experienced gained. It will go without saying, no matter what any person may think of certain lines of conduct, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that it is one of the best managed companies in the known world today. While we want to maintain our rights 144
as a people there is one condition that we must maintain, and that is that the credit of the undertakings of the Canadian people and on behalf of Canadian people must stand high in the markets of the world. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has carried out its undertakings in a marvellous degree. When it was first launched there were differences of opinion as to how it should be done no doubt, and honest differences of opinion. * They had their difficulties in the beginning, in the carrying out of the construction of the road, and they had their financial questions to grapple with. The parliament of Canada assisted them to an extent that it was thought by the majority, at least, was justified. But, leaving all that aside, up to the present time, the Canadian Pacific management stands out as one of the best in this or any other country. When this company, after years of experience, finds that the interests of the people in one particular portion of the Dominion demand a further extension of railway accommodation, it is their business, it is their duty to the people of Canada to, as far as possible, acquiesce in that request and give the people of the great west the railway accommodation that they are asking for. No person will take any exception to that. The only question that can be raised in connection with it is that we regret that the railway companies are not able to give the accommodation as rapidly as the great needs of the west demand that they should, and it is our duty, not only as a government, but as a parliament, to aid any company as far as we possibly can in the endeavour to bring the markets of the world as close as possible to the doors of the people who have gone into our unsettled country in the western part of Canada. We have spent a large amount of money and we are to-day spending large amounts of money to do that very thing. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company come to the government and ask them to allow them to increase their capital stock. What for?-in order that they may yield to that demand and obtain the capital to build lines into parts of the country that do not now have railway accommodation. The necessity of this, ot course, need not be argued for a moment, because every one agrees that it is necessary. But my hon. friend takes exception, to the way in which it is done. I may say there is room for argument as to which is the better method; there is no doubt in the world about that. But the government on this occasion followed the examples and lines they have always followed with regard to increases in capital stock. If a company come, make a good case, and state that they want to extend their line for the benefit of the people or to take care of the traffic of the country, we have always given them an opportunity to do it in this way. This
42$

is no new departure. This is the old line of conduct. Whether it is the better way or not is open to argument, and I was glad to hear the remarks of my hon. friend with regard to it. The men who are engaged in large undertakings, in the management and securing of capital, particularly in a time like this, must take into account the difference in cost or interest between issuing new stock and selling bonds. But is there not another difference? Is there not a difference between placing a new mortgage on a property that now exists and extending the sphere of the proprietorship? The stockholders are the proprietors; the bondholders are the holders of what we might commonly call a mortgage on property and there is a difference. It might make a marked difference in the value of the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway and in the credit of the company itself if they were to issue a large amount of bonds at any price in order to raise more funds to extend the lines of the company. We must most certainly, as far as possible, keep intact the credit of the company, and we are part proprietors of the great Canadian Pacific Railway in this country, and the better way to keep their credit intact, the better way to advance it, as far as the effect on the market and the stock is concerned, will be by an issue of stock rather than by another large bond issue. It strikes me that those in the financial world, particularly when the finances of the world are in a sensitive condition, will look at it in that way, and while I admit that it is open for argument, I contend that there is a strong argument from the financial standpoint in favour of an issue of stock rather than another large bond issue. My hon. friend very rightly refers to New York state, but this much must be remembered, that it is a far more difficult thing, ordinarily speaking, to finance an undertaking in a new country where the opportunity for traffic is much less than in a thickly settled country


William Findlay Maclean: The Canadian Pacific Railway has the best credit in the world.


George Perry Graham: Yes, because it is managed along the lines I have indicated rather than along the lines that my hon. friend has indicated.


William Findlay Maclean: No, they have issued bonds heretofore, but they have quit doing it.


George Perry Graham: I know. In Canada we have a very small population per mile of railway. No country has as great a mileage of railway per head of population as the Dominion of Canada, but to reverse it, no country in the world to-day has a greater tract of territory per mile of railway than has the Dominion of Canada.


George Perry Graham: We are a very large country with a comparatively small population. New York state has a very dense population, and California has likewise. In the states of the union to which my hon. friend referred the density of population gives the railways a traffic which the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other road in this country, cannot expect to have for years. In other words, the Canadian Pacific Railway, as well as other railways in Canada, are dealing with what is to be in the future rather than what is at the present time, and it is necessary for them to be given every opportunity by the government and parliament of Canada to retain their financial position which stands high in the world to-day. In granting this extra issue of stock, as I said before, the government have done what they have done before, not in the dark, not in secret, but in the open, prepared to bring down the order in council if necessary and prepared to explain why this has been done. I say again, we think it was the wisest thing to do; it is, of course, open for argument, as my hon. friend has said, but under all the circumstances I would be prepared as head of the Railway Department to do the same thing again, to allow the Canadian Pacific Railway under present circumstances to obtain this money in order to extend its lines into the great Northwest country where they need more railway facilities.
My hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has raised one other important point, that is the question of referring questions of this kind to the Board of Railway Commissioners. There is a good deal to be said in favour of that course, and I promise my hon. friend that I shall give the suggestion the consideration of which it is worthy. There is, however, this further question whether the government that is responsible to the people-more directly responsible in Canada than are the members of the American government who do not have to go to the people for election, while we are constantly in contact with them-should decide on cases of that kind, or whether, they should be referred to the Railway Commission for first consideration, coming to us for final decision. I promise my friend to give the whole question full consideration.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, the question introduced by the hon. member for York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is one that has been before this House for a great number of years. It was debated again and again in the Railway Committee where Mr. Mulock drew attention to the increased rates to which the people of the country must be subjected by reason of the watering of stock or the increased issue of bonds or stock. The hon. gentleman says that there is legislation in the United States against any issues of this kind. That may

be perfectly right, such matters may be left to the Railway Commission as the Minister of Railways suggests to judge whether it is or is not right that an issue of stock or of preferential securities should be made in a certain way, but the Railway Commission have jurisdiction over all these matters and it is their duty to see that the people who eventually have to pay for these things, pay for only the actual cash which has been invested in the undertaking and do not pay the fancy prices that the railways put on their securities.
What are the facts in reference to the particular thing of which the hon. member complains, an issue of a certain amount of stock, I think $50,000,000 to build 600 or 700 miles of railway in the Northwest ? If that money was to be raised on the undertaking itself it could not be raised on any better terms than it is now being raised. The undertaking of this work lessens the property which the present owners of the Canadian Pacific Railway have-


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: No, no.


John Graham Haggart: It does.


Wilfrid Laurier: It does.


John Graham Haggart: It lessens it to the value of the undertaking, and have not the owners of the road a right to take that into consideration in awarding the stock to the new proprietors? But if they do as they do in some places' in the United States and may do in Canada, it is the duty of our commission to see that in fixing the rates for these roads the fair consideration shall be the actual amount of cash that has been put into the undertaking. The principal reason for seeking to prevent the watering of stock is the idea that some day or other the country will become possessors of the railways. If the railways were taken over by the state their valuation would not be fixed at all on watered stock but would be fixed as in the case of any other undertaking or corporation on the basis of what it is worth as a going concern at the moment it is taken over. That is the consideration and the only consideration with the government. It may have an effect on some people owing to the fear that the railways will exact higher freight and passenger rates from the people because a price has been given to the stock which does not correspond to the value of the property or, in other words, the security has been watered. But to guard against such a result as that, we have appointed a commission for the purpose of protecting the people of the country in these matters.
In reference to the particular matter at issue, the people of this country desire the building of 600 miles of railway in the Northwest. How are they to get the money? Can they raise it on the undertaking itself?


William Findlay Maclean: On the whole property of the concern.


John Graham Haggart: You raise it on the whole property. Then have not I, as a stockholder in the Canadian Pacific Railway, a right to consider whether the building of that property would affect the security that I have ? That is the primary consideration and the holders of Canadian Pacific Railway securities have a right to decide upon it. The only consideration worthy the attention of the people of this country is that in the eventuality of the state becoming the possessor of the railways they shall get them at their proper price and value. This is provided for in nearly every Railway Act of the British parliament. I admit to a certain extent with the hon. member for York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) that the tendency of legislation in this country and of ideals throughout the world is that in all matters of transport the people of the country should have control either by ownership, or as we have done here in this country, by the people ruling the railways through a commission in regard to the fixing of rates.
All these attacks upon property are not a benefit or essential to the people of this country.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: It is not an advantage to have these matters discussed on the lines pursued by my hon. friend here.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, oh.


John Graham Haggart: The proper line is to take a reasonable view of what is necessary in the interest of the country and I think that it is in the interest of the country even on the proposition laid down by my hon. friend, that this legislation should pass.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are two things that ought to be taken into consideration when such 3, proposal is made, either to the Governor in Council or to the Railway Commission. It seems to me that the first question is the money needed and for what purpose ? Is it for the purpose of better accommodating the public or providing some want which up to that time has not been provided ? And the second, if this obligation is to be incurred, how can you best raise the money so that the smaller amount wall do as much good as a larger amount raised in some other way. It seems to me that it resolves itself into this. We have given the Canadian Pacific Railway and every other corporation of the kind a large consideration in money and lands to provide services for the public and therefore the country has an interest 1 in this question as well as the Canadian Pa-

cific Railway and we must always have aD interest in it.
We did that good service for the public. The public therefore has an interest in it. Now, the public ought to get the benefit of that service by paying the smallest possible rate in the way of freight or passenger charges. Suppose the company wishes to build 400 or 500 miles more road, and require this money. For what purpose do they require it? In the first place they require it in the interest of the public, as the public has demanded the accommodation, and that, I assume, should be fairly taken into consideration by the Governor in Council before they decide whether they will allow the company to sell more stock for the purpose of raising the money. They reach the conclusion that the money is needed in the interest of the public, and that it is proper to give that authority to the company. Then, I think they should consider, how can this service be supplied to the public at the smallest possible outlay? If the sale of $37,500,000 of stock will provide capital enough to supply what is needed, surely there is no justification for selling $50,000,000. Because if $50,000,000 of stock is sold, those who use these roads, either for the transportation of their goods or for travelling, must pay the interest on that $50,000,000. They could get lower rates if they only had to pay fixed charges on $37,500,000. It seems to me that this can be accomplished by putting the stock on the open market and selling it at the highest figures that it will bring. The Americans are doing this. They are compelling some of the companies that come and ask permission to sell stock, to sell it at public auction, realizing that the smallest amount of stock that can be sold for the most money is the best bargain that can be made in the interest of the public. If that is being done in the United States, I do not see why it could not be done in Canada. I have never yet been able to see either the wisdom or the justice of allowing men controlling a public utility, for which we pay large sums of money, to sell stock at 170 or even .150 and put $50 out of every $100 into their own pockets; using it, not to give a better service to the public, but only to increase their own wealth, and imposing upon the public the necessity of paying higher freight and passenger rates in the future.


Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM (East Huron).: I just wish to say that the company could raise all the money it requires to extend its lines if it would sell all its land in the Northwest at a reasonable price. The land has been culled over until a great deal of it is of inferior quality, and the company is asking in some cases as much as $25 an acre for it. It is asking prices which the settlers cannot give, and in this way the company is retarding the progress of the Mr. SPROULE.
country. Let the company sell the land at a reasonable price, and it can get all the millions that it requires to build all the branch lines needed in that western country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee of supply.
Department of Inland Revenue - salaries, $87,700.
['I just wish to say that the company could raise all the money it requires to extend its lines if it would sell all its land in the Northwest at a reasonable price. The land has been culled over until a great deal of it is of inferior quality, and the company is asking in some cases as much as $25 an acre for it. It is asking prices which the settlers cannot give, and in this way the company is retarding the progress of the Mr. SPROULE.\ncountry. Let the company sell the land at a reasonable price, and it can get all the millions that it requires to build all the branch lines needed in that western country.']
Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: This provides merely for the statutory increases and for six men of the outside service who have been brought into the inside..


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Government has been providing in the new Civil Service Act for increasing the salaries of the civil servants. Do they intend at the same time to keep up the old statutory increase?


William Paterson: I understand that the increases provided for in the Act will go on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister mean the old statutory increase of $50 a year, to which every civil servant thought himself entitled, or the statutory increase provided for in the new law?


William Paterson: Under the old law, there is a provision for a statutory increase of $50. That is changed under the new law, and that $50 is included in this amount which we are asking now for next year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then will that statutory increase be continued or replaced by something else. Heretofore there was a very wide difference of opinion as to whether it was automatic or not. For a long time it was considered automatic, but ministers of this government have said that it was contingent on reports made by the deputy minister, and that even then each minister might exercise his judgment. The ex-Postmaster General (Sir Wm. Mulock) contended over and over again that he had no-right to give these increases and did not give them for several years.


William Paterson: As a general rule the increase will be given unless there be some record of want of diligence. In cases where there is such a record it will not be given. But as a rule it will be regularly given until the maximum is reached.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any annual report on each official by the deputy head or only in cases where a report is asked for? If the statutory increase does not act automatically, there ought to be an annual report. If the increase is only given in such cases as the deputy head may recommend, injustice may be done to some official. There ought to be some fixed principle.


William Paterson: I understand from my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. FEBRUARY 2, 1909
Fisher), who is more familiar with the provisions of the new Act, that a report has to be made by the heads of the different branches every three months to the deputy head. The deputy head reports to the minister and his report also goes to the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. T. J. STEWART (Hamilton West).: Does the Act provide for a statutory increase of $50 per year to all the Custom house officers in the outside service ?


William Paterson: It applies to none of them.


Mr. T. W. CROTHERS (West Elgin).: How are we to understand the operations of the Act of last year in conjunction with the Act which it is proposed to pass this session ? Here is an individual in the first division, subdivision A, whose salary last year was $2,700. Under the Civil Service Act, the minimum to which he would be entitled would be $2,800 in that division. I understand that $50 is the annual increase to which he will be entitled, beginning the first of September last. I would like to know whether, under the Act contemplated by the resolutions of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, this man will receive an additional sum of $150, making his salary this coming year $3,000, instead of $2,850.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Did my hon. friend cite the case of a clerk at $2,700?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: His salary for 1908-9 was $2,700. It is proposed now to make it $2,850. I understand he is placed by the Civil Service Act of last session under subdivision A of the first division, of which the minimum salary is $2,800, and that his salary may go up, at an increase of $50 per year, until it reaches $4,000.	$50 has been
added to the $2,800, making his salary $2,850. My question is whether, under the Act foreshadowed by the resolutions of the Minister of Agriculture, this individual will have this year $150 in addition to the $2,850, making his salary $3,000 instead of $2,850. I understood the right hon. the leader of the government to say yesterday that such was the case.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know the individual case, but this appears to be a man who was in subdivision B of the first division this present fiscal year, because he is getting $2,700, which is $100 below the maximum of that division. Apparently the department intends promoting him to subdivision A of the first division at $2,800. This item is wrong because in the first division the statutory increase is $100 and not $50. However, I am informed that this $50 is for the six months at the rate of $100 increase each year. Therefore, although this gentleman is to be promoted to subdivision A of
the first division and will get six months of the statutory increase of $100, he will practically get this fiscal year $2,850. He was in subdivision B of the first division on the first of September at $2,700. Under the resolution, to be eligible to get $150, he would be obliged to stay within his class, so that he would'only get $100. Therefore, under the resolution before the House his salary on the first of September will be raised to $2,800 and he will have that until his promotion takes place into subdivision A of the first division, when he will have $2,800, which is the minimum of that division, and then would get his statutory increase of $100 per year in the ordinary course.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The question I have asked is whether this particular individual will be entitled to the additional $150?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said he would get $100
of the $150 on the first of September because he could not go above the maximum of his class until promoted. He would then be promoted and would get the ordinary statutory increase of $100 per year, which is to be provided for the coming fiscal year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not seem to me that the Act is very clear, or else the explanation of the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Agriculture is wrong. My inquiry was whether the statutory increase was given automatically or whether it was contingent on something else. The answer was that it was contingent on a good report. To ascertain what is meant by that, let us turn to the Act. It is provided that the Civil Service shall be divided into two divisions, namely, the inside service and the outside service. The inside service is defined as consisting-
Of that part of the public service in or under the several departments of the executive government of Canada and of the Auditor General, the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the Governor General's secretary employed at the city of Ottawa, or at the Experimental Farm station or at the Dominion Astronomical observatory near Ottawa, but not including the officers, clerks and employees employed at Ottawa in the second or outside departmental division.
Now, when you turn to the Act to ascertain what record is to be kept of the employees, on which they are to qualify for increase, you find it provided that :
A record of the conduct and efficency of all officers, clerks and employees below the first division shall be kept in each department.
It appears by the first section that I have read that the first division is the inside service. And a record of all below this first division, or inside service, is to be kept. Surely that is not clear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It seems to me quite clear. Under section 3, there is a clear definition

of what is meant by the inside service and what is meant by the outside service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The inside service is the first division.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it is the inside service, and the inside service is divided into divisions and subdivisions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Act clearly says ' The Civil Service shall be divided into two divisions,' and the first of these divisions is the inside service. And section 40 provides for a record of conduct and efficiency of officers, clerks and employees below the first division.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That refers to divisions under section 5. If my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) will refer to that section, he will see that it defines the divisions and subdivisions.


George Eulas Foster: If we are clear about that, let us understand this first case. As I understand it, this clerk comes under the Act in subdivision B and is getting a salary of $2,700.	"


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: He goes into subdivision A, the minimum salary of which is $2,800. That is, he receives an increase of $100 by that promotion. Does that reduce the other increase by $100 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The general increase which we are now providing comes into force on September 1. At that date, this officer was in subdivision B at $2,700. Under the resolution which is now before the House, he gets as much off that $150 increase as his position in that subdivision permits- that is, he is not increased beyond the maximum of his sub-division.


George Eulas Foster: So, he gets $100 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, because $2,800 is the maximum of the division. Then, apparently, it is the intention of the Minister of Inland Revenue-about which I know nothing-to promote him into subdivision A of the first division, the minimum salary of which is $2,800. Therefore, he will receive that salary on going into the new subdivision.


George Eulas Foster: He, at that moment, receiving $2,800 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Or $2,850 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, $2,800. He will be promoted into the other subdivision, the minimum salary of which is the maximum salary of the other. But he will be eligible for the statutory increase, wdiich, in the first division, is $100 a year. And apparently the accountant of the department has Mr. SPROULE.
provided for that occurring half way through the next. fiscal year, and has, therefore, only asked for $50 of the statutory increase instead of $100.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose this holds with all these employees. Now, the regular employees under the old Act were 36 in number ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: And the regular employees-so to call them for convenience sake -in this new schedule are still only 36.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are given here at 42.


William Paterson: Six from outside.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, six have been brought in. Now, I -would like to analyse that in the case of this department and see where we are. Who are these who are brought in from outside ?


William Paterson: They were paid out of outside votes.


George Eulas Foster: What were the names, and what were they getting?


William Paterson: Lewis is one, he was getting $600; and doing clerical work. Can-tin was getting $500. Ekins was doing-clerical work, and getting $600. Then there were two messengers, Bourgouin, who is getting $750, and L. Roy, who is getting $500. Then there is provision made for Davidson, another messenger, at $500.


George Eulas Foster: Provision made for a vacancy is not the addition of an outside man. Here you are taking in a number of outside men.


William Paterson: We are making provision for the appointment of another.


George Eulas Foster: You have only transferred five men from the outside, now you want to add an extra man as messenger. How long had these five clerks been in the employ of the department?


William Paterson: Over a year.


George Eulas Foster: All of them?


William Paterson: I would not be sure.


George Eulas Foster: We would like to be sure. This is a test case of the working out of this
aggregation of laws.


William Paterson: Bourgouin has been on since June, 1903. I will get the rest of the information for the hon. gentleman during the evening.


George Eulas Foster: I think there is an error in having it six, it should be five; then the one ought to be in the other column. In the next, the laboratory, you had eleven men, who seems all to have been brought in from the outside, and in the chief technical

engineer's branch the same. The same in the weights and measures, the same in the methylated spirits. I would like some information on all these. The minister may think this is calling for a good deal, but this is on a special occasion, and we would like to see how the thing is working out.


William Paterson: These are brought in under Act of Parliament.


George Eulas Foster: But how will we know that all sorts of irregularities have not taken place in bringing them in? Now we are putting them where they go on the establishment, -where they have a regular status, where they can get all the advantages of the Civil Service Act. We want to know how they got in. We know that when they were in there last they came in through the door of examinations, and were regularly appropriated for. Here you are putting thirty-two new clerks on, and we want to know their status and standing before we translate them to this haven of rest.


William Paterson: Supposing you knew that, what good would it do? Under the law we are instructed to bring these men into the inside service, and we do that, even if they have only been on six months or three months.


George Eulas Foster: The minister says he was compelled by law to bring in these six men. There were only five, and they wish to smuggle in another.


William Paterson: No provision was made for him last year. I will get the information the hon. gentleman asks for. But I will ask the hon. gentleman to note this. Take, for instance, the laboratory branch, where you have eleven men who have been paid out of outside votes. Parliament passed a law that these should be brought into the inside service, and we are simply carrying out the law and bringing them in. Now, does it matter whether these men have been in the outside service fifteen years, or one year, so far as carrying out the law is concerned? Must they not come in, and if so, what will be the value of these particulars the hon. gentleman is asking for?


George Eulas Foster: What the law says in effect is that the men who have been in bona fide employ in the outside parts of the departments here, should be taken on at the salaries they have had. That may be done in many different ways. I am not saying this is not all proper and straightforward, but the question already put has brought out one fact, that you claim six men and you only had five.	[DOT]


William Paterson: We have a provision for that.


George Eulas Foster: You are putting on a new man. In the same way, we would like to know with reference to these others.


William Paterson: Supposing I admit that this is a fact, that this one should have been put in the other column? No provision was made in the estimates of last year. Still I press my question on the hon. gentleman. I suppose that I could give the particulars with regard to each of these officers of the department. They have been bona fide in the service, but paid for out of the outside votes. Under the reorganization they will be bound to be brought in no matter whether their term of service has been for one, or five, or seven years. Therefore, I was asking the hon. gentleman whether any good purpose would be served by getting these particulars,-I do not object-as to how long each one of these had been in the service. Supposing he had been only a year, we would still have to bring him in under the law.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose he had only been in one day?


William Paterson: Well, that would be running pretty close.


George Eulas Foster: It would be running close, but it would be doing more than that; it would be showing a piece of sharp practice on the part of the minister.


William Paterson: It would depend on whether there was a necessity for the services of the officer when he came in.


George Eulas Foster: Well, there is no need taking up an hour quarrelling over this. If the minister promises that we shall have the information let him give it to us pleasantly and we will get along all the better.


William Paterson: Is there any other information you want?


George Eulas Foster: That is all I see at the present time.


William Paterson: Shall we pass this item?


George Eulas Foster: Better get the information.


William Paterson: Shall we take the next item?


George Eulas Foster: I imagine we will run up against the same thing with every other minister. I do not believe there is a minister prepared to give the information as to the hundreds and hundreds of men they are putting on the outside list. I propose to ask each minister, and I suppose that when I do each minister will reply that he does not know a blessed thing about it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that is quite a fair statement of the case.


George Eulas Foster: It may not apply to them all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Personally I would be prepared to give the hon. gentleman that information. There are about 200 of my officers who have been paid out of the lump vote for the outside service but who have been working here in Ottawa and doing exactly the same kind of work as those in the inside service. By the Act of last session these people were all brought in. I confess that I did not have prepared a statement of all these officers and of their duties, but I will have it prepared.


William Paterson: You will find it in the Civil Service list.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I confess that they will not be found in the Civil Service list.


William Paterson: In my department they will be.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In mine they will not be. They were not in the inside service and they were not in the outside service according to the Act.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, this is a thing which, when it is once done, is done.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I quite agree with that, but I do not think it is quite fair for my hon. friend to intimate that because we have not that information off hand we are trying to force the thing through. Knowing what the hon. gentleman wants I will have the information for him when the items are taken up. Perhaps it would be well to take up these items and discover what information is required and then we can leave them over until that information is obtained.


William Paterson: What shall we do meanwhile?


George Eulas Foster: Go on with other government business that is ready.


William Paterson: We have this ready.


George Eulas Foster: It does not seem so.


William Paterson: Is there any information wanted about the Inland Revenue vote?


George Eulas Foster: Is there anything more than the general vote?


William Paterson: No.


George Eulas Foster: This is for clerical assistance?


William Paterson: There is no change whatever. Suppose we go on to outside service of the Inland Revenue Department and see if anything is wanted there.


George Eulas Foster: If the minister wishes it, although I suppose we will have the real man back here some day. Why not take the minister's own department-Customs?


George Eulas Foster: ,


William Paterson: There the same question will arise, I suppose.


George Eulas Foster: Well, take the outside service.


William Paterson: The Deputy Minister of the Department of Inland Revenue has been granted leave of absence; I think he is going away on Thursday and I thought that perhaps you would allow his estimates to pass.


George Eulas Foster: If you take up his estimates we will go through them.
Excise-salaries of officers and inspectors of excise, &c., to provide for increases depending upon the result of excise examinations, $426,400.05.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Would the minister
give us the particulars of that?


William Paterson: There is an increase of $9,277.49. This represents the regular statutory increases.


John Barr: What will be the result if these officers do not pass the excise examinations?


William Paterson: They will not get promotion unless they pass.


John Barr: Then, of course, the money will remain in the treasury?


William Paterson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: This $9,000 is simply for statutory increases for the present staff? Are there any additions?


William Paterson: No, I understand not.


George Eulas Foster: This simply provides for the statutory increases which will come to the different officers after proper examination?


William Paterson: That is as I understand it.


Mr. J. ARTHURS. (Parry Sound).: I find on page 23 that $31,307.93 has been accounted for as for the services of men brought from the outside to the inside service. This increase of $9,277 would apparently be added to that making a total increase of $40,584.93.


William Paterson: No, that would not be connected with this. This is excise. There are none of the other items apparently in which there are any increases, so that there would not seem to be much room for explantation. It seems to be a very carefully prepared estimate : the vote has been kept down in every item except where it has been increased by statutory increase.


George Eulas Foster: 
George Eulas Foster: We would like to have this item divided into its various heads.


William Paterson: I could not do that off hand.
Item allowed to stand.
Stamps for imported and Canadian tobacco, $85,000.


William Paterson: Those are the stamps for placing on the tobacco. About that amount of money is required each year.


George Eulas Foster: Where are those printed?


William Paterson: In Ottawa under contract.	*


George Eulas Foster: What is this item of commissions?


William Paterson: As I understand the vote for the year before was $70,000 and this was spent within a few hundred dollars, and it is estimated that this year they will require this amount, but they cannot say how much will be left of the $85,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is the commission?


William Paterson: This is the commission paid to collectors of customs for duty eol

lected by them, some $10,000; and a small item of $100 to the postmasters in Quebec who sell these twist tobacco stamps.


George Eulas Foster: I was counting that commission in as part of the $85,000, but it is a vote by itself. Then I find all that was spent for the stamps was $69,577 in 1907-8.


William Paterson: Yes, that is right.


George Eulas Foster: What has been sr>ent this year up to the present time?


William Paterson: We ought to be able to tell that but we cannot tell you how much was spent in the whole year.


George Eulas Foster: But you can tell how much was spent until now on an estimate. It may be that the tobacco business has grown so that you require $15,000 more for stamps. That would be a pretty rapid growth.


William Paterson: Yes, it is growing. It can be got if the hon. gentleman insists upon it. I will try to have it after recess.


George Eulas Foster: There is another point. You have a vote of $10,000 to pay collectors. In 1907-8 all you spent was $4,800. How is it that you want a little more than double that this year?
At six o'clock, Committee reported progress, and House took recess.
After Kecess.
House resumed at 8 o'colck.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 23) respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 24) respecting the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company.-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 25) respecting the Joint Section of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, at Fort William, Ontario.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 26) respecting the fKJootenay Central Railway Company.-Mr, Geo. Taylor.
Bill (No. 27) to incorporate the London and Lancashire Plate Glass and Indemnity Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 28) respecting the Union Station and other joint facilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Midland Railway of Manitoba, at Portage la Prairie.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 29) respecting the Winnipeg and Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. Mc-Craney.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Stamps for imported and Canadian tobacco, $85,000.
Hon.   W@: (Minister of Customs.) I presume my deputy is getting the information asked for before recess and is not here yet. Could we not pass the InInland Revenue items and give the information on other items?


George Eulas Foster: It is hardly fair to ask the House to pass a million dollars or more just on good will. The minister should have made himself acquainted with his estimates, or should have had the deputy ready.


William Paterson: I am referring to the item under ' Civil Government.' That is not a million dollars.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has not the information.


William Paterson: It will be here.


George Eulas Foster: Then the minister wants us to pass the estimate and take the information afterwards?


William Paterson: All I ask is to close up this item 14, and then we will go on with Customs or Justice.


George Eulas Foster: Well, if the minister has the information about these outside men we will go into that.


William Paterson: That was all that was asked for, and it will be here.


George Eulas Foster: Then, let it stand until the information is ready.


William Paterson: But it keeps so many other items back. And what is the use?


George Eulas Foster: The minister should have his work ready.


William Paterson: It was not anticipated that such questions would be asked.


George Eulas Foster: Any deputy with a head on his shoulders, or any minister in charge of the estimates might have anticipated that such questions would be asked.


William Paterson: The deputy has a head on his shoulders, and so has the minister, and neither anticipated that-


George Eulas Foster: Then it is time they did.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Before the item is finally passed, I would like to get some information with regard to this sum of $60,000 to enable the department to supply methylated spirits


William Paterson: We are proposing to let that stand in the meantime.


Mr. DEPUTY  SPEAKEE@: Item 94 stands. Eesuming item 14, Department of Inland Eevenue


George Eulas Foster: The minister will see that we are up against the same difficulty as in item 294. The minister has not the information, and the deputy is not here. If the minister has any item ready, let us take that up, and wait until the deputy comes. Perhaps the Minister of Customs' own estimates are ready.


William Paterson: I explained the reason why I wanted to get this through. Of course, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster), does not sympathize with it, all right. The deputy has been given leave of absence on account of impaired health, and this is the last night he can be here. I thought it would not be too much that the question asked might be allowed to remain, the information to be supplied by the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there nobody who can give the information?


George Eulas Foster: No, no one ready.


William Paterson: No one is ready with such information as has been asked for, because nobody anticipated that such information was either necessary or desirable. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) is ready to go on with his estimates.


George Eulas Foster: If the ministers are not ready, we cannot do business.


William Paterson: The ministers are ready to answer anything that will serve any good end.


George Eulas Foster: Does not the minister see that we are doing here what has not been done before within my memory?-We are adding six or seven hundred names to the establishment. Does the minister expect us to pass such votes without asking ques-Mr. PATEESON.
tions? Why, it is simply absurd. I do not think there is another minister who would ask us to do that.


William Paterson: This is not a case of six or seven hundred names. In this item, we are adding five names, and these are simply taken in from the outside service. The hori. gentleman (Mr. Foster), asks the names. I do not object to that. But what purpose will such information serve? I ask the hon. gentleman that question. If any saving of money were proposed, or if there were any ground of legitimate criticism, it would be different. But such questions, as I say, were not anticipated. We say we wall get the information. Of course, if the hon. gentleman will not allow me to go on, I cannot go on.
Civil government-administration of justice -salaries, $94,648.75.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a large increase here.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWOETH (Minister of Justice).: The increase is merely apparent, not real; it is caused by the transfer of the salaries of a number of officials from different portions of the estimates to their present position. Under the amending Civil Service Act, the inspectors of penitentiaries, whose salaries were $3,100, are now called clerks in the first division, subdivision A., and their salaries are provided for in the third item on page 12 under the head ' Administration of Justice '-two clerks at $3,150. Before the statute of last session, that amount of $6,300 would have appeared under the head of ' Penitentiaries.' The increase is only the $50 statutory increase.


George Eulas Foster: The names are Stewart and Dawson?	*


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Yes, Mr. D. Stewart, and Mr. G. W. Dawson. In the same way, Mr. W. P. Archibald, the Dominion Parole Officer, was receiving a salary of $2,000. He was provided for previously under the head of the Penitentiaries Branch. He becomes a clerk in the first division, subdivision B. The effect is to-increase his salary by $100, $2,100 being the figure in that class. That is one case of an actual increase in the Department of Justice under the new classification. There are, I believe, seven such cases altogether in the department.


George Eulas Foster: How much of a flat increase will he get?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I presume, though I speak without consideration, that he would be entitled to the full amount of the flat increase in addition to his salary. I ought not to make that answer without referring to the terms of the Civil Service Act. It depends whether or not he is at the maximum of his class. Then E. J. Adams, architect, penitentiaries branch, is another

official who was previously provided for under the head of penitentiaries. He now becomes a clerk in the second division of subdivision A, at the same salary as before.


George Eulas Foster: What is his present salary?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: $1,650, there is no change. He was not classified until this year. He has now been classified in the second division, subdivision A, at the same salary as he had before. These four officers had salaries aggregating $9,850, and that is an apparent increase of that amount in the salaries of the Justice Department, whereas in truth it is merely a transfer in the estimates from one branch of the service to another. Then four clerks, by the operation of the recent statute, have become permanent clerks, whereas they were previously temporary, and provided for under the head of contingencies. These are T. Morris, $800 ; Miss L. M. Pillar, $550 ; a messenger Jobin, $700, and another messenger Hamel, $273.75. These are not cases of increase, but simply of transference from temporary employees to the permanent service.


George Eulas Foster: What do they get when they come in ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The figures I have given. They are provided for in the items mentioned on page 12, under the head of Administration of Justice.


George Eulas Foster: It reads there, $637.50 instead of $550.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am not sure whether the $637.50 item in the printed estimates is intended for Miss Pillar or not. If it is, as is possible, it is the annual increase which she would be entitled to before the end of twelve months, added to this $550.
Mr, FOSTER. The annual increase then would be $87.50. How do you make that out ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Assuming that the $637.50 is intended for Miss Pillar, it would be an increase of $87.50 over the $550 at which she stood on the 1st of September last ; and it is to be accounted for, I suspect, by the circumstance that she is intended to be recommended for a special increase under the statute, $50 in addition to the statutory increase, that is an annual increase on the whole of $100, and this $87.50 would be the fraction of that amount for the portion of the year after the anniversary of her entrance into the service would arrive. Then the two messengers stand at the same figures exactly as they were receiving previously.


George Eulas Foster: $75 was added.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: One was $273.75
which, with the statutory increase, would
now be $323.75. One was $700, and $775 was intended to cover his salary. I do not know any reason for the $75 as distinguished from $50. I am not able at the moment to explain why that is $775.


George Eulas Foster: One question with reference to the last four, when they were appointed to the service, or if they had been in the service for more than a year.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: They were made permanent on the 1st of September last. When they entered the service I am not able to state without reference to papers that I have not with me. They were all in it when I took charge, and had been for some time. My statement that they were in it when I took charge is, I think, not applicable to the messenger Hamel. He is a boy, who was taken into the service by the deputy a year or more ago. He was there before the 1st of September, I cannot state when he came in. Then a further circumstance accounting for that apparent increase between last year's total vote and this year's, is in the increases which have been attendant upon the new reorganization scheme. Those increases aggregate $900, or $1,000 it will be, because one of the propositions which I had made when the brief from which I am speaking was prepared, has not been carried out.
These increases are, first, Mr. F. H. Gisborne, who, before the classification of last September, was receiving $2,450. He has been graded in the first division, subdivision
A,	at a salary of $2,800, which, with the statutory increase, would be the $2,875 item in the first division, subdivision* A, in the printed estimates. Mr. Gisborne is a barrister who has been a first-class clerk, or chief clerk under the old system in the department for many years. I do not remember exactly when he entered the service, but it was in the time of Sir John Thompson, eighteen or twenty years ago. Then, Mr. Chisholm, another gentleman of whom exactly the same thing can be said, a qualified barrister and discharging very important duties in the way of examining and certifying titles to properties which are bought for government purposes throughout the country, was recommended by .me to council for grading in the first division, subdivision A, but that recommendation has not been acted upon and he remains classified in accordance with the salary which he was receiving on the 1st September last; that was a salary of $2,000. He has been graded as in the first division, subdivision
B,	at a salary of $2,100; so that there will be an increase of $100 to him, an increase of $350 to Mr. Gisborne, $150 to Mr. Cote, who is the registrar of applications for clemency in the case of criminals, and who was receiving $1,950, but who goes into the first division, subdivision B, and so re-

ceives a salary of $2,100. Mr. Narraway, accountant of the department, received $1,900 before last September, he has been graded in subdivision B of the first division and now receives $2,100. He will thereby receive .an increase of $200. Miss Asselstine, stenographer, penitentiary branch, was receiving $800 before September; she is classified in subdivision A of the third division at $900, so that she will have an increase of $100. Mr. Archibald, parole officer, who was previously receiving $2,000 is now graded in subdivision B of the first division and will receive $2,100. These increases, by reason of the new classification, aggregate $1,000. Then, the difference between the figure of last year and that of this year is further accounted for by the statutory increases which I have detailed and which aggregate $1,225. Coming to the courts, which are now made branches of the department to the extent of being included in the classification under the new Civil Service Act, we have to some extent, the same thing occurring as in the department proper. There is an increase to Mr. L. W. Coutlee, the assistant reporter.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister take them in the order in which they are given here?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This is the only increase by reason of the new classification. Following them in the order in which they are given here, the first item of $4,000 used to be statutory. It is now provided for in this vote. It provides for the registrar of the court. There is no change. The next two, in the first division of subdivision B, are the two reporters of the Supreme Court. There is an increase of $200 to Mr. Coutlee by reason of the reclassification. He had been receiving $1,900, he is now to receive $2,100, being graded in the first division of subdivision B. In the second division, subdivision A, are Mr. Lawson and Mr. Bligh, clerks in the Supreme Court, in whose case there is no change.


George Eulas Foster: What is the salary of the other reporter?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Mr. Masters, senior reporter, was receiving $2,350 before September 1. There is no change. There are no other changes otherwise in the Supreme Court. In the case of all the other officials of the court they are graded in accordance with the salaries they were receiving on 1st September last.


George Eulas Foster: They are the same as before?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The same individuals and the same salaries in each case. The same thing is true of the Exchequer Court. The salary of the registrar, which is $3,000, is not changed in'"amount, but it used to be Mr. AYLESWORTH.
provided for under the statute. Now it is included under Civil Government, otherwise there is no change. The same individuals are continued at the same salaries respectively being graded in accordance with the amounts they were previously receiving.


George Eulas Foster: Do you also take the Dominion Police?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The Dominion Police, I should have mentioned, are in the same position as the two courts.


George Eulas Foster: Who are these two officers?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The commissioner, Mr. Sherwood, provided for previously by statute, was receiving, I think, $2,950 previously and is now receiving $3,050 by a statutory increase of $100 from the 1st October. The other officer is Mr. Cawdron, whose salary was previously part of the Dominion Police appropriation and who is now to be provided for under Civil Government. He was getting $1,300 before and by the statutory increase from the 1st April he will be entitled to $1,350.


George Eulas Foster: What are his duties?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: His duties are largely clerical as secretary and factotum of the commissioner, he and the commissioner constituting the staff except for the men on the force.
Contingencies, $10,400.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The explanation of [DOT]the decrease of $2,100 in this item is that the return which I had the honour to present to-day in regard to paroled prisoners was provided for in that $2,600.


George Eulas Foster: You are not anticipating such another this time ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: No.
Department of Inland Revenue-salaries (including A. McGill at $3,000), $87,700.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman asked for the names of the six temporary employees who were transferred. They are:
Name.	Date of Appointment.	-.A ' **! 1 11 Salary. wu . id*T. W. Z. Cantin	April 1,1908...	500H. B. Lewis	Nov. 22. 1907...	600E. G. E. Kins	Dec. 20,1907...	600E. Bourgeois	June 30, 1903...	750L. Roy	Feb. 1,1908...	500A. S. Lyon	July 9,1908...	500


George Eulas Foster: Had Cantin and Roy passed the Civil Service examinations ?


William Paterson: No.


John Dowsley Reid: To what positions were they appointed ?


William Paterson: One was a messenger and the other a clerk.


George Eulas Foster: Are there any other increases in that statement, other than the statutory increases outside of the additional salaries of those six ?


William Paterson: No. The deputy says there were two increases one from $800 to $900 and the other from $850 to $900, Miss Griffith and Miss Baird.


George Eulas Foster: They came by virtue of the classsifieation ?


William Paterson: By virtue of the Act. I am safe to say that there are no increases except under the Act and the ordinary statutory increases.
I was also asked for the names of the 11 laboratory employees with their classifications, salaries and dates of appointment. They are as follows :
Name.	Classification.
A. McGill (chief analyst)	 	 A. Lemoine		1st Div. Subdiv. A	
J. A. G. Valin	 ..	
E. L. C. Forster		2nd u B
C. C. Forward		
E. Davidson.	 ... S. E. Wright		3rd ii A	
E. Belisle		
A. C* Macfarlane		
J. A. Rickey		
	
	
Date of Appointment.
July, 1887.... July, 1901 ... January, 1901 July, 1908 .... August, 1908.
June 1902_____
October, 1893.
March, 1907 June, 1907.. April, 1902..
Salary.
$ cts.
3.000	00 1,200 00 1,200 00
1.250	00
1.250	00 900 00 900 00
1.000	00
900 00
1,000 00
900 00
13,500 00


George Eulas Foster: Did these go in at exactly the same salaries they were receiving?


William Paterson: They went in at the same. Of course, the statutory increase is always understood.


George Eulas Foster: Why are there two additions?


William Paterson: The two extra assistant analysts were required and passed their examination before the Inland Revenue Board.


George Eulas Foster: What extra work was put upon them?


William Paterson: The staff was short owing to the death of Mr. Macfarlane. Mr. McGill was promoted to Mr. Macfarlane's place, and the additional work necessitated these two appointments.
Chief electrical engineer's branch, $6,900.


William Paterson: There are six there. Does the hon. gentleman want the names and salaries of these?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Mr. PATERSON  O.@: Higman at $2,800. The hon. gentleman knows that he has been a long time in the service. In July, 1901, J. A. Whyte, at $1,200; in June, 1906, C. J. Evans, at $950; in January, 1908, N. R. Cole, at $900; in May, 1908, E. D. K. Matthews, at $550; in January, 1908, M. E. E. McKell, at $500.


George Eulas Foster: What were these men appointed to do? What is their particular work? ITow is it you have had to add so largely to the electrical branch?


William Paterson: Mr. Whyte is inspector of gas metres; Evans is a mechanical expert; McKell is a stenographer.


George Eulas Foster: The information I wanted to get was this: You have added three to the electrical engineering branch during 1908, making six altogether. What is the extra work which has made it necessary to double the staff?


William Paterson: Three of them were temporary and were paid out of contingencies. There is no additional staff.


George Eulas Foster: Although they were paid out of contingencies three of them were appointed in 1908. They were not working before that. How did you happen to double the staff in 1908?


William Paterson: Simply because of an increase of work.


George Eulas Foster: That is not enough. Can you not find out what it was?


William Paterson: A general increase in the work of the department all the time. The deputy cannot specify.


George Eulas Foster: This is electrical engineering work; what is the work they do?


William Paterson: Two of these mechanical experts adjust scales and metres. Formerly they were sent to outside places to do the work, but it is thought better to have it done in the department.


George Eulas Foster: That disposes of two. What about the other one?


William Paterson: One is a stenographer.


George Eulas Foster: The expense of examining and testing them before was paid out of contingencies, I suppose?


William Paterson: Yes, so I understand.


George Eulas Foster: Does the department find that by employing the two the work is done at a cheaper rate or in a better way?


William Paterson: The work is better done.
Weights and Measures inspection branch, $5,000.


William Paterson: This covers the salaries of James Fyfe, first division, subdivision A, salary $2,800. E. C. Way, appointed in May, 1908, 3rd division, salary $800. Mrs. I-. Barbeau, 3rd division, appointed August, 1906, salary $500. T. Burgess, lower grade, appointed August, 1892, salary $900.


George Eulas Foster: What necessitated the addition of Mr. Wade in May, 1908?


William Paterson: He is a thoroughly trained scale inspector, and the department thought they were fortunate in securing his services. Mrs. Barbeau is a typewriter and Mr. Burgess is a carpenter. In the methylated spirits, W. Armstrong, superintendent of warehouse, gets $2,000, appointed June, 1887. F. Parent, $1,200, appointed in May, 1891. James Hogan, warehouseman, appointed 1902, $900. F. H. Popham, assistant warehouseman, $750, appointed July, 1904.
Travelling expenses, rent, stationery &c., $90,000.


William Paterson: The items of this expense will be found in the excise report, page 136.


George Eulas Foster: How much has been expended, so far, out of that amount ?


William Paterson: I cannot give the hon. gentleman that information.
Stamps for imported and Canadian tobacco, $85,000.


William Paterson: Up to November 30, the amount expended for tobacco stamps was $53,588.52, or at the rate of $82,482.80 for the present year. The demand for stamps cannot be calculated definitely, and sufficient stamps must be kept on hand to meet all possible demands of the trade. Of course, any unexpended part of the vote lapses at the end of the year.


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: The expenditure on stamps seems to be increasing rapidly.


William Paterson: Only through the increase of tobacco manufacture, I think.
To pay Collectors of Customs for duty collected by them, 1908-9, $10,000.


George Eulas Foster: I see that in 1907-8 only $4,281 was expended. How is it that $10,000 is required ?


William Paterson: The years overlap the accounts do not come in, and some must be paid out of the next year. The amount given can hardly be taken as the yearly expenditure.


George Eulas Foster: What amount has been expended so far this year ?


William Paterson: Nothing. The accounts will not come in until the end of the year.


George Eulas Foster: If they come in at the end of the year, then this $4,281 must represent what was paid for 1907-8.


William Paterson: Yes, unless some came into the next year. They take amply sufficient in this vote to cover that.


George Eulas Foster: That is it-the vote seems very large in proportion to the amount expended.
To enable the department to supply methylated spirits to manufacturers, the cost of which will be recouped by the manufacturers to whom it is supplied, and to pay for rent, light, power, freight, salaries, &c., $60,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is this to supply the users of methylated spirits with cheap material ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What does it cost the government to make it, and at what rate is it supplied to manufacturers ?


William Paterson: It is sold at actual cost of manufacture-53 cents a gallon.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many manufacturers use it ?


William Paterson: Hundreds of them-it is used very generally.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Have experiments been made with a view to furnishing agriculturists with a cheaper grade of methylated spirits or denatured alcohol ? I do not need to tell the minister of the opportunities afforded agriculturists in many of the countries of the world to procure cheap denatured alcohol for use as a source of power on the farm.


William Paterson: This is the cheapest the government has been able to produce, and, as the price is dearer than that of gasolene, gasolene meanwhile, keeps the lead.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But, if it can be made in Germany at 20 cents or 25 cents a gallon, is there any reason why we should not carry on experiments with a view to supplying it at a similar price ?


William Paterson: I am told that if you allow for the difference in the gallon measure of the two countries, it is not sold cheaper in the United States than here. In Germany, it is made out of potatoes, and the labour employed is paid wages that would not do for our people.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The only place of manufacture is Ottawa ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does not the minister think it would be wise to manufacture in other places, for instance, in the Northwest ? The charges for freight from Ottawa to distant parts of the country must be enormous.


William Paterson: That is under consideration, I believe. There are no spirits, I think, manufactured in the Northwest, and the freight would be the same on that as on methylated.


Mr. MILLER.: One reason why the spirit is sold in Germany at a lower price than in Canada is that the German government pays a bounty on the production there, and that lessens "the price to the consumer in Germany.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is this a new idea on the part of the government, to supply methylated spirits to the manufacturer at cost?


William Paterson: No, we have done it for a great many years.


Richard Blain: How much was expended last year?


William Paterson: About $46,000.


Mr. STAPLES.: Can the minister tell us what is the customs duty on methylated spirits?


William Paterson: If it comes in under the head of spirits, $2.14 per gallon.


William D. Staples: Have any experiments been made with it as a motive power to take the place of gasolene?


William Paterson: I am not aware that there have been any experiments made in this country, and the deputy doubts if there have been any made in the United States. Gasolene is cheaper.


William D. Staples: I understand that experiments have been made in other countries, and that they have proved satisfactory. I am seeking this information on account of the manner in which gasolene has been utilized as a motive power in the west. We are rapidly working into gasolepe plough-15
mg, and things of that kind, and if we could get methylated spirits in free of duty it would be a great advantage to the agriculturists of the west. If the government would allow me to make a suggestion, I think it would be well for them to experiment along those lines and ascertain what its value would be as a motive power.


William Findlay Maclean: Power-ploughing i3 the coming system of ploughing, but power-ploughing when done by steam entails very heavy machinery. If you could do power-ploughing by gasolene or alcohol the machinery is much lighter, and you get over the whole difficulty of supplying a power plant with water and with fuel. The great trouble in power-ploughing now is to get water to the engine, and to get fuel to the engine. But if we could have gasolene or alcohol at a cheap rate there is no doubt the whole system of ploughing would be revolutionized, to the great advantage of the agriculturists. The suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) is well worth the attention of the government.


William Paterson: That is quite true, and if anything cheaper than gasolene could be found, it would be a great advantage. Methylated spirits at the present price cannot compete with gasolene.


William D. Staples: If you, have not made the experiment it would be well worth a trial. There is a -large appropriation asked for here, some $60,000; I think it would be well to spend a portion of that in experimenting along those lines.


Henry Horton Miller: As I understand it, that this $60,000 all goes back again, that is the cost of producing methylated spirits that are sold to manufacturers for manufacturing purposes. The United. States government, for nearly ten years, have been taking a deep and active interest in the question of denatured alcohol for such purposes as the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples), and the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) have mentioned. In the United States they can manufacture denatured alcohol cheaper than we can manufacture it in Canada from any of the sources from which we now do manufacture it. If we could manufacture it as they do in Germany, from potatoes, or in France, from sugar beets, we might perhaps produce it more cheaply than we do now from grain. But the United States can produce the ethyl alcohol from corn much cheaper than we can produce it from the grains we have in this country. They are experimenting in aid of agriculture, and have experts who for years have been carrying on special experiments along that line. It seems to me that it would be perhaps more prudent that our government should not spend any money for a year or two, but wait the re-



suits of experiments that are being carried on across the line.


William D. Staples: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) that if they have been experimenting with corn and such grain as they can grow to advantage in the United States, why can we not experiment with the grain we are growing in this country? I think it is not asking too much in the interest of agriculture to expend a portion of this large amount for that purpose. I would suggest that until we are able to produce methylated spirits in this country we should not exact such an enormous duty. Why not let this in from Germany, and let us have the benefit of it in the west until such time as you can put on the market a commodity that will answer the purpose for which we desire it.


William Paterson: There would be great danger in the matter of revenue, and there might be in other directions too, if you were to let it in free.


William Findlay Maclean: But the minister must see that cheap alcohol, outside of all questions of drink, is being used more and more in the industries, whether it be in the shape of methylated spirits, or used as a preservative, or in connection with science. I find an agitation all over the country, and you find it in the scientific press of other countries. _ The demand for cheap alcohol for industrial and other purposes is increasing, and it is well worthy the attention of the government whether we should not try and give the public cheaper alcohol than we do at the present time. I know there is a danger to the revenue, and that would have to be guarded against. But the American government have come to the conclusion that it is necessary for them, and that it is their duty to find a way of producing cheap alcohol for industrial uses.


Mr. HERRON.: Many requests come from my part of the country appealing to the minister to take off the duty on methylated spirits. I believe that if it were not for the enormous restrictions put on by this government it would be manufactured to a greater extent in the western country. The people there think it very strange that they should have to pay such an enormous price for this article that could be manufactured from the refuse of the products of the farm that are now practically going to waste. Potatoes, frozen and damaged grain and even straw could be utilized for this purpose. I think it would be well worth the serious consideration of the government to see if there could not be some means taken to permit of the manufacture of these products in the west. I hope the minister will think it over seriously.


William Paterson: The department are closely watching all the experiments that


Henry Horton Miller: are being tried in the United States. As far as I am aware none of them has been successful yet. In reference to the production of the Northwest, if there were a distillery there that was producing alcohol the department could easily permit the manufacture of methylated spirits, but I understand that alcohol is not produced in the west yet, and that until it is done I do not know how you could reduce the cost.
Weights and measures, gas and electric light inspection-salaries of officers, inspectors and assistant inspectors of weights and measures, $72,500.


George Eulas Foster: There is an increase of $4,650.


William Paterson: That is due to new appointments and small increases of salary granted to deserving officials and in' no case exceeding $100.


George Eulas Foster: What are the new appointments?


Mr. PATERSON J. F.@: Bugeaud and A. B. Caldwell, appointed January 1, 1908, at $400 each.


George Eulas Foster: Where are their districts?


William Paterson: Gaspe. H. Spicer and J. C. Thompson appointed at Winnipeg at salaries of $600 each. They are down for $100 more, so that they will be increased to $700.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister know the receipts of the Weights and Measures Department as compared with the expenses, and do the receipts come any where near paying the expenses?


William Paterson: The total revenue collected during 1908 was $83,021.32 as against $54,927.26 for the nine months ending March 31, 1907, and the total expenditure for 1908 was $101,492.24 as against $69,466.15 during the nine months ending March 31, 1907. So that it runs about that much of a deficit year by year.
Salaries of gas and electric light inspectors, $39,200.


William Paterson: The increase is due to-new appointments and small increases in salaries.


John Dowsley Reid: Who are some of the new appointees?


William Paterson: Mr. H. Fraser of Belleville, who was appointed on January 2, 1908; his present salary is $1,000. Mr. Ren-ahan of Toronto, appointed March 1, 1908, at a salary of $900; and Mr. Roche of Ottawa, who was a temporary employee, but has been made permanent.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: How many inspectors of electric light meters are there?


William Paterson: About sixty altogether of gas and electric light.


John Allister Currie: The public are complaining about the inspection of electric meters. They have no knowledge that there are government officials who will inspect them, and it is complained that many companies through the country have their meters set to run fast.


William Paterson: The meters must all be inspected, I believe, on installation, and if any complaint is made subsequently it is attended to by an inspector. If the charge is not sustained, the person making the complaint pays for the inspection, and if it is well founded the company pays for the inspection.


John Allister Currie: A great many of these instruments are imported from the United States. Have the instruments to pass inspection by thp government before they pass customs?


William Paterson: No. They must be inspected before they are installed.


John Allister Currie: In towns?
Mr. fATERSON. Under the Inspection Act, any place.


John Allister Currie: If I owned a plant in a town of 5,000, imported my meters from Pittsburg and installed them in the houses myself, what protection is there for the public against these instruments?


William Paterson: You would be liable to a penalty.


John Barr: Does that extend to villages?


William Paterson: Everywhere. For the year 1908, 41,062 were verified. Every five years I believe they are inspected.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I wish to support my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) in the position he has taken in regard to this matter. In some of the smaller towns we experience trouble in getting the inspector to come and investigate the condition of the electric light plants and inspect the meters. In the town where I live we have trouble now and have had for some months, and the man who manages the plant in that town informs me that he has several times asked the inspector to come down from London and inspect the meters for him, but has been unable to get him to come.


William Paterson: Will the hon. gentleman give the name of the place so that the officer can be communicated with?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Petrolea, Ont.


William Paterson: That will be attended to by the deputy.


John Allister Currie: The question I asked has not been answered- how many electrical inspectors are . there besides the gas inspectors?
15i


William Paterson: The same men act in both capacities.


John Allister Currie: They must be good men, for it takes a high grade electrical engineer to inspect an electric meter.


William Paterson: It is a mechanical
test, I understand.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is the last inspector appointed?


William Paterson: Major Harris was appointed in January, 1908.


John Dowsley Reid: What was he doing before he was appointed?


William Paterson: I do not know.


John Dowsley Reid: Where did he come from?


William Paterson: Broekville, I understand.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the Minister of Railways and Canals can tell us who this man was or what he was doing.


George Perry Graham: I do not know what he was doing immediately before his appointment, but he was a graduate of McGill University in electrical engineering and took very high honours. He had experience on the Pacific coast and was manager of the Broekville electric light for one year.
Metric system, to provide for the delivery of lectures and the publication of maps, charts, pamphlets, &c., $3,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is being done in the way of lectures?


William Paterson: Nothing for the last two years.


George Eulas Foster: Then why do you take the vote?


William Paterson: The money is expended in supplying metric sets to schools.


George Eulas Foster: $3,000 worth?


William Paterson: No, it has not been
spent every year.


William Findlay Maclean: When are we going to have the system adopted?


William Paterson: I suppose that with the diffusion of these samples the people are being educated _ in the system, and when they are sufficiently educated to demand it I suppose it will come like other measures.


George Eulas Foster: How much was spent last year?


William Paterson: 


George Eulas Foster: What is the use of taking a vote for $3,000 when you only expect to spend $98? I thought this was a year in which the government were practising

economy. Does the minister think it is a good idea to take votes when you do not intend to spend the money?


William Paterson: We do not know what we may do.


George Eulas Foster: If the minister does not know what he is going to do, on what basis does he ask parliament to give him the money?


William Paterson: The minister may perhaps expend more in the way of distributing the samples this year than he has done before.
Export of electric power, $2,500.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the minister tell us what this is used for? What organization has the government for the regulation of the export of electric power?


William Paterson: Under the law every company exporting electric power must apply for a license, and there is an inspection and travelling expenses connected with the work.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there an official in charge of it?


William Paterson: Yes, Mr. Higman has that under his charge.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Where can we find a report of what the official has been doing in the last year?


William Paterson: I am told there is a report; but I think a question on that subject was asked by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) the other day and the answer will be found in Hansard.
Intercolonial Bureau of Weights and Measures, $216.


John Dowsley Reid: Explain that.


William Paterson: That is Canada's annual contribution to this bureau. This is not in reality an increase, but appears here owing to the fact that the supplementary estimates for the current year did not by an oversight include this amount.
Adulteration of food and fertilizers, under the administration of Act respecting fraudulent marking, $30,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many convictions were obtained during the past year under this Act ?


William Paterson: Quite a number, but I have not the exact number.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The general impression is that the Act was not carried out very strictly, not only with regard to the adulteration of food but also of fertilizers. On looking at the report from the Inland Revenue Department, we find that there is a great deal of adulteration both of food Mr. FOSTER.
and fertilizers and it is important that it should be stopped.


William Paterson: My hon. friend is quite right. My deputy tells me that it is intended to bring in a Bill this session that will enable us to deal with the matter more efficiently than in the past.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Will it cover anything but fertilizers ?


William Paterson: No, only fertilizers.


John Dowsley Reid: Are fertilizers which come from the other side inspected ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many officers are in the department for the purpose of enforcing the carrying out of the Adulteration of Foods Act ?


William Paterson: Sixteen confidential inspectors outside.


Richard Blain: How much money was expended last year in salaries ?


William Paterson: $3,700 was paid.the inspectors and over $12,650 in the laboratory.


Mr. BRODER.: What is done when the samples of adulteration are collected ? Are the names published ?


William Paterson: The parties are prosecuted where fraud is intended and the names published.


Andrew Broder: Many a time the merchant might not be aware that the goods purchased are adulterated.


William Paterson: Yes, and it is then rather hard on him to publish his name.


Mr. BURRELL.: When a manufacturer is found guilty of adulterating food products is a fine imposed ?


William Paterson: Yes, when he does it fraudulently.


Martin Burrell: Do the fines amount to anything serious ?


William Paterson: Not to a very large amount.


Martin Burrell: Would it not be advisable to increase very heavily the amount of fines in cases of fraud so that there would not be so heavy a drain on the finances of the department in connection with the Act. The general impression is that the fines are not heavy enough.


William Paterson: They are not very heavy, that is true.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year the amount of fines collected by the government on adulterated fertilizers was $10. Was that all the amount that was collected ?


William Paterson: I do not think there was over $150 collected altogether.


John Dowsley Reid: According to the papers there has been considerable adulteration of food product. Surely the minister will not admit that there has not been one instance in which a fine was imposed during 1908 for the adulteration of food.


William Paterson: There have been several but perhaps not as many as there should have been.


John Dowsley Reid: Where will we find it ? On page J-28 of the Auditor General's Report I find under the heading of fines and
forfeitures:
Electric light	$125	00Excise	
593	62Fertilizers	
10	00Gas	
20	00Weights and	measures	
74	00Total	$822 00
There is nothing there to show that there were any fines or forfeitures for adulteration of foods at all.


Martin Burrell: The country feels generally that it is highly important that the law against adulteration should be strictly enforced. It is only fair that the peopie who fraudulently adulterate food should pay a large portion of the cost of inspection.


William Paterson: I am informed that there have been a number of fines imposed. It appears in the Inland Revenue Report with other items-adulteration of food, fines
and penalties, $148.25-not a very large amount.


John Dowsley Reid: I find a list on page J-36 of the Auditor General's Report, under the head of 'Adulteration of Food,' and totalling $148.25. Does this mean that fines were collected from the men whose names were given?


William Paterson: In some cases the prosecutions may not have been pressed. Hon members can understand that, while the officers endeavour to enforce the law as best they can, yet an adulterated article may be found in the hands of an innocent holder, who would not know that he was violating a law.


Martin Burrell: Is not the remedy against the manufacturer? Is not his name on the package? And, if so, surely he can be held. I find that in Ottawa there are ten analysts and a dozen scattered over the country. This is a very expensive staff to keep up, and yet there seem to be no results to show what they have been doing for the enforcement of the law.


John Dowsley Reid: And I would like to know exactly how they find out what foods are adulterated. Here at page J-25 of the Auditor General's Report, is a list of salaries and contingencies under 'Food Inspection.' J. Hogan, Kingston, was given a
salary of $198.52; J. Talbot, London, $49.98; A E. Sanderson, Ottawa, $11.66; T. Kidd, Seaforth, $500; H. J. Dager, Toronto, $90.28; J. J. Costigan, Montreal, $350. Is there not a general inspector who goes to different places and collects samples?


William Paterson: The department send to their collectors of excise to procure samples of certain articles and forward them to the department. For this service, these officers are allowed a small sum.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the position of this man, T. Kidd, Seaforth, who was paid $500?


William Paterson: He devotes himself to that work and does nothing else. He is the only one.


John Dowsley Reid: His travel account amounts to $162.90. He cannot have travelled much for that.


William Paterson: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) is right.
Miscellaneous-Proprietary or patent medicines, $5,000.


William Paterson: This will be required to meet the expense of administering the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act which comes into force April 1, 1909. A similar sum will be included in the supplementary estimates for the current year.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the minister any
details showing how it is intended to expend the money?


William Paterson: It will be necessary to pay expert medical men to ascertain what is necessary to constitute the proper medicines and so on. Also, literature will be necessary for distribution.


Richard Blain: Have the officers been selected yet?


William Paterson: No officers are, being appointed. This is being administered by the present staff.
Department of Secretary of State-Salaries (including P. Pelletier at $3,000), $53,737.50; contingencies, $6,500.


Charles Murphy: In explanation of these estimates, 1 may say that the amounts are those at which all these officers were brought under the recent Civil Service Act with the exception of the Assistant Under Secretary of State. He has been senior chief clerk, and takes charge of the business of the department in the absence of the Under Secretary. He has had 21 years' experience in the department, and his duties include the supervision of certain applications under the Companies' Act, the applications that are made in the French language. The late Secretary of State, in view of Mr. Pelletier's duties, recommended that he should be

given this increase of $200. There are no new appointments in the department.


John Dowsley Reid: Are you positive?


Charles Murphy: Perhaps the hon. member refers to a position in the first division of subdivision B. That position is vacant by reason of the transfer of Mr. Foran, who was formerly in the department, and who has been made secretary of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners. That office is retained, but no appointment has been made to it as yet.


John Dowsley Reid: How many of those that were on as temporary officers were made permanent?


Charles Murphy: Three messengers, J. A. Jessop, J. Brankin and H. H. Duggan.


John Dowsley Reid: I think this item should have been allowed to stand over, because we did not expect it was coming up to-night.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) had some pertinent questions which he wished to ask the minister.


Charles Murphy: I shall be pleased to answer any questions to-morrow which any hon. gentleman may desire to ask me.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister said that Mr. Pelletier had an increase of $200. I see on page X-3 of the Auditor General's Report that he got $2,700 last year. Is that the same gentleman the minister refers to?


Charles Murphy: That is the same gentleman, he got an increase of $100. He came in at $2,800 at the minimum of that class. This provides for an addition of $200.


John Dowsley Reid: Are the gentlemen mentioned on page X-3 the same gentlemen who come in under this item of $30,000?


Charles Murphy: I think so.


John Dowsley Reid: When was H. H. Duggan appointed?


Charles Murphy: He was appointed last year, I think about seven or eight months ago, at a salary of $500.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to get the
exact date to-morrow.


Mr. AMES.: Is this a new item, $600 for a private secretary?


Charles Murphy: No, that is a continuation of the same item.


Herbert Brown Ames: Formerly a private secretary was a first-class clerk. Is he now outside the Civil Service Act?


Charles Murphy: No.


Herbert Brown Ames: Why is he listed here as in receipt of an allowance instead of listing him as an employee?


Charles Murphy: 


Charles Murphy: He would not get the $600 unless he were put in here in this way -allowance for private secretary. It is the same in all the departments.


Herbert Brown Ames: Why is a change made in that particular method of doing it? In the Auditor General's Report the private secretary is included among first-class clerks. Is this an extra $600 given to an employee who gets another salary in another capacity?


Charles Murphy: No. I understand it has been the practice in the past to pay the $600 to a gentleman occupying a position in the department, whether he be a first class or a second class clerk. My information is that this amount has been paid for years past in the same way.


Herbert Brown Ames: In the Auditor General's Report we see that A. Brophy gets $1,500 as a first-class clerk, then he receives $600 more for acting as private secretary.


Charles Murphy: That is correct.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then my question was not properly answered. I asked whether .that $600 went to an employee who was already drawing a salary under another head, and the minister said no.


Charles Murphy: I did not so understand the hon. gentleman's question. If that is what he means, I must answer yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: The $600 goes to an employee who is already receiving a salary in another capacity?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


George Perry Graham: Let us understand it. The private secretary of a department is taken from one of the clerkships. My own opinion is that the system is all wrong, but it has been the rule in this government for years My opinion is that a minister ought to be able to select his private secretary, pay him a straight salary, any salary he likes. The practice has been to take a private secretary from the employ of the department. He receives the salary that he gets as a clerk and this $600 is combined with it to make up his salary as a private secretary. This has been the practice for years. He does nothing as a clerk, he does his work as a private secretary, but he is taken out of the ranks of the clerks and given this salary.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is this $600 extra allowance uniform in all the departments ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Plus whatever he received in the way of a salary as an ordinary employee ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Might I ask the minister to urge upon the government that they change this system and put into force the system that he has suggested to-night ?


George Perry Graham: Speaking for myself, I have always taken very strong ground, even before I came here, on this subject, believing that the minister should be in a position to select his private secretary from wherever he chose. But, it has been the custom to select him from the department and add this allowance to the salary that he is receiving as a clerk. There is now a clause in the Act which provides for a private secretary being taken in, but he must be brought in at the minimum of the class in which he happens to fall. Take my own private secretary as an example ; he was a temporary clerk and in order to get him as my private secretary I had to bring him in under the second division of class B at $800 and the $600 added only gives him a salary of $1,400, which is an absurd salary for the secretary in a department like that of Railways and Canals. He is brought in at the reorganization at $800 but in next year's estimates I am going to ask that his salary be placed on a fairly decent basis. The ministers are hampered in providing for their private secretaries by that rule, but it has been the practice in the past.


William Findlay Maclean: The practice originated in this way :	In former days a
minister would bring in a man who suited him and he would employ him as his private secretary. When the minister was going out of office he would ask for an appointment of some kind in the department in order that he might be retained. I imagine that is the way it arose.


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Contingencies, $6,500.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the explanation of this ?


Charles Murphy: There Is a reduction of
$1,000 ?


John Dowsley Reid: How is that explained ?


Charles Murphy: It is estimated that for clerical assistance a vote of $1,000 instead of $2,000 will be sufficient. This is to provide for the extra clerks that may be required to get out returns or anything of that kind during the session. There is always extra work in the department by reason of the connection of the Printing Bureau with it.
Department of Railways and Canals-Salaries (including M. J. Butler at $8,000; G. A. Bell, at $2,800, and C. B. Robinson at $1,200), $129,662.50.


John Dowsley Reid: Give us an explanation of that.


George Perry Graham: The explanation with reference to Mr. Butler is that he being the deputy minister with a salary above that allowed by the statute, his name has to be mentioned. The name of Mr. Bell is also mentioned. He is the head of a branch that I have provided for in the estimates. He was brought into the department in 1900, I think. He is a very able man and his duties are to audit all the accounts in the department and in connection with all the railways throughout the country. If, for instance, a railway applies for a subsidy it has to prove that it has expended a certain amount and I have to send him all over Canada to audit these accounts. He has to meet the auditors of the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific Railway and other companies. His salary is increased over $1,000. I want to bring him into the branch as the head of it. He is one of the ablest men in the service. In the reorganization under the Act I could only bring him in at the salary he was getting, but in the estimates for next year I name him so that there cannot be any question as to the legality of the matter. My private secretary is Mr. C. B. Robinson. I had to bring him in at $800 under the Act because he had to come in at the .minimum of the class in which he was employed being the second division of class B. I propose to give him a salary of $1,200 in addition to the $600 which will make his salary $1,800. There are two others whom I should mention. Mr. Bowden has been put in class A which will give him $300 of an increase and Mr. Alward who has charge of the law department and becomes the solicitor, the former solicitor having resigned some months ago, is put in class A, and his salary is raised several hundred dollars.


John Dowsley Reid: What position did he occupy last year ?	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: He was assistant to the law clerk.


William Findlay Maclean: Is he a barrister?


George Perry Graham: He is a barrister of standing and has been in the department for years. It is a very important branch and I am putting him at the head, of it as he is a very capable man.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many men were brought in from the outside service ?


George Perry Graham: There are some in our department who have been working there since 1872, 1880 and 1890, but they were never made permanent. Some forty-five of these are now made permanent.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Were there any appointments in 1908 ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, Mr. McCrimmon, a young man, was appointed in the third di-

vision of subdivision B just at the beginning of 1908 at a salary of $650.


John Dowsley Reid: What is he doing ?


George Perry Graham: He is a clerk in the records branch.


John Dowsley Reid: Is he the only one ?


George Perry Graham: He was the only appointee in 1908. There were some in 1907.


John Dowsley Reid: How many in 1907?


George Perry Graham: Seven I think altogether. Of course these are appointed to vacancies that occurred; we made no new positions in 1907.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In 1908-9 the amount expended for this purpose was $63,000; but for this year it is $129,000, a difference of $45,000. Would the bringing in of the outside service make that difference?


George Perry Graham: There were some increases in the reorganization and some statutory increases amounting to a little over $8,000. My accountant informs me that we have several vacancies in our department that have existed for some time. We did not fill them last year, but we may fill them this year.


John Dowsley Reid: How are the vacancies caused?


George Perry Graham: In every department
there are so many clerkships. New ones are organized and old ones are sometimes dropped. These have been provided for for years in some cases and some men have been promoted, but during the last year we did not fill some of these vacancies. The reorganization of the department has taken place and one or two of these vacancies must be filled by the Civil Service Commission.


Samuel Hughes: Does the commission make technical appointments too?


George Perry Graham: There is a clause that for special reasons appointments may be made upon the commission giving certificates.


John Dowsley Reid: If these vacancies have existed for a number of years, the minister must know that it is not necessary to fill them this year. What are the vacancies?


George Perry Graham: We found some of these in the outside and some in the inside service. In the reorganization of the service it ig almost impossible for the head of a department to see just how matters are going to work out under the new Act, and Mr. GRAHAM.
though we make provision for these vacancies, if we find that it is not necessary to fill any of them we will drop them. Under the old Act we could take a general vote and employ assistance under that, but under the new Civil Service Act we cannot do that, and in order to protect ourselves we make provision for these possible vacancies. Under this Act there is no elasticity. If we want a man in the department, we have to go to the commission and explain that there is a vacancy and we cannot promote unless a vacancy exists.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the total number of employees in the department?


George Perry Graham: Eighty-four. We are asking for 95, including these vacancies.


Richard Blain: What will be the total increase of salaries under the new classification?


George Perry Graham: Under the classification coming into effect on September 1 the increase is $3,800.


Mr. MAGRATH.: How many employees last year drew $63,000.


George Perry Graham: Thirty-nine. The total number is now made up of both inside and outside employees.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. PATERSON moved the adjournment of the House.


John Dowsley Reid: What will be taken up to-morrow?


William Paterson: As to-morrow will be private members' day and the House will rise at six o'clock that will be in the hands of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Of course, if the private members' work runs out, we shall go on with civil government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 3, 1909.