1909-03-11

QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES-by Mr. Geo. Taylor- asked:
1.	Is the government contemplating taking over Whitby harbour from the present owners?
2.	What representations are made to the government to induce it to take over the said harbour?
3.	Who are the present owners of Whitby harbour ?
i.	What are the returns of Whitby harbour for the last five years?
5.	Was the present member of parliament for South Ontario authorized by the government to promise before the recent elections that it would take over the harbour ?
6.	Has the government authorized the said member to negotiate with the owners of the harbour, or with others, in regard to the purchase of said harbour?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Matter under consideration.
2.	Resolutions passed by the town council of Whitby and the county council of the county of Ontario, petitions sent in by owners and captains of vessels trading on Lake Ontario and representations made by prominent individuals submitted as follows:	That Whitby being the shortest
railway route between Lakes Huron and Ontario, it may be an important unit in the moving of large quantities of the grain product of Manitoba and the Territories to the sea-board by an all Canadian route; that the comparatively central situation of this harbour and its position with regard to the outlet of the Welland canal make it a desirable one for a harbour of refuge on the north shore of Lake Ontario, and further, that, owing to its railway connections with Midland and the Ontario government Temiscaming Railway, Whitby Harbour would, if improved, serve as a natural outlet of the trade of Central and New Ontario.
3.	Port Whitby Harbour Company.
4.	No record in the department.
5 and 6. No.


PORT OF OSHAWA.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES-by Mr. Geo. Taylor- asked:
1.	Who is the collector of customs at Oshawa harbour, and what is his salary?
2.	What revenue has been collected at the port of Oshawa each year since it was taken over by the government, and from what source was the revenue derived?

3.	In addition to the salary of the collector, what other expenses have been incurred by the government each year in connection therewith since taking over the port?
4.	What representations were made to induce the governm ent to invest in the harbour ?
Hon. Wm. PATERSON (Minister of Customs):: 1.	George F. Blarney is collector of Customs at Oshawa; salary, $1,200 a year.
2.	The customs revenue collected at the port of Oshawa is as follows:
During 1904-5	$ 40,684 66
During 1905-6	
50,325	699 months during 1906-7	
50,042	61During 1907-8	
73,729	6911 months during 1908-9	
71,691	07

necessary to make the Oshawa harbour a harbour of refuge by providing for the undertaking of the improvements referred to in the government engineer's report.'
Further representations were made to the effect that ' the town needs a harbour of refuge for freight as well as passenger purposes, for the export of fruit and import of coal,' and that, if the harbour improvements were carried out, the local manufacturers would be placed on equal footing with any others in Canada.


LANDS UNDISPOSED OF IN NORTHWEST PROVINCES.
Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM asked:: How many acres of land are still undisposed of by the government in each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
3.	The following expenses in addition to
the collector's salary have been incurred in connection with the customs service at Oshawa from July 1, 1904, to March 1, 1909, viz:	$556.65.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 4.	The petition of the town council of Oshawa states : ' That the decrease in revenue of this port is largely due to the want of much needed improvements in the way of added dock and breakwater protection and dredging at the harbour which the Harbour Company is unable to supply; also that unless some action is taken to supply these needed harbour improvements, the harbour will become unsafe and unapproachable for vessels of ordinary capacity, such as are required for the heavy classes of freight, viz: iron and other raw material used by the numerous local factories and the coal required not only by them, but by all the people of the town and most of the farmers in the surrounding country. This has already seriously affected the grain trade and will continue to do so until remedied, and, if longer neglected, it will soon cut off the large passenger business now done at this port, and, what is of greater importance, the town shall lose the check upon the freight and passenger rates charged by the railway companies, which the competitive water route has always heretofore afforded; this would so hamper the manufacturing and commercial interests that its possibility must be regarded as a present serious menace to the prosperity of the town and of the surrounding farming country of which it forms the trade centre.'
The council therefore resolved that, in its belief: ' an urgent necessity exists for the prompt intervention of the Dominion parliament to prevent by timely aid at its present session (1898), this loss to this community which cannot longer be averted by private enterprise,' and requested the government ' to take such action as may be


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: ,
Undisposed of land in Manitoba at the 1st January, 1909, is 17,862,240 acres.
Undisposed of land in Saskatchewan at 1st January, 1909, is 104,878,159 acres.
Undisposed of land in Alberta at the 1st January, 1909, is 117,369,630 acres.
These figures are approximate.


INTERCOLONIAL ERY AND RAILWAY-STATIONPRINTING.
Mr. STANFIELD asked:: What were the amounts paid by the Intercolonial Railway for stationery and printing for the year July 31, 1905, to June 30, 1906; from July 1, 1906, to March 31, 1907; and from April 1, 1907, to March 31, 1908.


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Year ended June 30, 1906-
Printing	$ 88,509 70
Stationery	 18,428	43
Nine months ended March 31, 1907-
Printing	$ 86,921
Stationery	 13,325	16
Year ended March 31, 1908-
Printing	$104,188	76Stationery	
34,330	46


WHARFS IN QUEENS AND SUNBURY.
Mr. CROCKET asked:: 1.	For what wharfs in the counties of Queens and. Sunbury did the Department of Public Works call for tenders in October last?
2.	What was the date of the call for tenders, and what was the date stated within which tenders would be received?
3.	Was there a department estimate of the cost of these wharfs? If so, what was it in G9iCh cas6 ?
4.	Were tenders received for all the wharfs for which they were called, and what was the lowest tender in each case?
5.	What was the reason that none of the tenders were accepted?
6.	Is it intended to call for new tenders for all these wharfs during the present year, or to build them without tender and contract?
2375


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 
DAILY MAIL SERVICE IN QUEENS AND SUNBURY.
Mr. CROCKET asked:: 1.	How many new daily mail services were established in the counties of Queens and Sunbury, N.B., in the months of September and October last, and how many new post offices ?
2.	Did the Post Office Department before ordering the establishment of these services and offices have a report from the post office inspector as to the cost of maintenance and probabe revenue? If so, what was it in the case of each office established?
3.	Had any of these mail services or Post Offices been previously applied for and refused? If so, when and on what grounds were the applications refused?


Hon.   R.@: LEM1EUX (Postmaster General) :
Only one daily mail service was established in the counties of Queens and Sunbury during the months of September and October last, to serve a new post office at Washa-damoak, the cost of such service being $25 per annum. The following is a list of new post offices established showing also estimated revenue and cost of service:
Elm Hill-
Estimated revenue	 $15
Cost of tri-weekly service	 35
Established upon report of post office inspector.


Mr. CROCKET.: Washadamoak-
Estimated revenue	 $15
Cost of daily service	 25
Established upon report of post office inspector.
Central Maugerville-
Estimated revenue	 $20
No special cost for daily service, as office is situate on an existing mail route.
Established upon report of post office inspector.
Upper Welsford-
Estimated revenue	 $20
No special cost for tri-weekly service, as office is situate on an existing mail route.
Established upon report of post office
inspector.
Canaan Rapids-
Estimated revenue	 $20
Cost of semi-weekly service	 60
This office was refused during the year 1905 on the report of the inspector that it would accommodate only seven families; but the inspector having subsequently advised the department that a greater number of persons would now benefit by such an office authority was given for its establishment.
Snell-
Estimated revenue	 $10
Cost of tri-weekly service	 60
This application was marked to stand during February, 1908, the report of the post office inspector showing that a limited number of families would be accommodated, and that the proposed office would be within a reasonable distance of two other offices, but from a subsequent report it appearing that the distance of neighbouring offices was greater, and the district much isolated, the office was then authorized.


PERMANENT CORPS AND ACTIVE MILITIA.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES-by Mr. Sproule-asked:
1.	Have the batteries in Kingston or elsewhere in Canada sleighs for their guns for winter use? If not, why not?
2.	Have the permanent corps suitable clothing, kit and equipment sufficient for a winter campaign?
3.	Have the ordinary active militia the
same?
4.	Is there any sufficient reasons why these should or should not be supplied, and what are they?
5.	Are the batteries manned up to full establishment ?
6.	Are the other permanent corps manned to full establishment?
7.	Have the corps been up to full strong h in camps during the last three years?
8.	To what is the cause of shortage in members attributed?

9.	Why do some officer's bring out full mem bers in corps and others be deficient?
10.	Is the Kingston district rifle range ope ' for rifle practice? If not, what is the cause of delay ?
11.	Is it the intention of the government to revert to the older plan of recognizing educational and other fitness as the basis of obtaining certificates and not mere rank?
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	The batteries have some old pattern sleighs, but these are not considered satisfactory, so a new pattern is under trial at the present time. As soon as the new pattern is perfected, it is the intention of the department to equip the batteries with it.
2.	Yes; Consisting of great coat or cloak, fur cap, mitts or gloves, muffler, cardigan jacket and at certain stations moccasins and long stockings.
3.	No: The only article of winter kit issued to non-permanent units, in addition to the regimental peace issue, is the greatcoat or cloak. Other articles required to complete winter kit would be supplied upon mobilization.
4.	The training of non-permanent units is mainly carried out in the spring or summer months. The cost of issuing winter kit to non-permanent units and of holding in reserve a sufficient quantity of such articles to equip the men required to raise such units to war establishment is prohibitive.
Moreover, it is considered that, if winter kit were issued and a reserve stock held, there would be a great loss to the country annually through the deterioration of the same.
5-6. Yes, to the full establishment as allowed by the estimates voted.
7.	Not all corps.
8-9. To business conditions and the difference in energy and enthusiasm of commanding officers.
10.	The range has not yet been opened for rifle practice, as it has only recently been handed over to the department by the contractor. Also, some additional land within the danger area in the rear of the butts has still to be acquired. It is, however, expected that everything will be in readiness for the ensuing shooting season.
11.	It is not proposed to alter the present system of obtaining certificates of qualification. These certificates, however, are not granted for mere rank.


LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF CANADIAN CITIES.
Mr. PAQUET asked :: 1.	Has the Department of the Interior determined, with precision, the longitudes and latitudes of the following cities or any of them: Halifax, N.S., St. John, N.B., Rim-cuski, Que., Three Rivers, Montreal, Que., Ottawa, Toronto, Kingston, Hamilton, Owen Sound, Out., Winnipeg, Man., Calgary, Alta., Vancouver and Victoria, B.C.?
2.	If these longitudes and latitudes have not been determined by the officers of the Department of the Interior, what are they, according to the most authentic maps and. the best information in the possession of the said department ?
3.	What is the difference, solar time, between Toronto and Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal, Ottawa and Montreal, Montreal and Quebec, Quebec and St. John, N.B., Quebec and Halifax, Victoria and Halfiax?


Hon FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: 1.	Yes, as defined in answer to No. 2.
2.	See answer to No. 1. The latitude and longitude of the cities mentioned are as follows:
Halifax...	.
St. John, N.B.


Rimouski.   . ..@: Three Rivers. Montreal	
Ottawa	
Toronto

Kingston


Hamilton ...: 3- The difference in solar time between the cities mentioned is as follows:


H. M. S.
[Stage Direction]
Toronto-Ottawa	
14	43Toronto-Montreal	....	23	16Ottawa-Montreal	8	33Montreal-Quebec	
9	27Quebee-St. John,	N.	B..	20	39Quebec-Halifax	
30	27Victoria-Halifax	
3 59 02

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Did this government at any time make arrangements with the government of the United States whereby registered stock would be imported for breeding purposes into *either country from the other free of duty?
2.	If so, at what date were such arrangements made, and are they effective now?
3.	Were regulations under such arrangements promulgated for the information of those concerned? If so, how were they promulgated ?
4.	Have these regulations been amended at any time? If so, what is the effect of the -amendment?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1,	2, 3, 4. No.
Such regulations have been in force in both countries for some years. They were made by each country acting independently of the other. The Canadian regulations have been amended from time to time. The effect of recent amendments is to require the importer to be a British subject ox-domiciled in Canada and to produce with his entry a certificate of record and pedigree issued by the office of the Canadian National Records and approved by the Department of Agriculture. In the case of Holstein-Friesian cattle the certificate is issued by the secretary of the Holstein-Friesian Breeders' Association of Canada. The amended regulations have been furnished by the Department of Agriculture to the principal newspapers in Canada and the live stock associations. They have been published in the Official ' Gazette ' and mailed to all customs officers.


DISCARDED BRITISH SHIPS OF WAR.
Mr. BARNARD asked:: Has the imperial government made any offer or proposal to this government to allow them the use of any ships of war now out of commission or discarded as obsolete, to be used by the government of Canada for the purpose of fisheries protection or coast defence?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: No.


EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR MILITIA PURPOSES.
Mr. FOSTER asked:: What amount of money has been expended *by the Public Works Department for militia


Frank Oliver: purposes for each year since 1896 on capita] and current account, respectively?


Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public
Works):
	Capital.	Income.
1896-97 			$ 84,845 76
1897-93 			102,101 50
1898-99 			52,211 67
1899-1900 . . . .	[DOT] [DOT] $ 4,342 66	76,278 591900-01 	. . 40,481 55	111,815 071901-02 	[DOT] * 33,480 98	247,200 SO1902-03 	148,080 711903-04 	.. 1,522 62	155,017 581904-05 	419,407 511905-06 	387,157 211906-07 	256,106 481907-08 	502,208 191908-09 (to date)	576,848 66


Rimouski.   . ..@: . . $79,827 81	$3,119,279 73
IRRIGATION	OF CERTAIN	LANDS.


Mr. CAMPBELL asked:: 1.	Has the government received any irrigation propositions for the lands or any part of them applied for by Percy Aylwin?
2.	If so, what were these propositions?
3.	Has the department any notice of Mr. Aylwin's application having been assigned, or otherwise disposed of?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	Yes. An application to purchase these and other lands was received in May, 1908, from the Canadian International Colonization Company, of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
2.	(a) To be permitted to purchase 350,000 acres of land at $3 per acre, and to be allowed a credit not exceeding $2 per acre for the cost of the irrigation works to be constructed; the said credit to be treated as part of the purchase price.
(b)	To irrigate from one-fifth to one-fourth of the area purchased.
(c)	To make a deposit of $400,000 as security for the construction of the irrigation works.
(d)	To make a further deposit of $100,000 as a guarantee for the continuous supply of water to consumers, or to give sucli guarantee in such other form as might be acceptable.
3.	No.


DISMISSALS FROM PUBLIC SERVICE.
Mr. BLAIN asked:: 1.	Were George A. Johnston, George P. Ward, H. W. Ross, Munroe Charlebois, James
O.	Cowan, James White and L. J. Kehoe dismissed from the public service in 1906?
2.	If so, what was the reason for their dismissal ?
3.	What was their salary while in the service?
4.	Are any of the above named persons now in the employ of the government? If so, who,

and what is the date of his last appointment or reinstatement?
5.	Was any part of the money said to have been improperly received by these men, or any of them, refunded to the Department of Immigration as suggested by the Auditor General, Report 1906, L-91?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Irregularity in their accounts.
. 3. Salaries while in the service.
Name.	1901-02.	1902-03.	1903-04.	1904-05.	1905-06.	1906-07.3 cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	8 cts.	$ cts.


George A.: Johnston	560 00	1,010 00	1,035 67 20 00	988 00 664 00	916 00 876 00	364 00 400 00272 00	784 00	380 00706 00	756 00	408 00228 00	(50 4 00	852 00	384 00176 00	660 00	694 00	360 00268 00	728 00	626 00	412 004.	Yes.


Geo.   A.@: Johnston, 14th August, 1908.
Honore Charlebois, 9th July, 1907.
Note. The answer to No. 4 is only given as far as the Department of the Interior is concerned.
5.	Yes.


IMMIGRATION-PRINTING AND ADVERTISING.
Mr. URIAH WILSON asked:: 1.	What amount of money has been expended by the government for printing in connection with immigration matters during the fiscal year 1908 and up to 1st of March, 1909?
2.	What amount of money has been expended for advertising in newspapers for the same purpose ?
3.	What are the names of the said newspapers and the amount paid to each?
4.	What pamphlets were issued, what are their names, from whom were they purchased, by whom published, and what prices were paid for each?


Frank Oliver: Stands as motion for return.


FISHING-LAKE WINNIPEGOSIS.
Mr. CAMPBELL asked:: 1.	Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries received a petition since January, 1909, from residents of Winnipegosis district, asking that the lake be reopened for summer fishing?
2.	If so, is it the intention to comply with their request? If not, why not?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (for Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Yes.
2.	This question was answered on the 22nd February, ' Hansard ' No. 24, page 1454.


IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN RIFLES.
Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 1. Is the government aware that a large number of Swiss or other foreign rifles are
said to be brought into Canada in wholesale lots, and retailed throughout the country at a small figure for sporting purposes, and that these rifles are small bore, long range arms, carrying more than a mile, selling for about $3 each, and are used indiscriminately in the vicinity of towns and villages, thereby causing a great source of danger to life and limb?
2.	If so, under what customs law or regulation are these rifles brought into Canada?
3.	Who are the importers, in what quantities, and under what class do they come in?
4.	When the government discarded the Snider rifle for more modern arm, how were these rifles disposed of, to whom, at what price, and in what quantities?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	The government is aware that a large number of foreign rifles of long range have been brought into Canada and distributed by the trade throughout the country. These rifles are advertised for sale by retail in some instances at about $5 each, hut the government is not aware of their use indiscriminately in the vicinity of towns and villages.
2.	These rifles have been admitted by collectors of customs the same as other arms which have been imported, without restriction, for many years. A circular was issued recently to collectors of customs, pointing out that permission from the Department of Customs is required for the importation of military rifles (repeating arm), except from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The department has not granted permission for importation of these rifles since January last.
3.	One large importing firm is known to the government, but there are several smaller importers. All the importers, and the quantities of rifles imported, can, however, only be ascertained upon examination' of a large number of documents, which would require time. Provision is

made in Tariff item No. 424 for a duty of 30 per cent (General Tariff) on rifles imported into Canada.


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 4.	The Snider rifles were disposed of as follows
(1)	. By sale on tenders received after public advertisement dated 25 th July, 1898.


To Lt.   C@: Minden Cole, Montreal,
30,000	at 75 cents each-and 400 (damaged beyond any repair) at 25 cents each.
(2)	. Now in use by cadet corps and on ordnance charge 11,493.


AVIATION-EXPERIMENTS BY CANADIANS.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-burton).: I notice from the newspapers that very successful experiments have been made by certain Canadians in aerial navigation and especially at Baddeck, in N. S., in the case of the invention of Mr. Alexander Bell, the eminent Canadian. I wish to know whether the government has taken any steps to recognize the advance of this science in Canada, and if not, is it their intention to take measures to encourage the science as in the case of the Marconi wireless telegraph system?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: We have the highest appreciation of the work that has been accomplished by Mr. Douglas McCurdy and also Mr. Baldwin of Toronto, who is associated with him in the work, with Dr. Graham Bell. We have not, shall I say fortunately or unfortunately, any branch of our public service in which we could conveniently utilize the discoveries of these scientific gentlemen. Nevertheless we felt that we should take some notice of their achievements and for the present we have taken steps to draw the attention of the imperial government to them in the hope that the officials of the War Office and the Admiralty, who are now directing their attention to aerial navigation, may be able to avail of the services of these young Canadians and thus retain them for the benefit of the empire.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-COST OF N.B. SECTION.
Mr. C. L. OWEN (Northumberland).: Last session the Minister of Railways and Canals stated in the House that the lowest estimate for the construction of that part of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Moncton to Winnipeg was $28,000 per mile. The minister afterwards stated that this estimate had been increased to $63,437 per mile. Has this last estimate been changed


Mr. PATERSON.: since last session, and if not, is the section of the Grand Trunk from Moncton to Winnipeg being constructed at that cost per mile. Does this estimate per mile include terminals and railway stations on that section between Moncton and Winnipeg, and will the minister state as nearly as possible the exact mileage including switches from Moncton to Winnipeg?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Some time ago I answered the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) that on inquiry, the Board of Transcontinental Railway Commissioners had assured me they had no reason to date to make any further revision of their estimate per mile. If my hon. friend will allow me until to-morrow I will try to get exact information from the engineers as to his other questions.
PAPER, PULP, &c.-NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE U. S.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Have there been any negotiations with the government of the United States respecting lower reciprocal duties or abolition of duties upon paper, pulp, logs and lumber, or, has the government declined to negotiate with regard to this matter.


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: There has been no negotiation nor any attempt at negotiation on this matter.


LEVEL RAILWAY CROSSINGS.
Hon.  G. P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:

Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the sum of $200,000 each year for five consecutive years from the first day of April, 1909, be appropriated and set apart from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada for the purpose of aiding in the providing of protection, safety and convenience for the public in respect of existing highway crossings of railways at rail level, and that the said sums be placed to the credit of a special account to be known as ' The Railway Grade Crossing fund/ and be applied under authority of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
George Perry Graham: It is due to the committee that I should make a short explanation of the details of the proposed Bill. As the general question was discussed at great length a few days ago, it is not necessary for me to add any argument to convince the members of the committee or the country that a situation does exist that needs some remedy. It is not a situation that can be remedied by any theories. To my mind it is a condition that requires a prac-

tical solution. The crux of the remedy, so far as this House is concerned, is the enlargement of the power of the Railway Commission and a contribution from parliament towards the purpose we have in view. Objection has been raised in one or two quarters to the federal authorities making any contribution for the elimination of the dangers of level crossings, it being contended that all the expense should be borne by the railways and the municipalities. There are conditions under whicn that might be proper, and the board will have full power to adopt that principle where in its judgment those conditions exist. But if we are to get rid of this great danger, even partially, I think we must at once be practical, and with that object I have followed to a certain extent, in the drafting of this measure, the policy adopted in every state of the union which has endeavoured to grapple with the problem. Were we beginning railway construction at the present time, it would not be difficult to frame legislation for giving the Board of Railway Commissioners power to protect level crossings hereafter to be constructed. But in a new country like ours we have been so anxious to have railways constructed that the federal authority has aided them, the provinces have aided them, and the municipalities have aided them, and until recent years we have allowed them to have pretty much their own way in regard sto the protection of the crossings. As a result of our combined lack of scrutiny of the construction of railway crossings, and of the different conditions that have arisen owing to growth of population, increased speed of trains and development of the country, it has become necessary for us to take active steps to undo in a measure what we have done, or, in other words, to adapt our legislation to present conditions. It being a question that is practical, I believe the only practical way for this House to deal with it is to assent to a contribution to assist in the elimination of this evil, and in that view I have introduced the resolution. Now, in short, the Bill proposes that we shall contribute $200,000 a year for five years to a fund to be designated for the purpose I have indicated. We do not propose to give the board power to divide the $200,000 as it pleases, but we propose to restrict the contribution in this way. For no crossing shall there be contributed more than 20 per cent of the cost nor more than $5,000. The board may not draw on this fund at all, but we give it power to do so within these restrictions. The board will have power, as it has now, to apportion the cost between the railway, _ the municipality, other person or corporation and this fund. We say other corporation or person, to provide for the case of a toll road owned by a company or the case of a street railway company. It has been a little difficult to de- I
line the crossing, as it may have one track, two tracks, three tracks, or even four tracks.


Mr. LENNOX.: Is there a limit as to the municipality as well ?


George Perry Graham: Not in this Bill. In the United States Act there is a limit to the amount contributed by a municipality, but the conditons are different there from those existing in Canada. Conditnons have arisen in Ontario in connection with large viaduct schemes, to which the municipality contributes a larger portion than it does in other cases. The law is not changed in that respect. We are only passing restrictive legislation with reference to the amount we are to contribute ourselves. As to a crossing, we propose to describe that as a work not including more than from one to four tracks. The reason will be obvious. Some crossings might include at terminals fifteen or twenty tracks, and it would not be fair to have the word ' crossing ' mean more than a certain number of tracks. That number I have placed at four. In order that one municipality may not get all the benefit of this fund in one year by having a large number of crossings, we propose to enact that not more than three crossings in any one municipality in any one year shall be contributed to from this fund.
Another important point is that the contributions I have outlined are to be for crossings that now exist, but I am proposing to place a clause in the Act which will say that crossings, hereafter created by railways yet to be constructed crossing highways, shall be constructed at the expense of the company and without any charge on our fund or on the municipality, thus making a distinction between crossings which already exist and those which are to be brought into existence in the future.
I am making some distinction in the_ case of railways not yet built, as to the priority between the railway and the highway. If the railway is run through a section where there is no highway practically, and it crosses no highway, and is built according to the directions of the Board of Railway Commissioners, it ought not to be in the future, if a highway is constructed across the track, in the same position as if the highway were constructed first. In such a case the hoard can apportion the cost as between the railways and the municipality.


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. minister mean a highway in law or in fact? Will the Act apply where a highway has been set apart by the survey, but not actually constructed?


George Perry Graham: I have not given that a great deal of thought, though the other day, in discussing it, I drew attention to the fact that a street might be provided for and not be built. That can be discussed in committee and possibly we might

get over the difficulty, if it be a difficulty, by defining what is meant by a highway.
Another definition determines what we mean by a municipality. We describe it as a city, town, incorporated village, township or parish, in order to guard against the word 'municipality' being constructed as a county by some courts.
These are the main provisions, so far as level crossings are concerned, and it is but fair to sav that in this Bill there are certain other items which it would not be out of place to explain for the moment. In our Act as now existing, some difficulty has arisen as to the issuing of bonds. The same difficulty arose under the old country Act,. and the English Act provides for it. I think they provide for it in the Company's Act, but. I propose to provide for it in this Act as it applies particularly to railway companies. It appears that by a judgment in the British courts, when bonds are pledged as security, say as collateral security, they are at that moment treated as having been issued but just deposited as security. In such a case, they could not be re-issued except as a new issue. In looking over the British Act I find they have remedied that. In several provinces they have done it in the Company's Act. In order to clear up the matter, I propose to introduce a clause to cover that point.
There is a question particularly affecting the people of the west and that is the protection along the lines of railway by means of fire guards. I have had representations made by members from the west and also by the railway companies themselves, regarding the power of the railways to plough furrows in lands not on their line for the purpose of protection against fire. I am providing that they may be allowed to do that under conditions to be prescribed by the Board of Railway Commissioners. There is this difficulty that the railway companies think they ought to have the right to go on other property and be exempt from all liabilities for damages. In some cases that might be proper and in others not, because they might in some cases injure more property than they would protect. I have thought it advisable not to release them from any liabilities under the Act. On the other hand we do not want to impose in perpetuity the liability, and we concluded that the fair way was to provide that the railway companies could, under conditions prescribed by the board, establish these fire guards.
There is another point I want to deal with, of great importance to the railway companies and the people, particularly in sections where railway construction is taking place. On all these points I am open to discussion and conviction. The law, as it now stands, provides that if plans are


George Perry Graham: filed for the location of a railway, no matter how long a time may elapse between the filing of these plans and the taking over of the property, the value of the property shall remain at the price it was when the plans were filed. Let me illustrate. In . a section of country where a railway is to be constructed or a charter granted, the company may proceed to file plans. The companies have their charters renewed. They may have had their plans filed in a certain locality and ten years may elapse before they proceed to take possession of the land for the right of way. The law intended that the land should not increase in value owing to the expected building of railways. It was intended to protect the railways to that extent. But circumstances often arise in which the land increases in value very rapidly, independent of the railway going there, and it hardly seems fair that a company should have the privilege of tieing up the land or keeping it at this high value ten or twenty years before they intend building the road, while the property all around is increasing in value. I propose to say that two years will be allowed after filing of the plans for the railway to obtain a title. That two years corresponds with the time given the railway companies by this House for the expenditure of 15 per cent of their charter. After two years they have to come back and get their charters renewed. I thought it would be fair to make these periods concurrent. I would ask the committee to place a clause in the Bill saying that the_ price of property shall remain as at the time the plans were filed, provided the company obtains titles to these lands within two years of the filing of these plans. That situation has arisen in some parts of Canada, and I think it is but fair that we should apply the remedy. That is a clause I have inserted in the Bill, and at present I think it need interfere with no person.


Mr. MACDONELL.: Will that clause be retroactive, or will the government take care that existing litigations-for there are such, as mentioned by the minister-are not included in this section?


George Perry Graham: I have not made provision for that in the clause, but I think we would have to guard against interference with present litigation. I am opposed to interfering with any case now in dispute in the courts. These are the main points in the Bill, which I submit tol the confidence of the House. I think I have gone further than the resolution would warrant me in going, but as they are in the Bill I thought it better to make a full explanation.


Mr. CONMEE.: With regard to the filing of jjlans, the minister has pointed out very clearly what the object of his proposal is, and it is a very laudable object in my

opinion. But there is another defect in this connection, if I am rightly informed, in reference to the filing of plans along and adjacent to navigable waters and harbours. As I understand it, the railway company makes plans and submits them to the railway board, or the minister, as the case may be. The railway board, or minister, might refuse to ratify the plans. But that is not the practice; the plans, as a rule, are ratified. Because, there seems to be no other course. The law is not elastic enough, it seems to me. The railway board ought to have power to ratify such portions of the plans as they see fit, and, later, if the public interests and the business of the road require it, they could ratify further portions. In that way, some portion of the water fronts and harbours might be conserved to the public; under existing circumstances, the railway company usually manages to get it all. Will the minister please consider that point?


George Perry Graham: I will.


Haughton Lennox: Would the minister explain how he understands the jurisdiction of the railway board as regards municipalities? Does he understand that the board has power, without any Act on the part of the municipality, to order the municipality to contribute towards, let us say, providing means of protection; or is it only when the municipality initiates the proceedings and so submits itself to. the jurisdiction of the board?


George Perry Graham: I think it is comparatively clear that the board has jurisdiction to compel a municipality as well as an individual. The decision of the board may be made an order of the court by a very simple process. I do not wish to express a legal opinion, not being a lawyer, but 1 have discussed the matter with the Minister of Justice and several other gentlemen, and the opinion seems to be that, even if we did not, in the first instance, have ample powers, the passing of this portion of the Bill, being incident to the working out of the Act in" detail, would give full authority.
Mr. LEN'NOX. I would like to ask another question. Has the minister conferred in any way with any of the provincial governments with a view to their co-operating in bringing about the desired improvement in our conditions?


George Perry Graham: I may say that I have done so. It is only within the last few days that I have been able to work this Biil out into the shape in which I now have it. It is a very intricate matter, when you come to get it down on paper. I wrote a brief letter to each of the provincial premiers, outlining what I was doing, and asking for their co-operation. I suggested
to them my own opinion that the provinces might care to contribute something, but that it would be out of place for me to urge that view. But I did suggest that it would help in the working out of the Bill if they would give the municipalities any powers they required in reference to raising money for the purposes indicated, as the provincial authorities control the municipalities. I suggested to them also that if the municipalities through themselves, or in some way through the legislature, would consider the advisability of passing certain by-laws as to the necessity of exercising care in crossing tracks, it might be a benefit. I received a reply from the premier of Ontario expressing sympathy with the movement. I shall hear from him again, as they have not had time to discuss the matter fuller. Other premiers have not had time to reply.


Mr. HAGGART.: There seems to be a consensus of opinion in favour of legislation in the direction of that introduced by the Minister of Railways. There is one matter which the hon. gentleman has neglected to deal with in his speech:	he
did not tell the number of crossings to be provided for, nor whether the grant of the sum proposed each year for five years would be sufficient to wipe out the dangerous crossings altogether, or whether this would provide for only a moiety. In any case, this is a step in the right direction. The nice question arises, that has been suggested by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) as to the power of this House to compel municipalities to contribute to these crossings. In the past, we have dealt with this matter through the Railway Commisison. Municipalities have applied to the commission to have the railway crossings regulated. It may be said, is has been suggested, that, when the municipalities have been applicants, the commission may have jurisdiction by reason of that fact. But I think we have gone further than that; I think that the railway companies have applied to the Railway Commission asking that municipalities should he required to contribute towards highway crossings and that the commission has dealt with that matter. I have expressed myself pretty clearly as to the jurisdiction of this parliament to legislate on these matters. 1 believe it to be quite clear that, as this parliament has power to grant a railway charter, it has the right to legislate on everything incidental to the carrying on of the railway. Property and civil rights are handed over to the jurisdiction of the provinces. But we go so far as to say that a municipality shall contribute towards a railway crossing. We go so far as to say that the railway

company shall have the right to enter into private property adjacent to the railway and make a fire guard.
If we can do that, we can almost do anything in reference to assuming jurisdiction over civil rights and property. My memory is in the past, to a great extent. I have listened to the opinions of the ablest lawyers, and have consulted them with reference to that very subject. I had occasion to consult Sir John Thompson in reference to that matter, and he was clear that where the parliament of Canada had decided that any subject was incidental to something which they had jurisdiction oyer, parliament could exercise jurisdiction over that subject, and the highest court in Great Britain would not inquire whether it was incidental or not. According to that opinion, I think that our jurisdiction is certain. I think there is no doubt that the minister is proceeding in the right direction, because it is clear, from the debates in the House, and the opinions of the press, and of every one else, that the disgraceful state of affairs in this country regarding level crossings must be put an end to. It is but reasonable that the Dominion government should contribute something towards that end. It is a small amount that the Dominion government are contributing, and it could not be left to a fairer court than the Railway Commission to apnortion the amount between _ the government, the railways and municipalities. I congratulate the minister on the resolution, and on the able advocacy of the legislation bv the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and others. I consider the legislation to be absolutely in the right direction.
Mr. BLA1N. When the minister was explaining his Bill, I notice he said that the limit of the tracks was four. I have in mind one or two very dangerous crossings where there are five tracks over the highway. Why should not the minister make provision for cases of that kind?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see that I am helping him. Where there are more than four tracks the federal fund could be drawn upon for practically two crossings instead of one. A situation of that kind could call for an appropriation for two crossings on the same highway. I was limiting the Bill to four tracks, because in some places there might be terminals, and I wanted to get away from the large viaduct schemes. In that case there would be nothing to preclude the commission from drawing on the federal fund an amount to equal two crossings.


Mr. EDWARDS.: The same thought occurred to me when the Minister of Railways was limiting the crossings to only four tracks. I have in mind a particular crossing which has been declared danger-Mr. J. G. HAGGART
ous by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, by the Board of Railway Commissioners and by the Minister of Railways himself. There are six tracks. The Grand Trunk has made a shunting ground across the highwav with six tracks,, one running a distance of 25 or 30 feet beyond the highway, but it is sufficient to make six tracks across the highway. I understood the minister to say that he proposed not only to limit the purpose of this Bill to crossings where there were not more than four tracks, but also to limit the number of cases in each municipality.


George Perry Graham: In any one year.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to understand from the minister whether, for instance, if the crossing I have referred to was taken in, and a portion of the money was given to that crossing-and I believe we could get a portion of it-would that be the same as three crossings in that particular year for that municipality?-because there are six tracks there.


George Perry Graham: The idea of the Bill is that, for this purpose, you can call a crossing of four tracks or less one crossing; if you had eight tracks there would be two crossings.


Mr. BARR.: Do we understand then that in case of five tracks, if there were one track more than four, the municipality would get double the amount? Would it be $5,000'for each track? It seems to me that would be an unfair proportion. If there were eight or ten tracks the municipality would only be paid for two crossings.


George Perry Graham: My hon. frienid has missed the point. I have confined the grant to not more than 20 per cent in any case, because they could not get over that restriction, if they did over the other. The Board of Railway Commissioners will have full power to restrict as they see fit. We are adding a limit over which they cannot go, both as to percentage and as to amount.


Mr. WRIGHT.: There was a point I did not understand. If I understood the minister correctly, he confines the operations of this Act to incorporated municipalities. Now in the newer sections of the west, in northern Ontario, and doubtless in other parts of the country, there are settlements close to railways, but there is no municipal organization. I would like, if possible, that people in these circumstances should have the same privilege, and that the minister should extend the Act to places where the people 'have not organized municipally, but where the crossings are just as dangerous as in cities and towns.


George Perry Graham: There is nothing in this Act to prevent the Board of Railway Commissioners from dealing with crossings' in unorganized districts as with crossings any-

where else. If there is no municipality, there may be some other power upon which they could draw for a portion of the fund. The object of this Act is to eliminate the danger of any level crossing in Canada. So far as possible I have tried to outline the parties among whom the costs should be apportioned.


William Wright: Can they draw on this fund in the cases I have mentioned?


George Perry Graham: I think there will be no question about that.


John Stanfield: I understand none of this fund will be used to protect level crossings on government railways. I would ask the minister if it is intended in the near future to take into consideration the level crossings on government railways. He must know that in Nova Scotia, for instance, there are numerous dangerous level crossings that should be protected.


George Perry Graham: That is a matter which gave me a good deal of thought-how we should proceed in regard to government railways. But back of it all we have to remember that it is the same government and the same treasury, whether the money comes out of this fund or out of some other fund. As the government railways pay no taxes to either the municipalities or provinces, the municipalities, with reference to government railways, occupy a somewhat different position from that which they occupy with reference to private-owned railways. In the estimates of this year my hon. friend will find several amounts devoted to the elimination of level crossings. We propose to do at least as good work on the government railways as we are trying to make private-owned railways do throughout the Dominion of Canada.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand the minister to say that the word ' municipality ' as defined in this Bill, will apply to cities, towns and incorporated villages. In the province of New Brunswick we have no townships and we have very few villages that are incorporated. Would the municipality or the county be liable in a case of that kind where there was a crossing running through a village that was not incorporated?


George Perry Graham: In my explanation I intended to use the word ' parish ' in addition to ' townships.'


John Graham Haggart: You did use it.


George Perry Graham: Would not that cover your case?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Of course, we have parishes.


Haughton Lennox: I certainly am very much pi eased that we are to have a defined nolicy as to part of this question. I maintain a reasonable respect for the Railway Board,
but I have greater faith in the wisdom of 220 men than in the wisdon of five or six ; and what I have set out for particularly in this matter is that we shall have some kind of general principle upon which the question of the control of railway crossings shall be settled. I notice too with pleasure that the minister has a double limit to the liability which we will incur; first, that we shall not contribute more than 20 per cent and secondly that in any case we shall not gc beyond $5,000 for the protection of any one crossing. I am inclined to think that it will be found that this is a valuable limitation, and that, as well, it will probably be found to be a reasonable amount. But, whilst I am very much pleased that we are to have, in part, a defined policy upon the question of railway crossings, I regret- and I hope it will not continue to be a regret, as I trust the minister will take into consideration the advisability of amending his judgment in that regard-I regret that we have not some limit to the contribution to be made by municipalities, if a contribution is to be made by the municipalities at all. If it is necessary that we should have a limit in the case of the country, with its comparatively large resources, I do submit that it is even more important and necessary that we should have a limit in the case of the country, with its comparatively large resources, I do submit that it is even more important and necessary that we should have a limit beyond which the municipalities .shall not be called upon to contribute. The minister might answer me by saying that there is such a wide range to this question that it is hard to place the limit. I know it is, but the limit might be on a sliding scale of some kind.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: On a percentage basis.


Haughton Lennox: On a percentage basis, as is suggested, and I think it, will be found to work out very fairly. I would certainly urge that we have a iimit as regards contributions by municipalities, a definite percentage beyond which they cannot be called upon to contribute unless they desire by consent of the council of the municipality to contribute a larger amount. I notice in the findings of the Railway Board that a good many of the cases are adjusted by agreement between the railway companies and the municipalities and it is probably a very fair and desirable way in some instances. I have in my mind, more particularly, the question of rural municipalities. All the same that there _ should be a limit as to all municipalities. Speak-for the moment as to rural municipalities, I want to say a word or two. I said the other day I was of opinion that rural municipalities should probably not be called upon to contribute at all. Some one was disposed to take me to task and ask: Why 'should city municipalities

pay and why should rural municipalities not pay? I did not exactly say that. In
the first place, I thought, that with the able representatives we have here from the various cities of Canada they would be able to present their view of the matter better than I could as to what should be the measure of responsibility of the cities, but I do feel that there is a distinction to be drawn between rural municipalities and cities in this respect. Whilst a rural municipality is benefited by the railway, a city is practically made by the railway and therefore there should be a very sharp distinction drawn between what should be contributed by a city and what should be contributed by a rural municipality. In many cases, the great trunk lines are running through these municipalities and the majority of their trains contribute nothing to the advantage of the municipalities through which they merely run, but in the case of the large city, every train that passes into it is of advantage to it.
Enough as to that. I desire merely to emphasize the one phase of the matter that I do feel that we will not have this matter settled in a satisfactory way and the country will not accept it as being satisfactory unless we adopt the principle which is in operation in. every state of the union. I believe that in every state of the union where they have laws similar to this there is a definite limit beyond which the municipalities cannot be called upon to contribute, and I think it is more essential to have a limit as regards the municipalities than that we *should have a limit with regard to the government. The government have better means of presenting their views of the matter than any municipality can have in this country. I am not going into details of that. I congratulate the minister most earnestly and candidly upon having brought in this measure. There are a great many details, of course, that I am not sure are in the measure, but it would hardly be expected that the minister would, at one fell swoop, bring us down all the details that we might think desirable in a measure of this kind. I am not at all convinced of the minister's reasoning or of the advisability of his attitude as regards the limit of four tracks as constituting a crossing". The more tracks the more it is a crossing and the more deadly it is. I would not like the railway companies to be put in a position to hamper the people of the country, or in small towns, by putting in an extra switch and then, as a result of this saying: There is an unlimited liability on your part to contribute and if you initiate proceedings you will have to contribute at the rate of two crossings for these five tracks. That would hardly be an end to be desired. I do not think that probably a limit of four tracks is advisable although I am not going to absolutely condemn it at the moment. I Mr. LENNOX.
recognize that whilst it may be said to be two crossings, it does not follow that we will pay two full contributions. I recognize that the Kailway Board will endeavour to judge fairly between parties and will make the contribution proportionate to what the circumstances are.


Mr. BLAIN.: The municipality would have to contribute towards two crossings, would it not ?


Haughton Lennox: I do not think so. I am assuming that the Railway Board would exercise a sound discretion, and that they would not call upon a municipality to contribute double for five tracks of the contribution for four tracks. I think they would make it proportionate having regard to the total expense. Then, as to three crossings a year, I presume that some provision of that kind is necessary. That is three, I understand for one municipality. That is really necessary in order that some kind of equitable arrangement should be made. We want a good deal of information in reference to this question of new railways and new highways. I take it there can be no distinction drawn between a highway which has been put into actual use, and a highway which was set apart on the original survey and which was. an existing highway in law, though not in fact, before the railway came into possession. Am I right in understanding the minister that this applies to providing money not only for protection by way of gates for example, but for separation of grades by overhead or underground crossings.


George Perry Graham: The elimination of the danger whatever it is.


Haughton Lennox: To read the resolution you would almost think it was confined to grade crossings; it is not happily worded in that regard. A railway grade crossing has come to mean a crossing at rail level but so long as the minister understands it in the way indicated, it is all right. Does the minister intend that this contribution shall apply indiscriminately, not only to the elimination of grade crossings, but to protection by other means such as gates and other safety devices short of separation of grades ?


George Perry Graham: I think we are going a little too much into details at this stage. Although the Bill does not say so, I believe the board will take the view that there shall be no draft made on the federal fund for the protection of a crossing by a gate-* that would be a matter between the railways and the municipalities-but for the elimination of the grade crossing itself where the expenditure is large.


Haughton Lennox: I draw a sharp distinction between the elimination of a grade crossing and mere protection at that cross-

ing. While I am ready to admit the justice of the Dominion contributing something for the separation of railway and highway crossings where the expenditure is large.
I do not think we should go to the extent of contributing to protection by gates or bells. If the Bill is confined to the separation of grades 1 am in harmony with the minister. I understand that if a railway is constructed after this date that railway shall be obliged at its own expense to provide the necessary protection, and the railway board and the Railway Department will have the duty of seeing that such crossings are properly protected either by separation of the grades or whatever is necessary. But, although it may seem to be perfectly unnecessary when the railway is built to provide protection, it may subsequently become necessary on account of the increase of population to order protection, and I presume the Bill will be so worded that notwithstanding permission should be given to the railway to build without protection at the time of its original construction, the board will still retain control so as to order the necessary protection at a subsequent date. I pro sume also that the Bill will apply to all the railways which we charter this session. Then it is a matter of considerable importance as to who shall initiate proceedings in the matter of protecting the public. Is it to be left to some individual or to a municipality or to the railway companies which sometimes do initiate proceedings for protection. Or, is it intended that the initiation of proceedings for the elimination of crossings upon existing railways shall be the duty of some body like the railway board on behaxi of the public?


George Perry Graham: The Bill provides for that.


Haughton Lennox: We are to contribute $200,000 a year for the next five years. 1 do not suppose that is going to be the end of our contribution but that is not important now. Will the board have power to commit us beyond the limit of a year? For instance, take the subway in Toronto which will cost $250,000; will the board have power to make an order regulating how much is to be paid by Canada each year as the work progresses for several years in advance?


George Perry Graham: No.


Haughton Lennox: It would almost seem to be necessary to have some provision of that kind. Now, I shall refer to a matter which is not perhaps directly connected with the question before the House but which has some bearing on it. Mr. Hays said in his Stratford speech that it would cost $50,000,000 to carry out what has been suggested in parliament in this respect. He
did not define exactly what had been suggested in parliament, but he is reported as saying they had 50,000 crossings on the Grand Trunk. Apparently that is a mistake. I inquired in the Railway Department how many crossings there were on the Grand Trunk and the minister suggested that there were probably 3,000. However, the people are determined to have protection at these crossings _ and the railways might just as well criticise what we are doing in parliament in a fair way. Nobody ever spoke of protecting all the crossings or even a large proportion of the crossings in Canada. We all recognize that a great many of them do not require protection, but there is a percentage which do require protection either by separation of grade or some other device, and it is idle for Mr. Hays or any one else however eminent to talk of it costing an average of $17,000 each for all the crossings in Canada.
I apprehend that there is really a very small proportion of the railway crossings in Canada that require protection, and it will be in the interest of the railway companies, and of everybody who desires to avoid the nationalization of railways, to concur with the people's representatives in meeting the demands of the people fairly in this matter. I see that yesterday or the day before, in the discussion of the Lancaster Bill, one of the railway lawyers repeated the heresy of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways-I used the word heresy advisedly, because I get it from one of his own party papers.


George Perry Graham: You do not generally take them as an authority.


Haughton Lennox: In this case it is fairly good. To consider whether the people are careless or not is not the way to approach this matter. It is not a question whether an accident results from the people's carelessness or not. We know that people are careless, not only in the matter of railway crossings, but in all the various walks of life; in this and in many other respects we have to protect them against their own indiscretions. In reference to this matter the Toronto 'Star' says;
One heresy that ought to be renounced forever is the notion that the public are hound to look out for the trains at crossings. It would he just as reasonable to say that a man has a right to dig a hole in a highway and demand that travellers shall drive carefully lest they fall into the hole. The highways should be made safe. Railway crossings where there is a great deal of traffic should be so guarded that travellers can drive past without thinking of the trains.
I certainly congratulate the minister on having made an advance in this very important matter, and I wish, as far as I am able, to facilitate the passage of this Act,

amended and improved as it passes through the House.


George Perry Graham: Just a word in reference to the initiation of proceedings. We have given the Board of Railway Commissioners full power to initiate proceedings themselves. In fact, we expect the board to ascertain from the railways and from their own investigations where the most dangerous crossings are, and to deal with them first; but of course applications made by municipalities or others shall be dealt with as at present. With regard to the number of railways to a crossing, in view of the large terminals in the cities, we have to confine the application to a certain number. I hardly think my hon. friend's reference to my good journalistic friend's remark in the Toronto ' Star ' quite works out. A railway is very necessary, while a hole in the road is not necessary, m the public interest.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that that is a fair way to put it. A hole in a road is not necessary ; neither is a trap on a railway. The railway is necessary, so is the highway, but a hole in the one or a trap in the other, is not necessary. I am glad that the minister has taken some action in this matter, but I do not fully uiidGrst,and. what the policy of the government is. There is a nrovision of $200,000 a year for five years. I would be inclined to think that under the conditions laid down by the minister, that would not bring about a very large measure of relief. Is it the intention that this grant shall be perpetual? In short, how are we to bring about in this country a condition of things that w'ill secure a very much greater degree of safety of life and property at crossings than we have had in the past? The minister has not given us very much light. Of course, we realize that if the country is once committed to a policy of this kind by a sort of agreement with the railway companies, by an implied agreement -with the municipalities, it may have to be carried out by any goverment that comes into power afterwards. That is the reason I am making a little inquiry as to whether the policy is supposed to continue after the next five years, because I feel a personal interest in that question.


George Perry Graham: You do not want to commit the next government.


Robert Laird Borden: There is another point. I am not quite so clear as my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) with regard to dealing with the municipalities. 1 realize fully the doctrine to which he has alluded, and which might be summed up in this way, that any jurisdiction that is necessarily incidental, for the proper exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon
Mr. LENNOX
this parliament, may be assumed by this parliament, and indeed is possessed by this parliament; but there will be this curious complication in connection with these municipalities. Suppose that the parliament of Canada passes legislation which orders, or which authorizes the Board of Railway Commissioners to order, that any municipality in Canada shall pay a certain proportion in respect of protection at a crossing; you are imposing that order upon a body which has not been brought into existence by this parliament, which this parliament could not bring into existence. The powers of that municipal body are limited by its charter, by the Act which creates it; and you might find this parliament, or the Board of Railway Commissioners under the authority of this parliament, ordering a municipal council to do that which under the terms of the- provincial Act creating it, it has no authority whatever to do. You would therefore be confronted with one of two dilemmas: you would order this municipal body to do that which it has no authority to do, which it could be restrained from attempting to do, or you would be obliged to go further and declare that the parliament of Canada could alter or deal with the constitution or charter of that body and give it powers which it had not possessed before. I would think that question would present very grave difficulty. I realize on the other hand that if any municipal body comes before the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and makes application for protection at a highway crossing, the board, inasmuch as it has the right under the authority conferred upon it by parliament to refuse that application, would also have the right to grant the application, subject to a condition, and that condition might go so far as to declare that the municipal body itself should bear part of the cost. It would be then for the municipality to obtain the requisite power if it saw fit to avail itself of the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners in that regard. There is one pther point upon which the minister has not been definite. Suppose the protection to be afforded, under order of the Board of Railway Commissioners, takes the shape of some permanent work, which will be subject to deterioration and need repair from time to time, what is the proposal of the minister in that regard? Is this parliament to continue for all time to come to bear its share in the maintenance of this work or are we to be done with it once for all, when we have paid our share in the first instance? That is a subject which ought to be taken into consideration before the Bill is finally passed.


Mr. ELSON.: I desire to make a few remarks upon this very important question of level crossings to which a large part of

the Bill applies. I believe there are far more people killed on the level crossings in the country than on those of the cities or towns, and" I do not think that there is any constituency in which there have been so many persons killed and injured upon level crossings as in the one I have the honour to represent. In my view it is certainly the duty of the government to take active measures to protect those crossings In order to justify what I have just said let me mention a few of the serious accidents which have taken place m my own riding. A few years ago, a farmer was going home from the city of London. He had his two daughters with him in the rig. AVhen they came to a level crossing, he looked in one direction and could see no train, but he could not see very far in the other direction on account of the banK through which the railway was cut He started to cross the track, and just when the horse had reached it, a flyer came along at the rate of sixty miles per hour and upon the down grade. He tried his best to get across in time but failed. The train struck him and killed him, and his two daughters were hurled some distance away and picked up dead. The engineer, m giving his evidence at the coroner's inquest, said that when he saw those people on the track a shudder came over him, and he did his best to slow down, but owing to the short distance

he was about twenty yards away -and the great speed of the train coming on the down grade, he could not accommish much in the way of slowing down, so he closed his eves in order to avoid the horrible sight of what he knew was bound to happen. The crash came and the three persons in the rig were killed immediately. That is not all. At the next three-quarters of a mile is the next crossing. There was a business man-and business men are as a rule pretty watchful-driving over the track. He was struck by a tram and immediately killed. Only three-quarters of a mile further on there is another level crossing, where a farmer, who was going home in the broad daylight, was struck by a train and killed. We had yesterday m -the Senate the argument made that everyone should stop just before coming to a level crossing, but the trouble is the horses -o-et frightened, and the driver is afraid to go on or to stop. In the instance I last mentioned, had the man not stopped at all. he would have saved his life. But as the train came closer, his horse became fright-*ened and ran away and got on the track just in time to kill the man. The next crossing is a bridge. How many do you think were killed there? I am glad to say that there were no lives lost there at all. But there are many other accidents to
which I could allude did I not hesitate to take up the time of the House. It is about time that protection should be given at these crossings. In many cases a bridge would do, but in many others a subway would be required. In others a gate and a man would suffice, and in other places probably an electric bell would have the desired effect. Every place should be considered according to its local character and surroundings. But the great question is: all this costs a great deal of money and who is to meet it? Should the companies meet it themselves or should the country help them? When I take up the year-book of last year, I notice that the country has granted to railways $181,025,000, and in addition 52,000,000 acres of land. One would naturally think that when so much has been given by the people, the railways themselves ought to make their crossings safe. However, these railways have been asked for by the people, and as the hon. the Minister of Railways said the other evening, it would be only right that the people should contribute something to assist in curing this evil. My idea is that the government should withhold the bonuses which are being granted to new railways and apply them to a fund to assist in protecting these crossings.	, .
Then, again, I think the municipalities ought to tax the railways a little more than they do. But the municipalities, in my opinion, ought not to be called upon to pay any portion of this expense. Having had some years experience in a large township council and county council, I know for a fact that the people have enough to do to meet their responsibilities in building bridges, making roads and providing public institutions. All this involves a heavy burden. If the municipalities have to pay any part of the expense in relation to these crossings, it will be like paying three times. They would make their direct contribution as municipalities, then their portion of that paid by the province, and also their portion of'that paid by the Dominion. I hope that, in view of the large undertakings now before the country, the municipalities will be free. I am glad the government is taking this matter in hand. It is a great work, and one that the people want carried out I hope it will be done through the government, not the municipalities, assisting the railways and let this great scheme of making our crossings safe be a national scheme, showing to the world that Canada is determined to protect the lives of her people at her railway crossings.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 106) An Act to



amend the Railway Act. He said: I ms is the Bill based on the resolution.	I may be allowed to say
that I received word, late to-day, that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) was ill at home, and desired me to allow the resolution to stand over until the first of next week. It was then too late to accede to the request, but we will keep the measure at a stage that will afford the hon. member every opportunity to discuss it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the . House go into Committee of Supply.
["That is exactly what the letter contained, and no more than that. That letter is in 'Hansard,' and if the hon. gentleman who has interrupted me had taken the trouble to look at it, he would have seen that there was no improper promise of any kind. I do not hesitate to say that the government, in putting through the Civil Service Act of last session, has taken a great step in Civil Service reform, and so far as I am able to judge in the city of Ottawa, the government and the commissioners are carrying out that Act fairly and honestly. There are no appointments being made that are not made in accordance not only with the letter but with the spirit of the Act; and when the hon. gentleman who has just sat down says that the government, in bringing forward a measure to grant the Civil Service a flat increase of $150, is not carrying out their policy of last session, I take issue with him, and will strongly support that measure. It is in no way a bribe, but is simply carrying out what was intended last session, and what, owing to the lateness of the session, it was impossible to carry out then. I had no intention of taking part in this debate, because I understood, from what had been said, that no fault could or would be found with the increase that is proposed; and I for one, knowing that the Civil Service Association are fully in accord with this proposition, give it my most hearty support."]
Mr. E. N. RHODES (Cumberland).: Mr. Speaker, I bad a question placed on the Order Paper which appeared in the ' Votes and Proceedings ' of February 23, but, as yet, I have had no reply, though questions that I have put on the paper in the meantime have been answered. I may say that this is rather important, because there is an endeavour in Pictou to place upon the voters' list there the officers and crew of the government dredge ' Northumberland.' I can understand why there has been some delay in answering, for the reason that the final meeting of the court of revision, which disposes of the voters' lists in Nova Scotia, was on March 5. Since that date has passed, I cannot see any reason for delay in replying to the question.


William Pugsley: 

George Eulas Foster: I would like to take up a short time in making a statement with reference to the Civil Service, in a somewhat general way, with the hope that, when we come to the consideration of the Bill which is to be founded on the resolution laid before the House and passed through the committee not long ago, the points that I desire to raise may be taken into consideration. Our Civil Service in Canada has been, heretofore, [DOT]so divided and distributed, so hidden, as it were in numberless nooks and crannies, not only at Ottawa, but all through the country, that I doubt if any of us have had an adequate idea of its extent and work and, consequently, of its importance. If nothing else were to come out of the discussions we have had than the concentration of the attention of the House and country upon this most important factor of the public work of Canada, a great deal will have been gained. Of course a great deal more will be gained if after the attention of the House and country is directed to such an important part of the machinery of the country's administration, it results in a much improved system and a better operation of that great service branch. First, I would like to make a few preliminary remarks as to what has taken place within the last year in the way of the amalgamation of the Civil Service force. I do not think that any of us probably understood, when the Bill was introduced last year and discussed, how much it meant, what change it would make in the Civil Service as we had been accustomed to consider it and to view it.
Well, what has happened? On the 1st day of September, 1908, in pursuance of that legislation, there was a fusion of two large portions of the Civil Service. The old regular Civil Service amounts in its numbers to 1,228; the effect of the legislation of last year was to add to the regular Civil Service brought under statute and regulations, 1,577 who previously to that time had not belonged to it. That is, the legislation had as its first effect to more than double the regular Civil Service at Ottawa. Now I admit that was surprising to myself; and if at the time we were discussing this Bill we had all had an idea that it meant such a very large change in the stated service, probably we would have approached it with a still greater sense of responsibility and duty than we actually did. Those 1,577 persons added to the regular Civil Service make now 2,891, who will figure in 1909-10 on the pay-roll of Canada to the extent of $3,933,757; or, with the proposed flat increase

which was estimated by the Minister of Agriculture at $347,000, will raise that payroll to $4,280,757. That is a veritable standing army, whose pay-roll creeps pretty closely up to the pay-roll of the whole defensive force of Canada, including the militia and regular troops. Well, that does not end it. It is said that about 4,700 are engaged in the employment of the government of Canada outside and beyond the present inside service in Ottawa; and it is probable that the pay-roll of that 4,700 people very nearly equals the pay-roll of the inside Civil Service as it now exists. That makes an army of 7,600 people, with a pay-roll of something over $8,000,000, a civic army which far overtops in its expenses the payroll of the militia and regular troops of this country. Now, I think, as I said before, that after we have drawn the Civil Service out from these lump votes and these contingencies, and these service votes, from its nooks and crannies, and have displayed them in one solid mass under one regular vote to be taken every year, we will have a better idea and a more adequate view probably of our responsibilities in reference to this great force than we have had heretofore.
Well, what came to pass? At a certain time, owing to pressure from both the outside and the inside Civil Service, the government formed a commission, not the first that has been formed, but formed a commission in 1907 to look into the general conditions of this great service of the country. That commission performed its duties, it brought in its report, and it came to the following conclusions as its main recommendations. It found in that service that there was an increasing and rapidly ascending scale and cost of living; it found that there were very often stationary and almost always insufficient salaries paid; it found everywhere in that service, here and outside, the blight of party patronage; on the whole, it found a service the majority of whose members were fairly efficient, I think, and honest in the discharge of their duties, but which was, from the reasons given by the commission, dispirited, discontented, not to say somewhat hopeless, in reference to their conditions and their future. The commission, after viewing those conditions, made the following recommendations:	That a
system of appointment and promotion, based on merit and efficiency, be introduced; the elimination of party patronage; the enlargement of the scope, and a widening of the horizon of the Civil Service, so as to place within its reach the prizes of the service as well as the lesser positions of the same; an increased remuneration of from 12i to 15 per cent to be given with just discrimination; and in the last place, a superannuation system having in view, not only the betterment of the service, but the cheapening of the ultimate cost of the service. These then were the recommendations that came from the Civil Service Commission, an echo of the recommendations of the previous Civil Service commissions, which, from the time they were first issued in this country, have mainly reported along those lines.
Now the government met that commission in a certain way. In the first place, they divided the service into two parts, and they said: We will take the recommendation of the commission with regard to the basis of the service, in reference to the force at Ottawa, but we will not take it in reference to that portion of the Civil Service which is outside Ottawa. Recollect that the recommendations of the commission, founded on their investigations, showed exactly the same generic conditions all through the service, as regards cost of living, as regards the patronage system, and as regards every other point upon which they touched. But the government were not able, at least at-that time, to do anything with reference to adopting any of the recommendations of the commission outside the Civil Service at Ottawa, to include those which, up to that time, had belonged to the outside Civil Service here at Ottawa. So, having cut in two the service, and decided to do something with reference to one-half of it, they let the other half drift for the time being.
I am not going to follow that now; probably some discussion will take place in the House with reference to that question before we get through with the legislation.
What was done with reference to the service at Ottawa now made into the inside civil service ? The idea of basing the system of the service upon merit and the ascertainment of that merit by examination was approved by the government and embodied in_ the legislation relating to the Civil Service. So that, with reference to the service, from this time forward there should be, according to the spirit of the Act, both appointment and promotion based upon merit and experience, such merit and experience to be ascertained in the way that is constituted under the law. But, the government, after having laid down that basis, did not go as far in the matter of conforming to the principle that they had adopted for the law in the classification which they based upon their legislation. Instead of carrying out the commissioners' recommendation and the spirit of the law as regards its basis in having some discrimination and some distinction made with reference to the service as it stood when it came to the matter of classification, the government adopted what might be called the simple mechanical rule-the man was to be placed in the main according to the salary that he at the time happened to be in the enjoyment of. The ne-er do well, in the enjoyment of a certain salary and in a certain class, stood just as good a chance as the

man who had always done his work and done it well. So, in all the different grades, that was the one lack in carrying out the principle of the Bill with reference to classifications. Then, by a simple clause a certain class under the Act, in the outside service at Ottawa, was brought into the new system' on the same mechanical classification. The salary that the outsider insider was in receipt of fixed his position when he came within the Act. No question as to quality, no question as to time of service, no question of any other sort or any other kind but simply, what is his salary. With that *question answered he goes into his class, no that the 1,577 men and women who were added to the 1,228 already in the service came in and were distributed in the service on this one basis of the salary they at the time happened to enjoy. One might say just here that that was not the best condition upon which to start the new system. In that way there was injected into the system at the very start what the appointment of the commissioners on the basis of the Act was designed to prevent. It was desirable that there should be a distinction made between competence and incompetence, as to length of service and as to efficiency in the carrying out of the service. The question as to how to get at that may have been a difficult one, but it is a difficulty that has been met in other countries and it might have been met in ours. The point I wish to establish is that the government have simply taken the mechanical method of classification, and applied it to all classes of the service without regard to those distinctions and discriminations which the principle of the Act and the appointment of the commissioners are supposed to have in view.
Now, do not, Mr. Speaker, have me understood as saying that amongst the outside insiders who have come in there were not good, efficient men even though they had never passed a qualifying or preliminary examination. There were good men in the outside department, men of merit, men of sterling abilities in the way of carrying out thfeir duties, men of great application and great industry. These have been brought into the service and they will not be a weakness to it but will, on the contrary, be a strength to it. All that I want to emphasize is that the government, for the sake of avoiding the care and labour of making a discriminating classification, chose rather not to have the bother placed upon them, and consequently they adopted the easier method of making it absolutely mechanical or nearly absolutely mechanical. _ Then, with reference to the outside service, that part which has been brought into the regular service, the 1,557 employees; how have they beenj brought into the service, and under what conditions? The system of mechanical classification, as it has Mr. POSTER.
been applied both to the outside and inside service by the government has had a bad effect on the service in this respect. I do not think I go too far in saying that this method which has been employed has strengthened the undignified and mischievous spirit of pull and haul in order that a relative advantage should be got under the new classification and under the new arrangement which has had the effect of rather setting back the more sensitive, the more able, the more high minded employee and of giving an advantage to the man who would assert himself and by political or party, or official favour, pull for a better position than he otherwise would have got. As a result of that there is in the service, from one end of it to the other, a feeling of discontent and injustice which it will take a long while to eradicate and which, if it exists in any service, is not for toe better carrying out of that service, does not tend to make it more effective and better working. With reference to the outside-inside service, what was a fair interpretation, when we enacted in July last that the service was to consist of this outside portion and the regular service, and that the outside portion was to be brought in and distributed on the salaries they had? I appeal to every hon. member of this House if it does not strike him as fair play and square dealing to let these outsiders come in at the salaries they had as contemplated by the legislation, and if it would strike any fair man as being square dealing that just prior to the time that the new Act was to come into force, on September 1, a large number of such employees should be arbitrarily increased in their salaries and thus be given a more favoured position under the new Act after the first day of September?
It does not seem to me that it was playing fair with the Act and the spirit of the Act that ministers should take a certain number of their employees and, in view of the fact that they were to come under the classification of the Civil Service Act on the 1st day of September on the salaries they were then receiving, increase their salaries so that they would get a higher classification than under the Act they would be entitled to. I have not had time to go through the whole of the ministerial operations in this respect, but I have looked into some of the larger departments. When the estimates of the Militia Department were going through the Minister of Militia informed me that of the 47 employes who were transferred from the outside to the inside service on September the 1st. not one had had his salary raised within six months previous to September 1st. And. although in the Post Office Department a large number of officials were transferred from the outside to the inside service on

the first day of September, a return laid on the table by the Postmaster General shows that prior to that date none of these men had had their salaries increased in order to give them a more favoured basis in the classification. I have not been able to analyse very closely the return of the Railway Department, but it would appear that the outside employees of that department came to the inside service on the 1st of September with the same salaries they had been enjoying previously. But the same is not true with regard to other departments. Let us see about the Department of Public Works. There is an order in council from the Public Works Department passed on the 5th of May authorizing the continued employment for one year in the outside service, at the salaries specified of 111 nonprofessionals, thirty draftsmen, thirty-three engineers and architects, making in all 174 officials at an aggregate salary of $202,480. The order in council does not state whether the salaries of these men were increased, and one would think that when a minister brings in a report with reference to 174 officials of this class he should state not only their salaries but whether they were increased or not. However it is not stated in the order in council, and I take it for granted there was no , increase. Starting from that ground, however, we find that as time came closer to the 1st of September the Minister of Public Works on the 6th of August by order in council made the following new appointments: three at $500, $700, and $900 respectively; three at $550, $1,250, and $1,900 respectively; two at $800 and $700 respectively, making 8 new appointees with an aggregate salary of $7,350 all dated back to the 1st of April though the order in council passed on the 6th of August. On that same day the same minister brought down 56 special increases to the outside men. running from $50 to $350 per man, all dated back to the 1st of April, and involving an increased charge of $4,300. Then on the 31st day of August, pretty close to the 1st of September, the same minister comes with an order in council increasing the salaries of 60 officials of the outside service to the amount of $9,150, and making 3 new appointments at $3,400 total salaries. That order in council does not state when it is to take effect or whether it is to be dated back to the 1st of April as the others, but I will assume it is to take effect on the date of the order in council. Now, in all the Minister of Public works made 16 new appointments to the outside service involving $15,827 and made 117 increases involving $13,750, a total of $24,500 added before the 1st day !of 'September to the chosen ones of his outside force. It does not require any very skilful investigation to show how this was done with a view
of getting these officials into the inside service on a higher classification than that intended by the Act. Let me give some instances. I shall not mention names at present, but I find here that on the 6th of August one man got an increase of $200 and on the 31st of August he got an increase of $300 making a total increase of $500.


Samuel Hughes: In one year?


George Eulas Foster: In less than one month. The evident purpose of that was to put this man up to a salary of $2,100 so that when the first day of September came he would get into the classification which had a salary attached to it running from $2,100 to $2,800. Here is another man who is getting $1,750, an increase of $50, on August 6, and $300 on August 31; the result being to put him on a salary of $2,100, ranging up to $2,800. And so I could go through a long list of increases-$50 and $200, $150 and $100, $50 and $150, $300, $50 and $150, $300 and $100, $100 and $300, $150 and $50, $100 and $200, $100 and $200 repeated over and over again, $100 and $250; the object being to bring the man who was getting $1,250 up to $1,600, so that when September 1 dawned he would find himself aft the minimum of a class in which his salary would run up to $2,100 by annual increases. That does not appear to me to be playing fair, in any of three particulars. It is not playing fair with the outside men themselves. They were within twenty-four hours of coming under a discriminating and able commission, who 'would see their merits, and under whose administration promotions and increases, if merited, were altogether likely; and yet that was not awaited, but the ministerial power was brought into exercise, and the minister and his deputy, out of the large force, made one hundred and seventeen increases and placed his selections by these different accretions of salary, in the new coach, in splendid running form, but left all the others, who did not get the ear of the minister, on the outside, to come in as they were and take their chances in the new organization. Neither do I think it was playing fair with the other departments and their outside services. Here is a minister who says:	My view is that in
spirit and in right I ought not to take advantage of the brief power which I have to increase as I please the salaries of _my outside men, and in that way put them into the new service under improved conditions. These other ministers were pressed to do it, that I well know. They refused the pressure, and their outside men enter the new service handicapped as compared with those of the less discriminating and less conscientious ministers. Neither was it fair to the Civil Service itself; I need not labour that point, and it was not fair to the system itself. It was not fair to those in th&

outside service where the discrimination was made; it was not fair to the members of the Cabinet who played fair with their outside men; it was not fair to the general service itself; and it was not fair to the general principle and spirit of the Act.
Let us come to another minister, and here I find that I have to make a retraction. On the ordinary classification which was handed in, I looked at) the transfers that were made-John Smith, $800, transferred at $800; Timothy Brown, $1,500, transferred at $1,500. I ran my eye over the list of the Minister of Agriculture and I said: Here is a man who has played fair; every man who comes into the new is put at the same salary that he had in the old. And I complimented my hon. friend, and my hon. friend took the compliment-blushed under it somewhat, but took it, and swallowed it down; and then, choking a little, said that there might be one or two instances in which he had necessarily to reward merit, but he plumed himself on the compliment. Mr. Speaker, I beg to retract that, and I am going to state the reasons why I do so. According to a return brought down by the Minister of Agriculture himself, I find that he went out like a good shepherd among his outside force, and gathered in the particular sheep that he wanted, called them by name, herded up 146 of them, and drove them into the increase inclosure-81 with an increase of $50 each, 21 with an increase of $100, 15 with an increase of $150, 19 with an increase of $200, 2 with an increase of $250, five with an increase of $300, 2 with an increase of $350, 3 with an increase of $400,
1 with an increase of $450, 2 with an increase of $500, and 1 with an increase of $600; making increases to the 146 persons amounting to $15,310. And the skill with which these increases land the chosen one on the top of the slide when the toboggan is actually ready to go would be amazing if we had not known the Minister of Agriculture before. These were also made effective on the first day of April, many of them, some on the first day of August; but the increases dated back two months or one month, as is shown in the orders in council. Of these 146 a number were increased in May, but the most of them in two days-on the' 28th and 31st of August respectively. The decisive hour was drawing nigh; there was little time left to make hay while the sun shone, and the Minister of Agriculture went to work and made it. Seven were raised so that they got on at the $2,100 up-going scale, 21 so they got on at the $800 to $1,600 scale, by additions of $50, $100, $150, $200 and $250;	7 were raised to the $2,100
to $2,800 scale by additions of $150, $200, $300, $350, $400 and $500; 7 were raised to the $1,600 to $2,100 scale by increases of $450 in one case, $250 in another, $500 in ,r' $15CJ in another, $50 in another, $100 in another, $400 in another
Mr. FOSTER
Another peculiarity which I just mentioned without giving it any further comment is that I find that of the seven raised to $2,100 two were appointed before 1896 and all the others were appointed in 1901, . 1905 and 1907; and of the 21 who were raised to $1,600 all were appointed in 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904 and 1906. Of the seven who were raised to $1,600, all but one were appointed in 1902, 1899,	1898, 1900, 1901,
1907. Summing up the matter, the total transfers that the minister made was 194 at $207,150; the new appointments he made in 1908 were 14 at $13,100; the increases from April 1 were 146, $15,310. Just to show the patronage that this modest minister had, let me tell you what he has done, as the record shows. It was the fault of his position, of course, of the times and circumstance^ and not done by design, but here are the facts. This hon. minister has 24 farm hands at $35,400, an average of about $1,200 or $1,300 per man; 10 livestock men at $10,100, or an average salary of over $1,000; three exhibition clerks at $2,500, or $800 average; civil government contingencies, 21 men at $14,500, or $700 average; public health, 3 at $6,450, or $2,100 each. Seed branch, 21 at an average of $1,000 each; health of animals, 22 at an average of $1,400 each; 4 tobacco men at an average of $1,200 each; 29 dairy and cold storage men at an average of $1,000 each; 29 census men at an average of nearly $1,000 each; 28 archive men at an average of $1,000 each and a little over. And of all these men, numbering 194, 160 have been appointed since he took the reins of office.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: That shows the immense power of patronage which was handed by the old system into the hands of the minister. But if the Minister of Public Works did well and the Minister of Agriculture did better, what can be said of the Minister of the Interior. I shall now proceed to devote a little attention to him.


Wilfrid Laurier: Six o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: I think I can finish with the Minister of the Interior in a very few minutes.


Frank Oliver: It will not take five minutes to point out all that is wrong in the Interior Department.


George Eulas Foster: It would not if the Minister of the Interior had power to keep all the lids down. But, if my right hon. friend will call it six o'clock, I shall put off these interesting disclosures until after recess.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: made a total. increase amounting to $42,510, and dated some of them back. The question I have been trying to solve is by what right or authority did he make, after the votes in parliament had been given, increases to amount to $42,510 when he had only a surplus of $12,830 of the amount which was voted. But he went further, and I think it was a few days before the 1st of September he actually looked about him, in the outside world, and he made 45 new appointments. In the year 1908 he made 116 new appointments, involving salaries of $75,310, and the whole of those 116 appointees of 1908, on the 1st day of September, went into the regular Civil Service with the salaries at which he would have appointed them, ranging from $500 up to $1,200. Again I press the question-1 would if the minister were here-as to whether he ha| contravened the spirit and letter of the Act? The old Act and the new Act are at one in this:	The constitutional requirement, as well as the legal requirement, is that before the increase of the salary is voted the appropriation shall be had. Where were all these appointments and all these increases made from when there was no parliamentary appropriation for that special purpose? The minister tries to fortify himself in part by saying that the Act establishing the department gave the minister himself the right to make appointments out of the general service votes. That is, if he had a vote for lands, he could make as many employees as he liked, and do it by the ministerial fiat alone. That is not in the spirit of the law. That law, it seems to me, refers to temporary assistants, and to temporary assistants alone; and I do not think it gives the minister the right to make what are to all intents and purposes permanent appointments. If the minister knew when he was making these 45 appointments that they were not temporary, that on the 1st day of September every one of those men would be in the Civil Service of this country, and could not be got out of it, he was practically making permanent appointments, doing it without reference to parliament, doing it, as I contend, without a special vote. Now what right has a minister, on the 27th day of August, to vote an increase to an employee and to date it back to the 1st of April, 1908? There is no authority in the Act, either the old or the new Act, so far as I can find. That is not in
accordance with the spirit of the Civil Service in its foundation, either in the old or
in the new. Yet dating back has been done by the Minister of Public Works, and has been done by the Minister of the Interior; I am not so certain as to whether it was done by the Minister of Agriculture or not, but I think in some cases it was.
Now it is instructive to take page 536 of the Unrevised ' Hansard,' and look over these six pages and a half of increases and appointments. I want to read a few of them to show how it is done. Here is a clerk who is receiving $550, what you might call a first appointment, with a low salary, and probably in a low class, compared with other classes. This clerk receiving $550, is given an increase of $250 on the 27th August. What is the purpose? To bring the clerk up to $800 so that, on the 1st day of September, he may come into the class running from $800 to $1,600. Another clerk is receiving $550, on the same day a $250 addition is given, with the very same result, that the clerk is raised to the $800 minimum. Another and still another, receiving $500, and $300 of an increase is added on the 27th day of August, and the clerk is brought up into the $800 to $1,600 schedule. I do not want to weary the House by going through all of these. But here is a set of three, where a $400 increase is given on the 31st day of August in order to raise them to a higher class. Here is a clerk receiving $500, and on August 31 gets $228 added. Here is one who is receiving $550, and on the 27th of August $350 is added, and the clerk is raised to the class running from $900 to $1,200. Another addition of $350, and another addition of $350, to bring a clerk up to $1,600 minimum, running into the class from $1,600 up to $2,100. Here is a list of four all in a row, each of them receiving $700, each of them by $200 increases raised to the class, on the next day, running from $900 to $1,200 in the new schedules. I do not want to weary the House by reading the list, but this is the nature of it, from beginning to end. The purpose, in nine cases out of ten, is evident, it is to boost the recipient so that on the next day he may get into the new arrangement on a favoured basis.
Now let us make a summary of the work
of these three gentlemen and see how it stands.
Department of Public Works.	Department of Agriculture.	Department of the Interior.	Totals.	No.	Salaries.	No.	Salaries.	No.	Salaries.	No.	Salaries.New appointments, 1908...	16	$ 15,827	14	$ 13,100	116	75,310	146	[DOT]S 104.237Increases after June 1	117	13,750	146	15,310	270	42,830	503	71,890Total	133	29,577	160	28,410	380	118,140	649	176,127Plat increase at $150	19,950	24,000	57,900	649	101,850


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Agriculture told us this year when he came back that all the legislation passed last year, which jwaf, serve the inside permament force, had added to the salaries of the inside men was $87,-000. Yet, all this time these three ministers were working for the outside people ana they increased their salaries by $72,000 or thereabouts. Another peculiar "ling is this. I have gone through these different schedules of the increases given to men from the outside service and what do I find? I find that in nearly every case this was so arranged that they are eligible for the $150 increase; so that added to all these increases I have spoken of, and which seem generous enough, probably every one of these men will get $150 from the 1st of April, 1908. I put again this question: How could these increases be dated back? Was it fair, was it in accordance with the spirit of the Act, was it in accordance with the letter of the Act? How could these increases be made, as they were made m many cases, without the sanction of councils1 Is that in accordance with the spirit of 'the Act? Is it in accordance with any kind of good government of the Civil ber-vice? How could they be made without votes having been first passed by parliament as was done in the cases which 1 have cited? These questions require answers, but over and above it all is, to my mind, the most serious thing-the indisposition of these hon. gentlemen to play fair with the Civil Service and with civil servants. I tell you that if boys were playing marbles in the street for keeps and two or three of them were to try that game they would be sent to Coventry if the boys were proper minded at all. If lacrosse or hockey players were to act with that lack of the spirit of fair play they _ would be sent to the wings by the umpire mighty quickly. I leave it to the good sense of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House if that was playing fair with the interests that were at stake. Now, whilst all this was going on. in that part of the service, 1,577 in number, that on the 1st day of September were to become part of the regular establishment, what was being done for the regular establishment itself. That is a pertinent question, Mr. Speaker. Outside of the boosting up of some of the higher class of officials, done before we went from this parliament last July, the rank and file of the Civil Service were held up and no increase was given to them at all. Thev were brothers in the service working side by side with the outsider. They were the permanents, they had to pass an examination, they had to toil on under the rules and regulations, they had to submit to all the restrictions, many of them had been long years in the service, and yet these brothers were entirely neglected and nothing done in their behalf. The other
brothers outside and toiling alongside. of them had ministers who we:re looking, through, in and amongst, and these had a large number of increases given to them whilst the regular, permanent employees received nothing, had no consideration. Oh yes, they received something, -'*bey received the bitter penance of a right withheld unless they voted properly. Ihey had to submit to the indignity of being canvassed by the men who told them that the premier would do so and so if he were elected; he is the boss of the job; you better look out how you vote ! During a long period of turmoil and strife the Civil Service, the members of the regular household, were kept there as the football of the politicians. Is there any doubt about it? When the Minister of Agriculture got time to work out the mighty uplift that would be given to the permanent b'lvl| Service by the legislation they passed last year he arose one day in this House and told us what the mighty uplift was. " amounted to the royal sum of $37,800 Am I right in that? I think that is about the figure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not remember the figure.


Mr FOSTER.: With what incalculable care,' with the expenditure of how many sleepless nights and days of toil had th ministers elaborated their scheme to give to the permanent service of this . country from 124 to 154 per cent of an increase. When it was all done they got the magnificent sum, amongst 1,228 of them, of $37,000. What is the key to the matter. The ministers did not spend, an hour working out the results of their Pla-b before thev proposed it and had it passed by this House. Now they come back to this House. They have had a little leisure after the elections to work out the enormous uplift, they find out what it is, then they spend more sleepless nights, they work long hours m the room and in the cabinet and at last they come to a determination as the result of grave logarithmic calculations. We will give $150 of a flat increase to every man, woman,youngster and oldster m the^seryicet I wonder that the Minister of Agriculture looks so healthy as he does after all the toil involved in the process of getting at such a result.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He has a good conscience.


George Eulas Foster: A good conscience? Well,, there are relative degrees of goodness.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Hardness is sometimes the sign of goodness. I will not debate that with my hon friend. Now when we are at this point let us see what this $150 flat increase means. Why is it given? It is given in order to compensate the long


COMMON ES
[Stage Direction]
working, hard working civil servant who nas been inadequately paid for a number of years while the cost of living has been High and yearly growing higher. Is there any basis for this grant unless that is it? flow do the government attempt to do that?
He basis of it is that which I have mentioned and no other basis can justify it. the man who has been the longest in the service and done the best work ought to get more than the man who has been the shortest time in the service and done the poorest work. Why? because he has been long m the service at an inadequate salary He has received no increase and yet the cost of living has increased. By this method wie flat increase is applied to everybody. The young lady or the young lad of a month s service who works by the side of a father of a family who has been in the ser-
W6 afi°wufteun'jtwenty or thirty years and nas ail the burdens and responsibilities of
the famdy, m which the cost of living and nadequate salary tell, get the same increase as he does. They each.get the same; is there justice in that?
inKSKLADMEE'
,,FOSTER. Does the Prime Minister think there is justice in that? I don't wonder he does not get up and say he does
ulanU«f 1 d° n0t bfHeve he does- Under that plan of compensation the yearling gets the
r?hea,S, f!ster; the "an IpSed
lu °f August who has never done a turn for the government and who has never
aWand^h^b6,0011®1011 °f "adequlte salary and high living cost, gets his comthiSftW°; $i5°'o Dt°u the Prime Minister that ]s fa'r? I have too much belief
think tha°f0dbJUdgmmnt and g00d heart to The * uh [DOT] W°Uid Say that is justice. The man who is outside of the service and
So this nf" u°°ft?d by a 5600 increase
mto this new schedule gets the $150, workwho hasTde ?iay be ahead of the man who has been m the permanent service for
yaefarSf f?d Tho has borne the burden and heat of the day under inadequate salary and increased cost of living. I am [DOT] b jsed to thlnk that no business man, no just man, would think that was applying the scales of even justice on the ground
be g venhlCTfit ?S ,as®umed that $150 is to U 1<; 1S, to be given as compensaof hvfnV H qU+atu Wage and increased cost of living it must be given with discrimination so that the man m the service who has suffered most shall get the most and he who has suffered least shall get the least If you take the number of those whose salaries have been increased in the outside service and on September the 1st came into the inside service you will find that 19 out
°Le:erJ 1° °£.them will get the $150 increase under this proposition, notwithstand-Mr. FOSTER.
ing that many of them have got increases ranging from $200 up to $800 before the 1st of September, and in addition to that placed in a higher schedule. But when you come to the 1,228 Civil Servants, who were under the Civil Service Act before the 1st of September you will find that many of these are at the maximum of their class and cannot receive the benefit under this proposition, of the $150 flat increase, while those men who have been boosted by the minister to the tune of several hundred dollars will, in addition to that, receive this $150 flat increase. Does my right hon. friend think that is just? The rule is to be laid down that the Civil Servant of the old regime shall in no case get more than the difference between his present salary and the maximum of the class in which he is placed, and how does that work out? One of the old servants goes into the class with a salary running from $900 to $1,200; he was getting $1,100 last year, $50 would be his annual increase bringing him to within $50 of the maximum of his class, and so he can only get $50 out of the $150 flat increase Is there any spirit of fairness in that kind of thing? Look at the $1,100 men standing at the top of the Junior Second Class and you will find that a large proportion of them are men of long service. It so happens that a great number of them are appointees of the late government; many of tnem have been standing at $1,100 for years and being at the maximum of their class they have had no annual increase in the meantime, and these men are also deprived of the $150 flat increase. I do not think that can be considered fair by just men on either side of the House. Many of these men in the third class, and in the senior second class, and in the junior second class are old servants of the government who have borne the stress of inadequate salaries and increased cost of living, and most of them cannot participate to the full extent in the flat increase of $150. More than that, and I want the Prime Minister to think of this as an added reason, these men not only do not get the full amount of the flat increase, but they are at the maximum of their present class, they are up against a block in that respect, and they will have to wait for long weary years may be before they get a chance of promotion.
But these men of blessed inheritance who were outside the sheepfold, and have these ministers to look after them, get the big increases, get put into the higher schedules, wth years and years of increases at $50 and $100 ahead of them. These things do not appear to me to be fair. Take your first-class men. There is a good man, generally of many years of service, getting $1,900; he is put down at $1,950 for this year. He goes into the class from $1,600 to

$2,100. He has been standing at the top of his old class for years, doing the country s work, getting no $50 a year increase, and now $1,950 is his salary, and the maximum of the class into which he is put is $2,100.
He gets his full increase, and then is blocked at the head of the class; he stands there probably for a long series of years before he can get promoted. I think these are glaring injustices, in this rough and ready way the government has taken of managing the increase to the Civil Service of the country.
I am not going to elaborate more on that.
I am simply going to lay this matter before the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, and before his ministers, and I am going to ask them just to consider if this is playing the game fair. I would like the late Speaker to invite the cabinet ministers, especially those three to whom I have devoted some attention, to a private room, and either sing or recite to them that which I have often heard him recite: 'Play up, play the game, and play it fair.' I think it would have some effect on those hon. gentlemen, especially considering the very excellent way in which the late Speaker used to render the good sentiment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have very little more to say. I cannot help, however, just in the end devoting a few words to how this thing might have been done. The Prime Minister may say to me: You have criticised, but you have not offered a solution.
' That is not my business. These gentlemen undertook to arrange the Civil Service on its proper basis, and to do the fair thing by the service. It is their business to do it, and it is our business as far as we possibly can to help them in doing it. It is our place to criticise the weakness and injustice of their plan, and to ask them to make it fair and just. But I can see a way in which it could have been fairly done and satisfactorily done. The Minister of Agriculture ought to have trusted his colleagues and his own Civil Service Commission. He ought to have waited, if he had a good case, three or four days, and then taken his good case to his colleagues and to the Civil Service Commission, and rested it upon its justice. If his case was good, would not his colleagues have recognized it? There is ample breadth within the new law to provide for such cases. The Civil Service Commission was the creation of the, government itself. I think all this pitiful exhibition would have been avoided if these ministers had trusted their cases to the Commission and their own colleagues after the first of September, 1908. With regard to the classification, I can conceive a tribunal which would have done it, and done it fairly, and which would not have been open to the imputation of a minister seeing one of his own nephews boosted, or a deputy minister seeing that one of his cwn relatives was boosted. Such
things destroy confidence in the department, every man and woman in which knows what is going on there. That would ail have been avoided if you had taken a tribunal consisting of your deputy minister and your Civil Service Commission, and let them sit down together and make the classification. Then the men in the departments would have felt that they were getting a fair show. Then this pull-haul exhibition of party influence and official influence would not have taken place. Calmly, with deliberation, after full conference, having a uniform system in sight, with justice as the touchstone, such a tribunal would have gone into the matter of classification, and would have assigned the places and the classes in something like order and upon some basis like merit ana efficiency. How much would have been avoided if that had been done. And with reference to those in the outside service, that tribunal could have done just the same. It does seem to me that what was done was a perfect outrage on the spin of the Act and on the idea of fair play to
every part of the service There again, 1 think those ministers would have done better if they had submitted to their colleagues their case after the first day of September;
and with that kind of an arrangement that
careful conference, that sifting n?Lfr ^ th ence of deputies, and putting along with it the unprejudiced and unpartisan view o the two commissioners, who were gentlemen I believe approved by the country'at large for their position, you would have had a classification and an adjustment of salaries without bitterness without this feeling of unfair play, and much better comporting with the dignity o .	uas
and the dignity of a government than has been exhibited m the operation that ha
NowPI leave: this with the Prime Minister After all, he is the man. He knew that.these increases were being made for they* went through his council, he k * that others of his colleagues played fair, and that, although they were pressed from behind by the outside men, who said, others there are getting increases by the dozen the score, the hundred, and why are we not treated the same? These S®ntlel™® said- It is not the spirit of the Act, and we do not feel disposed to do it. And the Prime Minister sat in the cabinet and allow ed three ministers to do so and so, and the others to be left behind, but ^Lat in a noble spirit and m a good cause That was not holding the scales even y-the Prime Minister know that this was being done, or is this revelation of to-day the first knowledge he got of it. Whether it is or not, we depend on the Prime Minister to play up, play the game and play it fair.
[Stage Direction]
Hon SYDNEY FISHEK (Minister of Agriculture.) Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in the last sentence of his speech, quotes, he says, from the former speaker of the House of Commons the words, play up, the game and play it fair. My hon. friend went back to a few days ago when, he says, he paid me some little compliment which he had now to retract. I am afraid that I must go back a little further, to the last session of parliament, when I myself complimented the hon. gentleman on the fair way in which, as a whole, he had discussed the Civil Service Act of 1908, and on the manner in which he had brought his long parliamentary and administrative experience to the perfecting of that measure. I am afraid, however, that I must to-day follow mv hon. friend's example and retract. My hon. friend has spent a good deal of his time to-day in trying to condemn that work in which he took a prominent part last session. At that time, he dealt as a rule, fairly and accurately with the propositions that were made from this side. We were able from both sides of the House, in many cases, to make improvements in the original Bill, and my hon.
. friend lent his assistance to that work, and m the main we were able to pretty fairly agree. I shall not take the usual stock course of saying that because he did not move amendments and put them to a vote he therefore agreed with everything in the Act; but, as a matter of fact, last year's Hansard will show that specifically and In words he did agree to many of the changes and amendments to the Bill as brought down. I will go further and say that when _ sometimes we are not able to acquiesce in his suggestions, he accepted the reasons I advanced against them and ceased his opposition. My hon. friend now however, has undertaken to scarify that Act. He has undertaken to point out how unjust and inadequate it is, how certain clauses have made it easy to commit great injustice to various individuals and classes Jh Civil Service. He has pointed out that the outside service in the city of Ottawa was brought by that Act into the inside service and he complained that that was done in a mechanical way. I would refer my hon. friend to the original Bill In that Bill the bringing of the outside service into the inside service was not to be done in the mechanical way in which it was afterwards provided to be acomplished In the original Bill it was to be done by order in council in every instance, giving to the council the decision whether the individual was worthy to be brought in. But my hon. friend, then as now, and as always, eager to search out political motives and impute ttiem to his adversaries, pointed out that * * would be an unfortunate power to put into the hands of the government and that it was better that the government and the Mr. FOSTER.
council should not have that opportunity to discriminate. To-day, however, he condemns the mechanical transfer of the old outside service into the inside service, forgetting that he and his friends on the other side of the House at that time, as well as those on this side, are equally responsible for the change. My hon. friend goes further, and condemns that mechanical transfer with the men at the old salary which they had previously. He says that is wrong, and that we ought not to take everybody indiscriminately from the outside service and put him in at his old time salary. But when my colleagues and myself undertook to discriminate and pick out the men who ought to get a little better chance, and leave out the others who are not deserving of that better chance, my hon. friend accuses us of discriminating for political reasons and of everything else under the sun except the one thing''which did actuate us, and that was to exercise a fair and just discrimination in favour of those deserving of promotion and increase and against those who were not so deserving.
Up to a certain extent my hon. friend praises the Act, but he praises it perhaps a little more by implication than by words. He says it is a good thing to have the whole service on the same footing. In that respect we agree with my hon. friend and that is why we introduced the Act last session and brought the outside service in the city of Ottawa into the inside service. My hon. friend does not point out what is true, that while we had the power for years of discriminating, had we desired "to do it, in favour of our political or other friends in that outside service, we deliberately threw away that power and put the outside service out of our reach as regards discrimination. We came into parliament and deliberately threw away what my hon. friend says was to us a most cherished privilege, and we took this large number of employees in the outside service in Ottawa and transferred them into the inside service where they will enjoy the same rights and privileges as the inside service and the same immunity from discrimination on the part of the government and its ministers which the inside service has always enjoyed. If we were so wrapped up in our own desire to show political favouritism, we could have left things as they were and dealt with these gentlemen in the outside service as the hon. gentleman says we desired to deal with them. But, Sir, instead of being imbued with that spirit, instead of wanting to treat the Civil Service in that way, we took a large number of men-mv hon. friend has given the figure as oyer 1,500-and put them into the inside service, so that, in the future, they would receive the statutory increases and the same treatment under the statute as others, thereby, of our own free will and by our own

[Stage Direction]
spontaneous action, depriving ourselves of the opportunity of political favouritism which my hon. friend thinks we cherish so much. It would be better for him, I think, not to attribute these motives to his political opponents, but rather to look to the way he and his colleagues did in the old days in their administration of the country's affairs. He accuses us of having given increases to the members of the outside service before they were brought into the inside service. I would like to deal with that point a little in detail. I have not the figures for each of the departments to show what my colleagues have done, but I have a very intimate knowledge of my own department and I propose to analyse, as far as I can after merely hearing the figures read over and with only a few minutes to look up some of the facts,what was really done in my department and compare it with the picture drawn by the hon. member of what I am supposed to have done. He found in the return that I had laid on the table, and on which he complimented me-he has not yet withdrawn that part of the compliment-by saying that it had been drawn up so that it could be easily understood
George Eulas Foster: I will stick to that compliment. The work was done by one of the hon. gentleman's cleTks.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But under my direction and according to my arrangement. At all events, the hon. gentleman will acknowledge that I did not wish to hide what I was doing.


George Eulas Foster: You could not; you had to tell the truth.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Whether I could have hidden it or not, I did not want to do so, and I will show the reasons and will show my hon. friend that he has been hasty in his conclusions as he has been in his study of the facts. He found 146 increases which had been made during the calendar year 1908. That is correct. He went on to say -or, at any rate, to imply:-and I think he absolutely said it-that these increases were given for the purpose of putting these members of the outside service into the inside service in better positions than they would have enjoyed if these increases had not been made.


George Eulas Foster: I said that in many cases that was done.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the hon. gentleman did say that, but when he was harping on it, when he was enlarging, as he does in his elaborate word-painting, upon the sins I am supposed to have committed, he kept repeating over and over again the large number of increases made in the year, and the impression was certainly left in the minds of hon. members that I
had given these increases quite recently- before September 1-and that that was the object in view. Now, there were 146 cases. Of these, 108 got their increases at the first of last fiscal year in the ordinary course of salary increases. Of these 108, there were 72 who got increases of $50 each. This is the amount of the statutory increase for the members of the inside service. I have been in the habit, for a number of years, of trying to treat my outside service in Ottawa the same as the inside service, and have given them increases on the same scale-that is, increases of $50 apiece unless there was some particular reason why any particular officer should receive more or should receive nothing. These increases, 108 in number, and given at the opening of the last fiscal year, were given at a time when I did not know what the provisions of the new Civil Service Act would be, when I had not in mind any provisions of that kind, and when I should have had to make an abstruse calculation to find out what the results would be to these outside servants when the Act was passed. These increases had no more reference to the new Civil Service Act and the bringing in of the outside service than had the increases given in a similar way for two, or five, or eight years before. The hon. member has entirely mistaken and misrepresented the facts of this return from which he has taken his information. Of these 108 officers, 36 received larger amounts than $50. There is nothing extraordinary about this; in other years I have given outside servants larger increases than $50, because their services seemed to require it and justify it. In addition to this, a certain number of these 108 officers received increases just before the coming into force of the new Act.


Robert Laird Borden: How many?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There were 46 who received increases in August, but I think that some of these officers got no increases at the first of the year. I have not the exact figures. Speaking from memory, I should say that 15 or 16 of these 46 did not receive increases at the beginning of the fiscal year, but 46 altogether did receive increases in August. My hon. friend led me to believe, from the way in which he put it, that the whole 46 received increases in August or a little before.


George Eulas Foster: I gave the exact dates. I will go out and get the return. Go slow until I come back.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will not promise to do that, but I will treat the hon. member (Mr. Foster) more carefully than he treated the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) in that gentleman's absence. I have gone over these figures a little hastily, and I may be astray in some of them. I have

had to add them very hurriedly since six o'clock, and one or two-


Mr. B. L. BOEDEN.: It is not a question of one or two.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I take that for granted. So, if the hon. gentleman finds me astray a little, he will understand the reason. I desire to deal with those who received increases in August. There were 29 who received increases for the avowed purpose on my part of putting them into a class under the new Civil Service Act which they could not otherwise have got into. I say frankly that that was my object in giving the increases to these 29 officers. I will give a few instances to show the reasons which guided me, but I wish to speak first in general terms. When I came to classify my whole department, I did so under an entirely new classification from the old one that was in force before. We had that classification made up in certain divisions and subdivisions, clearly indicating the character of the work expected of the officers, and the salary of these subdivisions yere fixed so that a given class of work, whether done by one individual or another, would be paid for on the same basis.
Now in my outside service, while I have done what I could to give fair treatment, and to arrange my men so that they would be adequately paid for the work they were doing, I had never gone into that matter in the different branches of my department as carefully as I did when we came to bring those people from the outside service into the inside service. And why? Because, when they were in the outside service, if at any time when they were paid out of what I may call lump votes, voted, not for the whole service, if at any time of the year I found that a certain man was not being adequately paid for the work he was doing, if I found that he was showing unusual aptitude, and was more valuable than I had supposed, I could go to my colleagues and ask them to pass an order in council to increase that man's salary. I was not restricted by any statute. The hon. member for North Toronto said on another occasion that I ought to have been restricted by the Auditor General's Eeport, and that I had no right in one year to increase a man's salary when, according to the Auditor General's Eeport, he had been paid a certain salary in another year. I take direct issue with my hon. friend. Lump votes were passed for the purpose of carrying on the service; lump votes did not carry with them details of the salaries, or of the officers who were doing that service; and I venture to assert that I was right in maintaining that I had a fiee hand to give those men such salaries as would best secure the efficient performance of the service they were engaged in. In that way I had a free hand, until the Mr. FISHEE.
1st of September, to pay those men more salary than they were getting, when I had evidence that they were worthy of a higher salary. But after the 1st of September, when these men came into the inside service, they were subject to the same restrictions, the same increases, and the same status in their classes, as the old inside service were, and I would no longer have a free hand. Therefore it was incumbent upon me, in justice to these men, to go over their cases more carefully, and to consult with the heads of my different branches and get their views as to the real qualifications of each individual and the salary that ought to be permanently paid to him, as he was formerly getting a temporary salary. Now let me say this, that of all the increases in this list of mine, some 46 in number-not 146 as the hon. gentleman seemed to imply


George Eulas Foster: I seemed to imply nothing. I gave the dates of the orders in council, and they will be found in the ' Hansard.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman left the impression that all these increases were made for the purpose, the sole purpose, of raising the men to a higher place in the new classification. That is not a correct implication, it is not in accordance with the facts.


George Eulas Foster: I am not responsible for the hon. gentleman's impression.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In regard to these men who did get increases, I did it on the recommendation in every case of the heads of branches, who consulted with me and made recommendations. I did not pick out political friends, I did not pick out individuals. Why did I not pick out political friends, even if I had wished to do so? My hon. friend read lists of the men who were appointed to the service, and showed that they were appointed after 1896. That is right. It was after 1896, in nine cases out of ten, and the reason was that before 1896 the then Conservative government had not that care of the agricultural interests of this country which they deserved and required. The old Conservative government was starving the agricultural interests of this country, and were not paying enough to carry on the work which the farmers demanded at the hands of the government, and the hon. member for North Toronto, who was then Finance Minister, was the man chiefly responsible for it. The men employed in the Department of Agriculture were asking for more money, they wanted to expand the work of the department, they wanted to do more for the farmers, but they could not get the money from the then Finance Minister, and consequently the agriculture of Canada was starved, and the Department of Agriculture was a little one-horse affair, while to-day it is doing a work commensurate with the immense and grow-

ing interests of the agricultural industry of Canada.


George Eulas Foster: If the Minister of Agriculture will exercise his memory and will go back to 1896, or a little anterior, he will find where vote after vote was brought down and supported by myself, on the recommendation of Prof. Robertson, for the purpose of establishing new avenues for that industry. He will find in 1896 that a large vote was brought down for one particular agricultural object, and we tried to get it through, and the men who prevented it going through were my hon. friend and his leader, Sir Richard Cartwright.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1 was not in the House at that time, but that doesn't matter.


George Eulas Foster: Your friends did it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I assume full responsibility for what my friends did at that time. But my hon. friend is just as accurate in saying I was here and .did that, as he is in a good many other of his statements. My hon. friend was then Finance Minister, he had brought down his estimates, he had tried to get his (estimates through the House, and he knows just as well as I do that all the estimates were refused, because the parliament of that day had not confidence in the men who were bringing them down. The parliament of that day did not want these gentlemen to handle the money of Canada any longer, and they wanted to get a verdict of the people on the conduct of that administration. Therefore parliament held up the government of that day, and did not allow them to carry through their estimates, but forced them to appeal to the country, and the consequence was the great debacle which swamped the Conservative party in the elections of 1896. It was not a refusal to give Prof. Robertson a few thousand dollars, but it was a refusal to let the hon. member for North Toronto handle the finances of Canada for the next five years. Let me tell him that while the farmers of Canada had the fullest confidence in Prof. Robertson, and would be glad to see him get tens of thousands of dollars more than he was able to wring out of the then Finance Minister, the farmers of Canada knew well what they were doing when, in the elections of 1896, they drove him from power, and prevented him from handling the finances of this country any longer. And if to-day the present government is still in power, if the hon. gentleman and his friends are still sitting on the left of the Speaker, it is largely because the people of Canada, last October, were afraid that if they allowed the leader of the Opposition to attain to power the hon. member for North Toronto would .again handle the finances of Canada. Judging from what we know, most men, even among Conservatives in Canada, will say that Canada was right
and they will continue to say that just as long as he is in the position which he now occupies in his party-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. FISHER-and is the future Minister of Finance of the Conservative party.


George Eulas Foster: You will be better now.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is very much better now and Canada knows it, thinks it, and says it, whenever it gets a chance.


George Eulas Foster: Now, suppose you come back to your mutton.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite willing to. My hon. friend has himself to thank for the digression. I have told my hon. friend that there were some of these men that I gave increases to in order to put them into their proper classes. I will take a few of the first instances. I cannot over the whole 29, but I will take fair instances. First on the list, there is Mr. W. W. Moore, chief of the market section, who got $200 so as to give him $2,100, thus placing him in the class which goes from $2,100 to $2,800. Mr. Moore is the head of an important subdivision in the Dairy and Cold Storage commissioners' branch. The natural place for a man occupying that position in the department is in that division. He had $1,900 last year. I gave him $200 to bring him up to $2,100 which would give him the position in the classification in which the office that he is exercising was placed. I thought that I was right in doing it. I am quite ready to discuss with anybody Mr. Moore's qualifications and I am going to tell my hon. friend from North Toronto that Mr. Moore was appointed by the Conservative party, was in the department before this government came into office, and was an officer of that Prof. Robertson that I have been talking about. The next is Mr. McNeill. Mr. McNeill is the chief of the fruit section of the Dairy and Cold Storage commissioners' branch. I also gave him $200 to put him in the same subdivision. Mr. Barr is chief of the dairy section or subdivision of my department, and I gave him $300 to put him in the same position. Now I just want to say that Mr. McNeill is so well known amongst the fruit men of this country and so much thought of that I had been asked to make a special branch of my department devoted to the fruit industries of the country, and to put him at the head of that branch. If I had yielded to that Mr. McNeill would not have been in the $2,800 class, but in the $4,000 class. I think I am justified in having given him $200 which will place him in the next division below that to which he might have been advanced. Mr. Barr is a dairy expert, well

known to many hon. members of this House, whose position in the dairy world and in the department as chief of the dairy subdivision requires that he should be put in the division to which he has been advanced. Therefore, he was put up to $2,100 in order to place him in that subdivision. The next I come to is Mrs. Henderson, a clerk. Mrs. Henderson is an old employee. She had been receiving $700. The subdivi sion which she would have gone into would have been subdivision B of the third division. She was such an industrious, painstaking and competent clerk, that the head of the branch in which she is employed recommended that she ought to go into the higher subdivision of the third division, and I gave her $200 to put her at $900. This enabled her to get into that subdivision. The next is a stenographer, Miss Robinson, and she was advanced just in the same way. The next is Mr. Charlan, who is the chief of the tobacco division of my department. This is a gentleman of scientific attainments, whom I was able to secure, a short time ago, from the French government. He was an expert in tobacco growing in the Department of Agriculture of France, and I brought him out to Canada on purpose to help to increase and encourage the tobacco growing industry of this country. Mr. Charlan has made good in an eminent degree and yet, when he first came, he did not know the English language well enough to be of a great deal of use in the English speaking parts of the country. But he has learned the language so well that to-day he is of just as much service in the province of Ontario and in the west as in the French parts of the province of Quebec. He has been placed in the division which begins at $2,100 and goes up to $2,800. At first he was given a tentative salary until we could find out what he was worth to the country and under these circumstances I have given him an increase of $400. I am ready to stand up and justify it from one end of Canada to the other. These are some of the instances that I take at the beginning of the list.
Now, I shall take one or two at the end of about the same character, although, in some cases, the amounts are smaller. There is one which I think my hon. friend mentioned which is a very big one. I gave a gentleman $600 and I did not do it to put him in another division. He got that increase on the 22nd April last and just for this reason: He had been studying veterinary science. He worked for us at $600 a year during his vacation. He was getting $600 last spring. He obtained his degree as a veterinary and then came back and asked me to employ him. Having qualified himself, having got his degree as a professional man, he came back into the Mr. FISHER.
department and I naturally and properly doubled his salary and gave him the same salary that other veterinaries employed in the department had been getting. If I had not done so I would not have done my duty to the department or to Mr. Laidlaw. I have another case, that of Mr. Spencer. Mr. Spencer is in charge of the live stock division. He was paid $1,950. He has charge of one of the most important sub-divisions in my department. I gave him $150 so as to put him in the $2,100-$2,800 class. Mr. Spencer's work, his knowledge, his reputation in the country, amply justify putting him in that class and I would not have been doing that which was due to myself and to the department if I had not done so. These are specimens of those for whom I did this. I do not conceal it and I do not desire to conceal it; on the contrary, I boast of it, because it is a recognition of men who have done good work for the country, of men who are doing good work, of men who ought to be encouraged to do good work and whose positions in tUe department I wished to recognize by placing them in higher subdivisions than they would otherwise have been in. I did that before the first of September for that express purpose and I do not deny it. I repeat that I do not wish to conceal it and that I was only doing my duty by the men, by the work and by the department in doing what I did. These are instances which show that the conclusions reached by my hon. friend from North Toronto are entirely wrong in dealing with the list which I have given him. Instead of his showing me up as one who has taken advantage of the law to do what I had no right to do, I have shown that I was simply carrying out my duty to the men who were in my department, and preparing for the proper exercise of the new law which brought these people into totally new circumstances and new conditions as distinguished from the conditions under which they had been in the old work and under the old regime. My hon. friend says that these men are all Liberals.


George Eulas Foster: I did not say anything of the kind.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Or that they are all late appointees.


George Eulas Foster: I did not say that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman read the dates of their appointments and talked about them as appointments which had been made after 1896.


George Eulas Foster: The dates show when they were appointed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite so, and I want to say that the reason of that is that these divisions were not in existence before.


George Eulas Foster: Was the poultry division in existence?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The one at the farm was. Does my hon. friend know who got any increases in the poultry division ?


George Eulas Foster: I know who did not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Who did not ?


George Eulas Foster: The minister has the papers and can look.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The papers only show those who did; who did not ?


George Eulas Foster: I don't think you gave Mr. Gilbert much of an increase.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I did not; he was at the limit of his class.


George Eulas Foster: How long has he been in the service ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About twenty years.


George Eulas Foster: What salary is he getting?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it is $1,200 or $1*300, but I cannot say off-hand. I gave Mr. Fortier his assistant the $50 statutory increase last spring and he did not get any increase afterwards, but Mr. Gilbert was at the head of his class and did not get it.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Gilbert did not seem to get any special increase.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite true; perhaps that is the reason my hon. friend has made this tirade.


George Eulas Foster: Not at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman (Mr, Foster) implies, although he did not say it, that the men who got increases have been nicked out because of political or personal favouritism. Well, in many of these branches the whole staff have been appointed by me personally and I did not give the whole staff increases. Of course I gave them all the statutory increases at the commencement of the fiscal year, but when it came to give the increases when this new Act was to come into force it was my officers at the head of the divisions who picked out the men who seemed to be specially worthy. My hon. friend has complained of discrimination, but he [DOT] has overlooked one point. Supposing we had done as he _wanted and brought these men in at their salaries before the 1st of September, after the 1st of September we either had to give them their statutory increase or promote them to another class. In some instances we gave them enough increase to give them promotion before they came in. In other instances where they were given an increase that did not promote them we would have been tempted to, and probably we would have promoted them after they came m and given them a larger increase because they deserved exceptional recognition. But if the recommendations of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) were carried out and we waited until after the Act came into force and had then gone to the commissioners, the commissioners could only have given tbem a certificate for promotion and they would have had to get that promotion, and that promotion in some cases would have been far greater than the increase they got before they were brought in. The result would have been that the cost to the country would probably have been greater than under the arrangement we made.
My hon. friend speaks about the competence of the old inside service. I myself have stated on a former occasion that m 9 cases out of 10 and probably more the old inside servants were competent and did their duty faithfully. But when they once got in at the bottom of the old inside service they rose step by step simply by _sen-icrity on their statutory increases, without picking out any of the good to put above the less good. The men in the outside service were not in that position. They could be raised without regard to the statutory increase. They could be picked out by the chiefs of their branches and given special increases because they were deserving of them. The men who got this particular favour at my hands before the 1st of September last were so picked out by their own chiefs, and on the recommendation of their chiefs I did what I did. For years back there has been more discrimination and more promotion for merit in the then outside service in Ottawa than there was in the old inside service under the old regime, because the minister and his chiefs had free hands and could do as they thought proper. The men who are at the head of these outside branches of mv department are all of them without exception enthusiasts, earnestly having at heart the work of their branch. They were appointed for that reason; they were appointed as special technical experts; they were picked out of the best men among the agriculturists of Canada, and during the years they have held their positions compliments have been showered upon them by Conservatives as well as by Liberals. They have had the commendation of the Committee of Agriculture of this House over and over again, year in and year out. And these men having at heart the good of the service and wishing to make their branches as perfect as possible were more likely to recommend the good men than to recommend the bad, and to take merit as the sole ground upon which to recommend for promotion. I venture to say, with regard to the increases of the salaries of the outside servants that merit was the only guide. So far as I am personally concerned and I can only speak with _ certainty for myself every one of these increases was given upon the recommendation of the head of the branch, and I know some of these officers ; in nine cases out of ten, I do not


George Eulas Foster: I did not say so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, but when the hon. gentleman was dilating upon the evil he said that 1,574 of these people


George Eulas Foster: I said 1,577.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well that difference is not of much consequence. I may say that the figures given by the hon. gentleman are not the same as those I have had given to me by the department. He spoke about these 1,577 as being all brought in from the outside service, but in my own department 21 of these who were brought in from what appeared to be the outside service and made permanent, but had been previously paid out of civil government contingencies and were really in the inside service although they were not permanent.


George Eulas Foster: They were not on the establishment.
Mr. _ FISHER. They were not on the establishment, but they were temporary clerks under the old Civil Service Act, had passed the qualifying examination and' *were paid out of civil government contingencies.


George Eulas Foster: Some of them do and some do not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All of mine had passed the Civil Service qualifying examination, were paid out of civil government contingencies, and belonged to the inside service, although they were temporaries; and this Act has made them permanent. Now, I venture to think that the discrepancy which occurs between my hon. friend's figures and the figures which I gave to the House some time ago, is due to the fact that he has taken all of those who are made permanent under the new Act,, and calls them the outside service. Judging by my own department, where there were 21 in the inside service who are made permanent, and I take the rest of the departments as about equal

Mr- FOSTER. The whole number paid out of civil government contingencies was about 89.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would be taken off the figures of those who were brought in. When I gave the figures, however, I did not include the staff of the House of Commons and the Senate. I suppose my hon. friend has included them?


George Eulas Foster: Nw


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then, I cannot account for the discrepancy. I have no means of knowing where my hon. friend got his figures.


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: Take the estimates.
, Mr. FISHER. If my hon. friend has ' taken the estimates, he is all astray. They provide for the increase in the service during next year, and a great many of those will be new additions.


George Eulas Foster: Is my hon. friend speaking about the number of salaries ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend will find in the estimates the number of those who were brought in from the outside.


George Eulas Foster: Then there is some discrepancy between those and the returns as brought down ; but I have taken the estimates as likely to be correct.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The figures I have I got from the Finance Department, which made out the estimates and gave me the figures a few weeks ago, and there has been no change since. The figures were 2,695 in the whole service. My hon. friend gives 2,800 and something. He says that of these 1,577 came in from the outside. That would leave only about 1,300 of the old inside service. I have not here to-night the information on which I based the statement I made last year, when the Act was going through the House, that there were from 1,500 to 1,600 then in the inside service, and that the probability was that the Act would bring in 800 or 900 from the outside, making the total about 2,500. According to the figures given to me by the Finance Department, that number has been exceeded bv about 200.
, My hon. friend tallied very much about injustice to those who were at the maximum of their class, and who may have to wait for promotion. That has always been the case in the Civil Service, and it must al-ways_ be the case so long as we have a classification. Men who reach the maximum of their class have to stay there until they are promoted. As a general rule, the good clerks, the best clerks, get promoted. Those clerks who are being paid all they are worth, when they get to the top of their class, stay there, and it is just because they are being paid all they are worth that they they do stay there.
My hon. friend seems to think that we have been guilty of a gross and glaring injustice in this respect; but what is the fact? The fact is simply that we have increased the maximum of all the classes, all except one at any rate; so that we gave to the clerks who have been for years at the maximum of their class, an opportunity of going higher and getting an increase to their salaries. Is this an injustice for which we are to be blamed? Have we done this to injure these people? My hon. friend points out that it is chiefly the old clerks, who I suppose were appointed by himself and his friends, who are suffering this so-called injustice. All I can say

is that if any of his friends have remained for any length of time at the maximum of their class, they must have been inferior clerks, and not those who would certainly get promotion if they were very long at the head of their class.
My hon. friend criticises the flat increase.
I do not know that it is right to discuss that on this occasion, because we have a Bill before the House in regard to it. I shall only say that while my hon. friend condemns the flat increase and considers it a very improper method of dealing with the service, the representatives of the service themselves state that they are thoroughly satisfied with it. We did not adopt the flat increase hastily. We recognized that the old Civil Service Commission had recommended a percentage increase, and we tried to work that out on various bases; but we found great difficulties and inequalities in the way. We found that the percentage basis went in a different direction from the sense and spirit of the recommendation of the commissioners, which was that those in the lower ranks of the service should get a greater increase than those in the higher ranks with large salaries. Under these circumstances we believed that by giving a flat increase of a certain amount, a larger percentage of increase would go to those whose salaries were low than to those whose salaries were high; and this was recognized last year in the representations made to the government. In the discussion of the question before the commission; and otherwise, it was pointed out that it was the middle and lower ranks of the service that needed the increase more than those receiving high salaries ranging from $3,000 to $5,000 a year. Under these circumstances we decided to give the flat increase. There is a Civil Service Association in Ottawa which is thoroughly representative of the service, over 90 per cent of the whole inside Civil Service belonging to it. That association chose a delegation to go to the Prime Minister and discuss this question of an increase of salary. They made several propositions, which we discussed and tried to work out ; and eventually in a final interview between that delegation and myself, to whom the matter had been turned over by the Prime Minister, as I was in charge of the Bill, we made the proposition of a flat increase, and after the delegation duly nominated for that purpose by the Civil Service Association, had taken the time to discuss and think over the proposition, they agreed to it without hesitation, and gave me authority to use their personal names, if I chose, as evidence of their agreement. But they went further than that. As a tesult of that agreement the Civil Service Association, composed of over 90 per cent of the whole force in Ottawa, discussed 'the question at a meeting of its executive committee, and passed a
resolution endorsing the action of the subcommittee which had conferred with the government regarding the reorganization of the service and the proposed general increase. Here is a paragraph from a letter addressed to myself from the secretary of the association:
I have also to state that a cordial vote of thanks to yourself for your action on the matter was unanimously passed by the executive at the same meeting, and that I am instructed to convey the same to you, together with an expression of the appreciation of the sub-committee for the kind manner in which you received its representations.


George Eulas Foster: What is the date of that ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The date of the letter is January 27, 1909 and of the resolution January 21. I may say this-and I have no doubt it is partially the inspiration of what we have heard to-day from the hon. gentleman, that an anonymous communication, typewritten, was sent to me and many others complaining of the flat rate, but evidently whoever wrote this anonymous communication had not the pluck to sign it. I have here a letter from the secretary of the Civil service Association in which he says :
Mr. McGiverin has just written to me with
regard to an anonymous statement which he and several members of parliament have received in which complaint is made of a feature of the proposed increase and he suggests that it might be well to advise you as well as himself in the matter.
The statement in question ha9 also been sent anonymously two or three times to the officers of the association. It does not represent in any way the attitude of the association. That attitude remains, as defined to you by our subcommittee and in my letter to you of January 27, which was written after the publication of the resolution.
That letteT is dated March 9. Mr. Coates goes on to speak of the thirty-five who receive no increase either under the reclassification or the new Bill and asking if possible to provide for such cases under the reclassification. I may say that when we came to work out this question of a flat increase, I was agreeably surprised to find that there were only thirty-five in the whole service at Ottawa who got no benefit under that proposition, and also surprised to And that when you take the whole amount paid and the number benefited, the average percentage of increase comes to almost exactly what the Civil Service Commissioners recommended, or about 12 per cent. That is a most extraordinary working out of the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission. Although we proceed on slightly different lines, we get to the same point and same result, and I believe it to be an abundant justification of what we have done and the manner m which we have done it.

I dare say I have omitted some of the many points my hon. friend has taken up, but I think I may safely say that I can just as satisfactorily answer them as I have been able to reply to those of which I took a note. In the work we have done during the last year, we have placed the Civil Service in a much better position than it ever enjoyed before. We have put a large number into the inside service who deserved to be there and who ought to be permanent and get any benefit derived from being in the inside service. Their work in Ottawa was practically the same as the work of those in the inside service, and it was unjust that they should be working side by side, doing similar work, under a different regime. We have given the service a better status, we have given them an improvement in their classification, and we propose to give them a flat increase in salary to rectify the great difference in the cost of living to-day compared with what it was some years ago. In my investigation I found that in 1857 the permanent officers began at $500 just as they did last year, and this is an evidence that a change was required in the system. In doing this for the Civil Service, I believe we have acted in the interests of the country. My hon. friend began by pointing out what a great army of civil servants we have and what a large sum of money is paid them. That is true. And he compared it with the militia and armed forces of Canada. Well, I venture to think that the men on whose honesty and efficiency we .must rely in the transaction of the business of Canada, deserve just as much consideration as those who may happen to take up their rifles and serve their country under arms. I do not [DOT]want to minimize what these do but merely to point out that both are working in the interests of their country. If our public administration is to go on in an efficient and successful manner, it must be conducted by men who are satisfied with their lot, who take a pride in their work, and who are properly and fairly recompensed for the work they are doing. I think I have been able to justify the work I have done in my own department. Of course, we cannot expect sympathy and support from gentlemen opposite, but I am satisfied that we are getting that sympathy and support from the great majority of the people who have sent us to parliament to represent them.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr Speaker, as the subject under consideration has been gone into so thoroughly, very little remains to be said. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) was i somewhat apprehensive lest he had omitted some points. Let me say that I do not think he did omit any points. There is one thing which he certainly did not forget, one which he very sel-Mr. FISHER.
dom fails to remember, and that was to pay himself a series of graceful and somewhat extravagant compliments on his management of his department. I do not think I have ever observed my hon. friend take the floor when he did not make that point good before he concluded. I have not always observed, however, that he makes any special reference to those celebrated chicken fattening stations in which the cost was so much greater than the revenue. He was good enough, in his somewhat discursive remarks, to make some personal references to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), going back for this purpose as far as 1896. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) surely knows what was the issue in 1896-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I certainly do.


Robert Laird Borden: It was a prohibition plebiscite. Even before I could name it, the hon. gentleman sprang at the subject.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And we carried it out.


Robert Laird Borden: And I want to tell the hon. gentleman that the reason why the country was so satisfied with this government last summer was that the government had so thoroughly and faithfully carried out their pledge in that regard. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher)-I think it was in 1898, after the vote was taken, and after he had kept silence for some weeks during the session-rose in this House in my presence and said that there had been rumours throughout the country that he was going to resign, rumours around the corridors of this House that he was going to resign, rumours among members of parliament that he was going to resign, because the prohibition pledge had not been carried out, as he knows it was not carried out. And he gave the House the assurance, which was absolutely and wholly unnecessary, that he was not going to resign-every one knew it,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My political opponents have had several opportunities since then to turn me out if they could.


Robert Laird Borden: officials could have received the advancement from division to division, from subdivision to subdivision, which was necessary in the public interest, upon the recommendation of the Civil Service Commissioners. I repeat again that to bring about, at that time and in the manner adopted, these changes in the administration of this department, in the administration of the Public Works Department, in the administration of the Department of the Interior, was unworthy of the hon. gentlemen who preside over those departments; and I commend rather to the approval of this House and of the country the attitude and the action of the other ministers of the Crown, who thought it their duty to leave those matters to the adjudication and the judgment of the Civil Service Commissioners appointed for that purpose. The Minister of Agriculture has admitted the whole case put by my hon. friend from North Toronto this afternoon. I venture to hope that the administration of this Civil Service Act will be carried out in a fair spirit in the future. No Act can be made perfect, no Act can be put upon the statute-book, which will not leave something to the administration of the heads of the departments; and if this Civil Service Act is interpreted, if it is carried out, in the spirit so definitely boasted of by the Minister of Agriculture this evening, then all I can say is that this Act will prove to be of much less benefit to the Civil Service and to the public of Canada than we believed it would be when we passed it last session. Under the circumstances I think my hon. friend from North Toronto was thoroughly justified in bringing this mater to "the attention of the House, and in pointing out very forcibly the abuse which has been perpetrated by the heads of no less than three departments, upon the very eve of the coming into force of so important a statute as this.


William Pugsley: I shall occupy the attention of the House for a few minutes only, because my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has so thoroughly justified, as it seems to me, the action of his department and that of the Minister of the Interior, based upon the general powers which were given to the departments of the Civil Service Act, that it is scarcely necessary for me to make any further argument in support of what we have done. Now if the leader of the opposition will pardon the suggestion, I think it would have been much better for him to confine his remarks to a discussion of what the various departments have done under the Civil Service Act, rather than to deal with matters relating to the elections of 1896 and subsequently.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: Let me remind my hon. friend that I did not introduce that question.


William Pugsley: Then if he did not introduce it, he went one better than the Minister of Agriculture. However, I suppose my hon. friend is to be pardoned for still entertaining some feelings of discomfort by reason of what took place last October. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to affirm that in my judgment the departments which were called upon to deal with the men and women who were in the outside service and who, under the statute were to be brought in to the inside service, simply discharged their duty when they fixed the status which these officials should occupy upon coming into the inside service. That, I apprehend, was our duty under the Civil Service Act; and if my hon. friends had intended to raise any objections to the heads of the departments taking that course the time to raise the objection was when the Civil Service Bill was before parliament last session. What, Sir, was our duty? Let me turn to section 8 of the Civil Service Act passed last session, and which provides as follows:
1.	As soon as practicable after the coming into force of the Act, the head of each department shall cause the organization of his department to be determined and defined by order in council, due regard being had to the status of each officer or clerk as the case may be.
2.	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.
Now what was I called upon to do as head of my department? I found that I had about 36 officers who came within the provisions of the old Civil Service Act; I rad about 170, or perhaps more, who, although they had been for a long time in the department, performing work just as important, performing work of just as permanent a character as that which they would have performed if they had been within the old Civil Service Act, still remained there as temporary employees, although many of them had been there ten, twenty, twenty-five and thirty years, and had to be appointed year after year, and their salaries to be determined by order in council. Now in organizing my department, in acting under the requirements of section 8 of the Act, surely it was my duty to have regard to the services which those officials were performing. it was my dutv to have regard to the efficiency with which they performed their duties, to the length of their service, to the value of .the service they were giving to the country, to the number of people who were qualified to enter upon the dif-

ferent classes which it was my duty to organize under the Civil Service Act. Well, what did I do? I asked the deputy head of my department to do what the statute says he should do, and that is to take into consideration the number of people who were in the department, the services which they were performing, with a view to asking the Governor in Council to fix their status, and to fix the salaries which would pertain to the positions they would be called upon to fill under the Act. Now, probably I knew even less of my officials than other ministers who had been in charge of their departments for a good many years. I did not know the capabilities of those different officials. I would not have the same knowledge of the value of the services which they are performing, as the deputy head of the department. It is his duty to keep in touch with all the officials of the department, and I asked him to take the matter up, and to devote to the subject the greatest possible care, to see that every official who was being brought in from the outside service, received due recognition, and that in placing him in the one class or the other, a most earnest attempt should be made to do simple justice to him, without doing any injustice to any other official. Not days alone, but weeks and weeks were occupied by the deputy minister in the discharge of that duty. He consulted with the heads of the different branches, and I have reason to believe that he discharged that duty conscientiously, with a sincere desire to carry out the terms of the Act, and to discharge the duties which devolved upon him under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. Now what did we do upon his recommendation? Having regard to the different classes which the Civil Service Act declared should be established, we provided that in sub-division A of the first division there should be a certain number of the higher officials of that class. There would be some who were within the Civil Service Act already, and there would be others who would be brought in under the Act on the 1st of September. We selected those officials who were performing the highest duties in the department, and recommended that they should be placed in sub-division A of the first division.
Let me call upon the hon. member for North Toronto, who says that a grave injustice has been done to the old members of the Civil Service, to those who have been under the old Civil Service Act, to take the classification which was passed in council, and which, upon his own motion, was submitted to parliament,_ to point to a single instance where an injustice had been done to those who were formerly under the old Civil Service Act and who have been placed in subdivision A of the first division in my department. At the best he might perhaps
have been able to make the point that there had been some error and that some injustice had been done, but my hon. friend has not ventured to do that, and I may say that if he attempts to do that he will fail in showing to the House that such has been the case. I have never heard that any one of the gentlemen who have been in my department, those who came under the terms of the old Act, have uttered any complaint as to the mode in which they have been treated by the classification which has been made and by the salaries which are to be paid to the various officials who are classed in subdivision A of the first division. _ Then, we have subdivision B of the first division, and, having regard to the various officials in my department of the outside service as well as the inside service, it was the duty of the deputy minister to consider all these officials, the duties which they were performing, the efficiency with which they were discharging their public duties and, having regard to those who ought to go into that division I, upon his initiation, recommended to council that a certain number of officials should be placed in subdivision B of the first division. That was in order to recognize the merits of a large number of the officials and to place in that subdivision those who we thought would be fairly entitled to be placed there. If you will look over the classification which has been made by the Governor in Council upon my recommendation as the head of the department based, as I have said very largely and almost wholly upon the recommendation of my deputy minister, the permanent head of the department, it will be found that we have provided as best we could and according to our best judgment for these various officials both in the inside and the outside service whom we were called upon to place and to whom it was our duty to give the requisite status pursuant to the classification which was made and which is now before the House. As I have said, if my hon. friend could take that classification, if he could take the different officials who have been appointed to these various offices in my department and show that any wrong has been done, that any injustice has been done to any one of these employees, whether those who had been formerly in the Civil Service or those who had been long in the department, although employed in the temporary organization which was instituted a great many years ago, he would be able to make some point against me in connection with this part of the management of my department, but my hon. friend has utterly failed to do that. I recognize that it was my duty, as I assume the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) recognized that it was his duty, to provide for the classification of the various officials in the department, to specify the number of

officials who would be respectively in the different classes, and I assume that it was his duty as it has been my 'duty to have regard to the various officials then in the department and to the services which they were performing as well as the faithfulness with which they had discharged the duties that they owed to the public. In doing that I endeavoured, and I have no doubt that my deputy endeavoured, to so arrange the classification and to so provide for the placing of the different officials as to do complete justice to the officials having regard to their service, the length of their service and the efficiency with which they were discharging their duties.
Just a word with regard to what I thought was an unfair or undeserved insinuation of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that there had been some favouritism and that some officials who had been appointed by the previous government had been discriminated against. As fax as my department is concerned I can assure my hon. friend that there is no warrant for making-not the statement-but for throwing out such an insinuation as that which was conveyed in the statement of the hon. gentleman. I find that one of the most important officials of my department, to whom there was an increase of $400, was appointed on the 20th March, 1891, under the government of which my hon. friend was a distinguished member. I find that the next gentleman to whom there was an increase of $650 was appointed on the 2nd of March, 1886, also under the former government. Another one occupying a very important position to whom an increase of $300 was given was appointed on the 13th July, 1882; another one to whom an increase of $200 was given was appointed on the 11th April, 1888; and another one to whom an increase of $200 was given was appointed on the 4th December, 1886. And so, if my hon. friend will take this statement which was brought before the House on his own motion and go over the names of those gentlemen who have received an increase, he will see, I am sure, that he has no warrant for making the suggestion that there has been any discrimination as between officials who have been recently appointed and those who have held office in my department for a great many years.


Mr. DANIEL.: Will the hon. gentleman give the names of those to whom he has just referred ?


William Pugsley: I will be very glad to. There is Mr. Adams who received an increase of $120; he was appointed on the 1st May, 1886; Mr. Chasse, the law clerk, who received an increase of $400, was appointed on the 20th March, 1891 ; Mr. Coleman, clerk in charge of returns, who received an increase of $300, was appointed on the 13th Mr. PUGSLEY.
July, 1882; Mr. Cusson, assistant keeper of the records, who received an increase of $200, was appointed on the 11th .April, 1888; Mr. Delaney, assistant photographer, who received an increase of $250, was appointed on the 4th December, 1886; Mr. Desautels, clerk of attendance book, who received a small increase, was appoined June 22, 1886 ; Mr. Lefleche, registration clerk, who received an increase of $200, was appointed on the 8th September, 1887. These are a few illustrations of the truth of what I have stated. So that they apepar to have received the benefit of the increase entirely irrespective of the dates of their appointments. I am sure that an examination of the return which has been submitted to the House will verify the statement which I unhesitatingly, make that in the increases which were given in my department, in the classification which has been made and in the number of officials who have been respectively assigned to each, there has not been the slightest favouritism and that no one has received any increase by reason of the position he may have occupied politically prior to his becoming connected with the department. I have not allowed, and I do not think that the deputy of my department has allowed, political, or party, or personal considerations to enter into the matter in any way, shape or form. We have simply endeavoured to do justice to all ; we have endeavoured to recognize the merits of the different officials and to treat them as we have felt they ought to be treated, and in doing what we have done I challenge my hon. friend himself to show that we have dene other than what it was our duty to dc under the Civil Service Act.
It was our duty under section 8 of the Act to arrange for the classification of the departments, and in doing that it was also our duty to have in view all the different officials who were in the outside as well as in the inside service, and who under the terms of the law were to be brought within the Act, and to have Tegard to the salaries which they would receive because their salaries as of the first of September would fix their status under the Act. In doing so we simply acted within the powers conferred upon us by the Act. The hon. gentleman asks why we did not leave this for the Civil Service Commissioners to do. Well, the Act gives them no power to do what we have done in justice to these officials. The Act does not give the commissioners the power to arrange the classification ; the Act does not give the commissioners the power to say whether in the first division or in the second division or in any other division there shall be twenty officials or ten officials. That is a duty which rested upon the heads of the departments and upon the Governor in Council. It is a duty we could not relegate to the

Civil Service Commissioners ; we could not ask them to discharge a duty which parliament had imposed upon us. It was our duty to say how many of our clerks and which of our clerks should be placed in a certain class, and having regard to the services which they performed and to the claims which they had, it was our duty to fix their salaries so as to do complete justice as between the outside servants and the officials who were within the Civil Service Act, starting everything as from the first of September and after that leaving the working out of the Act and the matter of promotion and of salaries to the commissioners. We have done our duty; we started them under the Act on the first of September and hereafter it will be1 for the Civil Service Commissioners to perform their duty under the terms of the statute.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Might I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) a question as I am not perfectly certain that I understood the point of his remarks. He appears to claim that the action of the Minister of Agriculture, and of the Minister of the Interior, and his own action was based on the authority of section 8 of the Civil Service Act. . That was his whole case.


William Pugsley: Not my whole case; that gives the authority.


William Barton Northrup: I may say that I differ entirely from -the conclusion of the minister, but that it is so absolutely immaterial in view of another clause of the Act that I shall not waste time discussing it. Section 8 is:
As soon as practicable.
Not after the prorogation of parliament, not after July 20, but:
As soon as practicable after the coming into force of this Act.
And when did it come into force. Section 48 says:
This Act shall come into force on the first day of September.
And therefore, it is as soon as practicable after the first day of September. Surely a more monstrous proposition was never addressed to an astonished House than that of the Minister of Public Works who carefully tells us that the ministers in promoting these men and in increasing their salaries, acting like a shah, or a sultan, or a rajah or any other oriental despot, did all that by virtue of the power given them by section 8 of the Civil Service Act which says, that after the first day of September they are to call their deputies together and do so and so. But, the minister tells us that ha did it before the first day of September so as to avoid the very effect which
parliament intended should have been produced had he done as he was bidden by parliament after the first of September.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend pardon me; I think he misunderstood me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


William Pugsley: Just wait a moment; I did not intend to say and I do not think I. did say that we completed the work of classification until after the first of September. What I did say was that in my department for weeks before that we were preparing and arranging for the classification of the various clerks and then when the law came into force on the first of September, we had the matter arranged as we thought equitable and fairly, and they were placed under the various classes pursuant to the terms of the Act. That is what I intended to say.


George Eulas Foster: [DOT] You were caught that time.


William Pugsley: Not at all.


William Barton Northrup: If the ministers did what they say they did before the 1st of September, they did not do it in pursuance bf the Civil Service Act, for that Act says they are to do it after the 1st of September. At all events the result of what they did was to bring about a state of affairs that would not have been brought about had they obeyed the Act and did it as soon as practicable after the Act came in to force. We therefore have the extraordinary result that a certain number of favoured individuals had their salaries increased before the 1st of September in qrder that they might get benefits which the law did not contemplate they should get. In my opinion everything so done by the ministers was wholly illegal. Is it not a rather singular ilustration of retributive justice that the gentlemen who began to reform the Civil Service by acting in defiance of the statute should now come down to this House with a further measure of reform to add $150 to the salaries of other civil servants in defiance of another statute of this country. I mean the election law. Has any one in this country the slightest doubt that this resolution granting $150 to the civil servants is the price deliberately paid by the government for the seats of the city of Ottawa? Is there a person in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific who does not know that the government had dis-paired of carrying Otawa and had to abandon the candidates nominated by a duly qualified party convention? Is it not known from the Atlantic to the Pacific that when even the Prime Minister was brought to Ottawa-and I do not think it was paying much of a compliment to Ottawa in view Of the fact that he would not declare he would sit for Ottawa if elected-despite the 1 appeals made on the ground of the wonder-

ful favours conferred by this government on Ottawa, they found that even he could not be elected for Ottawa in the face of the feeling which existed amongst the civil Servants, until his colleague gave a promise, supported and backed up by the Prime Minister, that if-to use plain ordinary everyday Anglo-Saxon-if Ottawa did the square thing by the Prime Minister they could depend upon it that the Prime Minister would do the square thing for the Civil Service. And so we - see how one wrong step leads to another, and that these hon. gentlemen commenced to carry out this measure (which last year was heralded throughout the land as such a marvellous system of Civil Service reform) by very carefully violating it so as to bring about results that could not be attained if they did not violate the statute, and then to complete their work, they had to bring down this measure to carry out the promises which everybody in Canada knows were relied upon by a large section of the civil servants in Ottawa when they voted for the Prime Minister. While I have a great respect for the Civil Service of Ottawa, while I feel that many a member of it is sadly underpaid, and while I would be willing to go as far as any member of this House in doing justice to the hard-working and worthy members of the service, I feel like voting against this resolution, for two reasons; first, because I think it is an insult to parliament to ask us to carry out that illegal promise made during the last election, and secondly, because I believe it is an insult to the intelligence of parliament to ask us to remedy a wrong, which it is admitted has existed in the Civil Service for years, in so haphazard a fashion as giving an increase of $150 all round, irrespective of the salary now received, the length of service, or the ability shown by the recipient-irrespective of 'everything except the promise made last session to increase the salaries of the Civil Service. Surely there is another apd a better way than that; and if this matter comes to a vote, I for one, will vote against the resolution-first, because I decline to be a party to carrying out that illegal promise, and secondly, because, instead of doing justice to the service, it is making a hodge podge of them, and increasing the salaries of many who should not be in the service at all, but should be turned out on the first opportunity. If this were done and the money thus saved were divided among the rest of the service, we would have a far more useful and efficient service than we have.


Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat was probably not in the House earlier in this session, when the matter to which he has referred was brought up by the hon. member for North Mr. NORTHRUP.
Toronto. I refer to the so-called promise that was made during the last election. The statement that was made by me in regard to the increase of salaries to the Civil Service, was simply in accordance with the intention expressed in the House last session by the government of carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Service. The only promise that was made by me was that I would use my best endeavours to have those recommendations carried out.


Haughton Lennox: What about the letter?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: That is exactly what the letter contained, and no more than that. That letter is in 'Hansard,' and if the hon. gentleman who has interrupted me had taken the trouble to look at it, he would have seen that there was no improper promise of any kind. I do not hesitate to say that the government, in putting through the Civil Service Act of last session, has taken a great step in Civil Service reform, and so far as I am able to judge in the city of Ottawa, the government and the commissioners are carrying out that Act fairly and honestly. There are no appointments being made that are not made in accordance not only with the letter but with the spirit of the Act; and when the hon. gentleman who has just sat down says that the government, in bringing forward a measure to grant the Civil Service a flat increase of $150, is not carrying out their policy of last session, I take issue with him, and will strongly support that measure. It is in no way a bribe, but is simply carrying out what was intended last session, and what, owing to the lateness of the session, it was impossible to carry out then. I had no intention of taking part in this debate, because I understood, from what had been said, that no fault could or would be found with the increase that is proposed; and I for one, knowing that the Civil Service Association are fully in accord with this proposition, give it my most hearty support.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Dominion buildings, rents, &c., $200,000.
['I think they will be the first.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 1.45 a.m. Friday.', 'Friday, March 12, 1909.']
William Pugsley: This item stood at the request of one or two hon. gentlemen who
were desirous of seeing the leases of buildings in Ottawa. Those leases were shown to them, and I would like to have this item considered. I might say, in answer to a remark made by one hon. gentleman, I think the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) that I am quite sure that if he makes

inquiry he will find that the observations he made in regard to the rent being paid to the Imperial Realty Company of Ottawa were entirely without foundation. The hon. gentleman stated that the building was worth something less than $200,000, and that an enormous rent was being paid for it, no doubt to party friends of the government. I have made inquiry, and I find that some time ago bonds were issued on the building to the Royal Trust Company of Canada, and it was valued by valuators chosen by that company at $400,000. As to the building being owned by party friends of the government, I have taken occasion to look into the list of directors of the company, and I find that one is Mr. J. W. Woods, another is Mr. Finnie, manager of the Bank of Ottawa, and another is Mr. E. B. Osier, of Toronto, a gentleman very well known to hon. gentlemen opposite, and a very distinguished member of this House. I am sure that my hon. friend, if he were here, would be the first to withdraw the suggestion he made.


John Stanfield: A member stated to me to-day that he had spoken to Mr. Osier and Mr. Osier denied the statement that he is a director of this realty company.


William Pugsley: That is my information.


John Stanfield: He denies it.


Mr. PRICE.: As the hon. gentleman says that Mr. Osier denies that he is a director of the company and as two or three members are absent who would like to say something on the subject, it is only fair to put this item off for another night.


William Pugsley: I do not like to refuse my hon. friends when they make a request, but I am sorry we have to put this item off. Of course I accept at once the statement, if Mr. Osier authorized it to be made, that he is not a director. My information is that he is, but no doubt, I am misinformed. However, I am quite willing to take up the Nova Scotia items.
Avonport pier-Repairs, $2,000.


William Pugsley: The length is about 65 feet. The wharf became badly dilapidated. This is done by days' labour.
Bad deck wharf improvements, $1,500.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the improvements to the wharf and also to level up the land and drain it. The original cost was $14,709.
Mr.. MADDIN. What was the cost of the site and was the work let by tender?


William Pugsley: The lot is 107 feet wide bv 306 feet deep. The lot and the wharf, including building, was purchased for $3,000 from Mr. Alex. Macdonald.


Mr. MADDIN.: Was the work let by tender?


William Pugsley: Yes, the contract was let for $11,709.


James William Maddin: Will the $1,500 complete the work?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What is the balance due on the contract?


William Pugsley: This is to finish up the total expense. I do not know whether it is all in the one contract or not.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Would this be for extras?


William Pugsley: I find there is some extra work required, such as levelling up and draining. The appropriation last year was $3,500. The crib-work retaining wall is estimated to cost $696; filling in old work, $114; filling in space between warehouse and old work, $42; levelling ground, $111; repairs to the old warehouse, $120; new warehouse, $200; fitting up office, $200; superintendent, $350; due the contractor, $400-making a total of $3,500. That will exhaust the $2,000 used out of last year's vote and the $1,500 we are asking for.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Was the warehouse built by the man who secured the original contract?


William Pugsley: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I find in the report of the Department of Public Works of 1908 that in addition to the construction of the wharf, an agreement was entered into with the contractor for the construction of two boat landings. May I ask if the contractor for the warehouse also built the two landing stages?


William Pugsley: I have no memorandum on that point.	.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am reading from the report of the engineer contained in the minister's report.


William Pugsley: In looking at it, it is evident that the landing stages would be included in the $11,709.23.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: So, the landing stages would be an extra. Were they constructed by the contractor who built the wharf?


William Pugsley: Yes, I take that to be the case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Can the minister give me the name of the contractor who built the wharf, or, if not, can he give the name of the man who built the warehouse?


William Pugsley: I have not a memorandum on that point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I feel like asking the minister to furnish the information. I can find in the Auditor General's Report the name of the man who built the wharf and

also the name of the man who built the landing stages, and I would like to know if it is the same contractor who built the warehouse.


William Pugsley: I will instruct the deputy minister to get that information, and, later, when we consider the general vote, my hon. friend (Mr. Rhodes) will have an opportunity of discussing it. Will that he satisfactory?
Bay St. Lawrence harbour, $5,800.


Mr. AMES.: How much was spent there last year?


William Pugsley: This is under contract. There was expended, up to the 30th December, to the contractor $20,890, and to the inspector $283.75-a total of $21,173.75.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the nature of the work?


William Pugsley: Providing a safe boat harbour by opening a channel about 360 feet long, with a width of 60 feet at the bottom and a depth of two feet at low water. This is made through the beach which separates the pond from the sea. There is also pier work on either side and protection of the channel on the inside.


Herbert Brown Ames: What will be the depth of water at high tide?


William Pugsley: Nine or ten feet, probably; I think the tide rises there about seven feet.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the engineer give it as his opinion that the sand will not fill up the channel?


William Pugsley: The belief is that building the protection work will have the effect of preventing the channel filling up.


Herbert Brown Ames: This does not make a harbour of refuge, as I understand it. I suppose it is only for the fishing fleet that fishes off the north end of Cape Breton?


William Pugsley: It is only for small boats, drawing nine or ten feet of water.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is a large expenditure for that purpose.
Big Bras d'Or wharf-close piling and repairs, $2,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is creosoted timber used there?


William Pugsley: Yes. The old piling is destroyed. This is a revote.
Blue Rocks harbour-improvements, $4,009.


William Pugsley: This is a revote also. It is to provide funds for the construction of a dam at the eastern end, and a breakwater at the western end of the harbour.


William Pugsley: No, by contract given after public advertisement and tender.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will this amount complete the work?
Mr. PUGSLEY;. This Us expected to complete the work.
Breton Cove-extension of breakwater pier,


William Pugsley: This is a work of diversion of the mouth of the stream to the north of the wharf. It is a revote. The work is under contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is it expected to accomplish?


William Pugsley: It is to prevent gravel from washing around the end of the wharf and so interfering with the boat landing.


Herbert Brown Ames: How extensive are these works?


William Pugsley: The amount is $5,788. This vote is to pay the balance.


Herbert Brown Ames: What will the works consist of when completed?


William Pugsley: An extension of the present breakwater pier, 120 feet out to deeper water.


Herbert Brown Ames: I doubt very much whether the work will stand. There is a tremendous sea there.


William Pugsley: We hope it will stand; and the engineer thinks it will.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is creosoted timber used there also?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Cheverie breakwater-extension of, $4,500.


Mr. JAMESON.: When was the contract entered into ?


William Pugsley: On the 16th of December, 1908.


Clarence Jameson: How many tenders were received?


William Pugsley: Four, ranging from $4,295 to $5,270. There were four tenders between those amounts.


Clarence Jameson: When were the tenders called for ?


William Pugsley: About a month previous to that time. It is expected this will finish the work.


Clarence Jameson: What is the extent of the extension ?


William Pugsley: Eighty feet.


Clarence Jameson: Is this work being done with creosoted timber.
I do not think this is


Herbert Brown Ames: Is this being carried on by Mr. PUGSLEY. day's work?	creosoted timber.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 


Clarence Jameson: What is the policy of the department, and on what principle does it use creosoted timber in some works and not in others ?


William Pugsley: Creosoted timber would be used in localities where the worms are found to be very destructive.
Church Point-repairs to wharf, $600.


William Pugsley: This is to finish up the work.


Clarence Jameson: Would the minister define what he means by conductor of works and sub-conductor ? I see that both of these titles appear in the Auditor General's Report.


William Pugsley: A conductor, my deputy informs me, is one who performs the functions usually performed by a foreman. A sub-conductor would be a labouring man who had an oversight of the work under the foreman.


Clarence Jameson: I see elsewhere in the Auditor General's Report that the terms foreman and subforeman are used in public works. Are these synonymous with conductor and sub-conductor?


William Pugsley: I think so.


Clarence Jameson: Is not a conductor merely an inspector, so to speak ?


William Pugsley: No, I think a conductor actually works himself.


Clarence Jameson: On this item I would like to refer to the landing pier at Westport, in the county of Digby, with regard to -which I asked the minister a question a few days ago. In the estimates of last year was an item of $3,000 for the purpose of beginning the construction of a public landing at Westport, and the minister informed me that nothing had been done, and it was not intended to go on with the woTk during the present year. Some time later when the matter of these deferred public works generally was under discussion, the minister made a statement of his policy in reply to a question. I will quote from ' Hansard ' page 1348 :


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Will the minister also give us the assurance that those public buildings which were in the estimates last year and which now are unfortunately discontinued, will be preferred and gone on with before other public buildings of a similar kind are initiated?


William Pugsley: I think that is a very fair question. I feel that is the course that I should pursue as Minister of Public Works, and will certainly reoommend to my colleagues. Of course there may be other cases arise, such as a public building being burned down or a wharf being carried away, which might create an exception, and we might have to include these new works, but as a general principle I am and would be committed to
those works which parliament was asked to sanction last year.


Clarence Jameson: Does that apply to breakwaters and wharfs as well as to public build-invs?


William Pugsley: Yes. Of course, if I were convinced that any work was not necessary I would have to think the matter over, but as at present advised I would adopt that course.


Clarence Jameson: I am referring to the items whioh were in the estimates last year and which are stricken out of the estimates of the present year, and which of course would not be placed in the estimates last year if the ministry did not consider they were justifiable.
Now I would like to ask the minister, because I am in receipt of many inquiries from Westport, whether he considers this public landing at Westport would be a work which, under the policy here stated, would be proceeded with next year. I may say that there is great need, and has been for many years, of a public landing at Westport. Westport is an important town where a large business is carried on, and which a laTge fleet of fishing and trading vessels frequents. It has steamboat connection with St. John, but owing to the extreme rise and fall of the tide there the people of that port and the travelling public generally, are very much incommoded from the lack of a proper landing place for vessels. In fact matters have come to such a pass that the steamer which calls from St. John is obliged to lay off in the stream at certain periods of the tide, and the only way the people can land is to wade through the water and mud to the shore, or to climb ashore bv means of lobster crates and devices of that character. I would urge upon the minister the necessity of the construction of that landing. It was promised last year and Was included in the estimates, but owing to the straightened financial condition,"he has not considered it advisable to go on with that work the present year. May I ask him if, under these circumstances, it will be one of those works to which preference will be given, and that the people in that district may look for the beginning of the work next year?


William Pugsley: I regret that I am not able to give any assurance with regard to this work, or with regard to other works, Specifically. I have nothing to add to the statement I made upon a previous occasion. Of course if I have to determine as between different works in the estimates, I might take up some works in preference to others according to the public necessity. But it did not follow from the remarks I made that all of the works in the estimates would be taken up at the same time. Some may have to stand over. Therefore, I hope my hon. friend will not ask me to give any specific promise as to this work. He will simply have to rely upon the statement I made of a general character on a previous occasion.


Clarence Jameson: It must have been recognized by the minister that there was a pressing necessity for a public landing at Westport when he included in the estimates of last year an appropriation towards its construction. Taking that as a basis and recognizing the necessity of the landing I will not ask whether it will be given preference over other works of a similar character which have been deferred, but I will ask whether it will not be given preference over new works for which there was no appropriation in last year's estimates?


William Pugsley: I cannot give my hon. friend any assurance, because it may be that when the time comes to provide for further works some will be brought to my notice of a much more pressing character than the particular work to which he refers.


Clarence Jameson: Then does the minister wish me to understand that he does not consider that this is a work which was necessary and that the appropriation which was made last year was made, not with the intention of going on with the work, but for some other purpose; or, does he believe that the work was necessary and that the appropriation of last year was honestly placed there?


William Pugsley: The amount that was placed in the estimates last year was placed there in good faith and with the sincere belief that the works were a public necessity. I do not at all wish to withdraw a single word which I uttered in this chamber on a previous occasion with regard to this. My hon. friend must see that where some $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 have been struck off my estimates the time will soon come when parliament would feel like providing for a portion of that amount. I might have half the amount placed at my disposal and then I would have to discriminate between works which might stand over and works which were more imperative. There might also be new works which would be of the most urgent character. Under these circumstances I could not be expected in any way to bind the government or parliament as to what appropriations would be passed upon a future occasion. The very best I can do is to rely upon the statement which I made and which is fully reported in ' Hansard.' As to giving individual promises that this or that work will be undertaken, I must decline to do so. I could not with any degree of propriety give any assurance as to what action may be taken by the government at the next or any subsequent session.


Clarence Jameson: The necessity for a public landing is greater and more urgent today than it was when that amount was placed in the estimates and the only changed condition, as far as Westport and the county of Digby generally is concerned, Mr. PUGSLEY.
is that a Conservative and not a Liberal is now representing that county in this parliament. I trust that that is not the reason upon which the minister is basing his remarks. I trust he will not allow a trifling matter of that sort to cause him to discriminate against Westport. Westport, has always been very faithful to Liberal traditions. Westport has always given a large Liberal majority. Westport has never had any assistance of this character from the public exchequer since 1896. Last year, when the election was imminent and when the people of Westport were beginning to be restive and suggested that they might not always support the Liberal policy, the promise was made to them that a public landing would be provided and an appropriation was placed in the estimates for its construction. Then the people of Westport did as they always have done in the past -walked up to the polls and gave a very good majority for the Liberal candidate. But the county generally did not follow their example and the Liberal canddate was unable to secure a majority in the county. But, I do not think that should be any reason why the people of Westport should be deprived of their share of the public moneys or why the minister should refrain from giving them any assurance that, so soon as the public funds will permit the construction of this work it will be proceeded with. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the minister if he has changed his mind with regard to the necessity of the work. I think it is only right and proper, in view of the fact that this item was stricken out of the estimates and people have been told that the work will not be proceeded with now that they should be given the reason why this has been so stricken out and that they should also be given some assurance as to whether the work will be proceeded with when the public funds permit of the undertaking being carried on.


William Pugsley: I have neither changed my mind nor have I seen any reason for changing my mind. But, as to giving any assurance, I do not feel that my hon. friend can properly ask me to do that.


John Stanfield: How much of the $l,j 200 voted last year was spent on the Brule wharf and how much of the $1,000 voted last year was spent on the Economy wharf?


William Pugsley: That is not in the estimates. If my hon. friend will be good enough to put a question in the House I shall be glad to answer it. The information I have here appertains to the estimates that I am asking the committee to vote.


John Stanfield: I thought your officers would know.


William Pugsley: They would not carry these things in their heads.


John Stanfield: The information I have got is that none of this money has been spent. As I stated some evenings ago, I suggested the appointment of men to look after the work to be done by day's work, but my men were not taken on. Of course, I know there was an election on last year and there will probably not be another for four years.


William Pugsley: Perhaps I am responsible that my hon. friend has not been further consulted with regard to the em-employment of the men because I really thought it would be imposing a burden on the hon. gentleman that he would not like to assume.


John Stanfield: If I had been consulted the money would have been spent honestly, and not stolen as it had been in the past. As to the Economy wharf it is known as the camel back wharf and I took a snap shot of it, but unfortunately when I developed the plate it did not turn out very well.


William Pugsley: Did it break the kodak?


John Stanfield: Well not quite. The approach to the wharf runs in a semicircle so that a team can hardly drive on to it. I cannot understand why for the sake of $1,000 the wharf is left in that condition. It would seem that wherever a Conservative is elected there is no money to be spent.


Mr. FRASER.: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the work at Naufrage pond, Prince Edward Island. At page 1347 of 'Hansard,' in reply to Mr. Ames the minister states that in the month of December the government made up their mind to drop certain public works for which tenders had been called. Further on he was asked by Mr. Foster to give a concrete instance of a public work for which tenders had been advertised but which would not be proceeded with, and the minister says:
There was the case of the Naufrage pond in Prince Edward Island. The constituency had been asking for this for a considerable time but the amount was large, and although we asked for tenders we concluded that we might allow that to stand for another year. The matter was referred to the chief engineer and he reported that he did not think the public interest would suffer if it were allowed to stand for another year.
Now, notwithstanding that statement of the minister I find at page 64 of the estimates for the coming year an item of $14,500 for protecting works at the entrance of Naufrage pond. There seems to be a discrepancy between the item in the estimates and the statement of the minister, and I would now ask him if it is the intention of the government to go ahead with the work this year?


William Pugsley: It would be more convenient if the hon. gentleman would ask me the question when we come to that item.
Clark's harbour-protection works, $800.


Clarence Jameson: What is the nature of the work at Clark's harbour?


William Pugsley: The construction of beach protection works to protect the houses, stores and boat landings from danger of encroachment by the sea.


Clarence Jameson: What has been expended previously on that?


William Pugsley: 


Clarence Jameson: What is the extent of these beach protection works?


William Pugsley: 926 feet long and 3 feet high.


Clarence Jameson: Does it run along a roadway or along private lands ?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


Clarence Jameson: It is very material that we should know that. There is a distinction between protecting public property, private property, and government property. Will this be for the protection of government property?


William Pugsley: It protects the property of quite a considerable number of people.


Clarence Jameson: Was there a petition in favour of this work?


William Pugsley: I think there must have been.


Clarence Jameson: This item should stand until the minister can tell us whether this work is to protect the property of some private individual or whether it is to protect work along some highway.


William Pugsley: There is no question but that it is to protect such a number of properties as to make it of an entirely public nature. It is in no sense to protect the property of a private individual in the sense my hon. friend suggests.


Clarence Jameson: Well, it must either be for the protection of public property or of private property.


William Pugsley: When you get a large number of people whose property is to be protected the protection becomes of a public nature.


Clarence Jameson: I am moved to ask these questions because some time ago the department was asked to protect property which is partly owned by the government, in Digby. I refer to the property locally known as Battery Point. It was protected many years ago but the protection work

has fallen into decay and the bank has tumbled down by the erosion of the tides, and has fallen into the harbour. The town of Digby has gone to very great expense in protecting the beach and foreshore generally, but they do not feel they should protect this particular government property nor indeed are they financially able to do so. If the minister thinks a policy of protecting the property of individuals is justifiable, is it not more obviously necessary to protect the property of the government?


William Pugsley: I think it is the duty of the government reasonably to protect its own property.


Clarence Jameson: Then will the minister make a note of this so that he may make provision for the protection of this property?


William Pugsley: I will make a note of it with pleasure.
Cow hay-Port Morien.-harbour improvements, $5,000.


James William Maddin: How much was spent on that breakwater in the year 1908?	$18,000
was voted, and $2,500 is re-voted now.


William Pugsley: That would leave $15,500 as our expenditure to the 31st of this month.


James William Maddin: There would be no expenditure during the months of December, January, February and March on a breakwater at Cow bay?


William Pugsley: I do not know that that would be the case. I should think material could be got out during that time.


James William Maddin: In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1907, the material that was used in those months was a little hardware, some white duck and some cement.


William Pugsley: Could they not manufacture concrete blocks in the winter?


James William Maddin: No, they could not.


William Pugsley: I have an impression that they could. They do.


James William Maddin: They do manufacture concrete blocks two feet square for the purpose of erecting buildings; but they do not make concrete blocks for breakwaters of the dimensions mentioned in the report of the Minister of Public Works. These blocks are not made and then transported and dumped into the harbour. They are erected in the water at low tide, and that could not be done in the winter time. Were tenders asked for this work in 1907 or 1908?


William Pugsley: No. The opinion of the chief engineer was that this work latterly had better be done bv day work.


Clarence Jameson: 


James William Maddin: Would the minister consider that the man in charge of building a breakwater of this character should be a man having a special knowledge of the building of breakwaters, the mixing of concrete and that sort of thing?


William Pugsley: I should say he should have a thorough knowledge of it.


James William Maddin: Is the minister aware that P. J. Leslie, who did the work in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1907, who used 2,513 barrels of sand and 1,873 barrels of cement, and who superintended the work at $3 per day, is a lobster packer, who packs his catch at Port Morien in the summer time and lives at Halifax in the winter months?


William Pugsley: I am not aware of that.


James William Maddin: Is the minister learning that for the first time now?


William Pugsley: This is the first time I have heard of it.


James William Maddin: Who recommended Mr. Leslie to the department?


William Pugsley: The inspector is always approved of by the engineer in charge.


James William Maddin: Who was the engineer in charge?


William Pugsley: Mr. Millidge is, I think, the resident engineer there. .


James William Maddin: Who was in charge during the last fiscal year ending the 31st of March of this year?


William Pugsley: I think Mr. Leslie is still in charge, but I am not quite sure as to that.


James William Maddin: Does the minister know as a matter of fact who was in charge during the expenditure of the sum of $15,500?


William Pugsley: My memorandum shows that Mr. Leslie is still in charge; but if my hon. friend says that he was not, I will look it up.


James William Maddin: Is the minister of Public Works aware that the man who succeeded Leslie and had charge of that work during the summer and up to October, 1908, was a butcher of the name of McLeod, who if building a flue or a foundation to his House, would hire a mason' Mr. PUGSLEY. I am not aware of that.


James William Maddin: Will the minister tell me who recommended the person in charge of the work for the fiscal year 1908-09?


William Pugsley: I am sorry to say I have no memorandum in reference to that.


James William Maddin: In view of the fact that this breakwater is of considerable importance to Port Morien, that it was built by

the Gowrie, Blockhouse and Coal Mining Company previous to 1873, that it originally extended a distance of 1,374 feet, practically a quarter of a mile, to 17 feet at low water or to 23 feet at high water, and was about 44 feet in width; that the property was subsequently transferred to the Dominion Coal Company; that part of the breakwater was destroyed by the August gale of 1873; that the present structure is 1,114 feet long, that is, 160 feet shorter than it was when the Gowrie Blockhouse and Coal Mining Company constructed it; and in view of the development of mining areas there by their successors, the Dominion Coal Company, and the recently commenced developments of the North Atlantic Colliery Company, which would indicate that a great deal of shipping would be made from that port; in view also of the fact that $15,500 has been spent on this breakwater in 1907-08 and $11,500 in 1906-07, and that $5,000 is to be expended in the incoming year, making a total expenditure of $32,000 in three years; does it not appear to the minister that it would be wise to have this money spent by some one who understood the construction of breakwaters, under the circumstances that obtain at that particular point, where the gales have carried away from time to time considerable portions of this breakwater? The minister's own report says that in 1895 it was torn to pieces.


William Pugsley: I suppose it was not being as well constructed then as it is now.


James William Maddin: It has been going to pieces again in 1908, and it will continue to go to pieces so long as butchers and lobster packers dump concrete cement in canvas bags on that coast in the month of October. I submit, in view of the necessity of this breakwater, that a survey should be made and estimates obtained for the purpose of building a permanent structure. The expenditure of such large sums should be made through contractors under tender and give to that harbour a permanent structure instead of expending money in such a manner as cannot give permanent satisfaction. In 1907-08, when $11,509 were spent, that expenditure covered a period of over 180 working days during which 12 men per day on an average were working. It is common knowledge to any one familiar with that coast that in the months of April and May, with high spring tides and strong winds from the north-east, and drifting ice hanging about that part of the coast, especially in 1907, when that harbour was ice-bound until the 7th June, it must be manifest that the suspension of canvas sacks down the side of the breakwater and filling with cement is not calculated to make a permanent structure, such as a breakwater. Is it the minister's intention to have the further sum of $5,000 spent by some butcher or lobster packer or by someone who has some knowledge of the work the government purposes to undertake?


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman give me the assurance that the inspector is not a practical man in concrete work ?


James William Maddin: I would say that Mr. Leslie is not a competent man to undertake the repairs of a breakwater of this kind. He has no experience either in stone work or concrete, and the man who suc-ceded him is if anything more incompetent than Mr. Leslie, not having had the experience at the expense of the government which Mr. Leslie had.


William Pugsley: I am glad the matter has been brought to my notice. I shall have inquiry made to ascertain if the inspector is not a practical man having practical knowledge of concrete work. _ It is important he should be, because it is work which depends greatly on the quality of the cement used and the mode of mixing it.
I shall have inquiries made at once, and if I find that the inspector is not a practical man, I shall see that one is put on the works. The instructions given to the resident engineer are always to find out whether the man suggested as inspector is a practical man.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: What are his political affiliations?


William Pugsley: That does not concern me.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the same letter issued to the resident engineers in Nova Scotia as is issued to those in Quebec, instructing them to apply to the local member for foremen of their various works?


William Pugsley: The same letter.


Herbert Brown Ames: The department sends a letter from Ottawa to the local resident engineer telling him to appoint no foremen except on consultation with the local Liberal member.


William Pugsley: I do not think these are the terms of the letter, but if my hon. friend has it he can correct me. What is done is that the resident engineer is instructed to confer with the member as to the employment of the foreman, but his positive instructions are not to engage any man in special work of this nature unless he is a practical man and has practical knowledge.


John Allister Currie: Would the minister produce a copy of the letter sent by the department so that we may have it on record?


William Pugsley: If there is a motion made in the regular way the letter will be brought down.


John Allister Currie: Is. it not the rule of the House that if a minister refers to a document he must produce it?


William Pugsley: The reference was made by the hon. member for St. Antoine. What I said was that any letters sent out to the other provinces were not different from the ones sent to Quebec.


James William Maddin: Adverting again to Mr. Leslie at Cow Bay, in view of the fact that the lobster season begins in the latter part of March and continues to June.


William Pugsley: Is the hon. gentleman opposed to the item passing?


James William Maddin: Certainly not.


William Pugsley: Then it might be as well for him not to obstruct it.


James William Maddin: I am not opposed to the expenditure. If I have any fault to find it is that the break-water is inadequate. What I am opposed to is the system of expenditure. We could have a better break-water there if the money had been judiciously expended. In view of the fact that the lobster packing begins in the spring, is it proper that Mr. Leslie should draw $3 a day for inspecting the work on the breakwater when he is at the same time superintending the packing of lobsters when he employs a large number of people. In other words, does the Minister of Public Works think it advisable to encourage a man like Mr. Leslie to try to serve two masters?


William Pugsley: I think that, if he is appointed inspector he should be there.


Mr. CROSBY.: I do not think there is any desire on the part of anybody who knows this work to obstruct the expenditure. I know Mr. Leslie, the gentleman who has been referred to, to be a decent, respectable man. I know that he does not live in this place, but he lives in part of the Sutv Bay and Port Halifax and Halifax City.


William Pugsley: Where does he live in the summer ?


Adam Brown Crosby: For a few months in the summer, he is in Cow Bay packing lobsters as the _ minister has been informed. I should judge from the information that we get from the minister that he did not know much about Mr. Leslie, but he is bound to make inquiry and to remove any wrong.
1 he expenditure on this breakwater is one that is required; I know the locality well, and I know that this is an important work. But the minister, I am sure, will not complain when we try to give him. information that will assist in the best expenditure of this money, because we wish the money to be spent to the best advantage, as I am sure the minister does also. If, even at this late date, he finds that the man in charge
of the work should not be in charge


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: What does the hon. member (Mr. Crosby) think of Mr. Leslie?


Adam Brown Crosby: I have said he is a decent, respectable man, and a good citizen. If he has a fault, it is that he is a strong Liberal.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman think that Mr. Leslie is competent for this
work ?


Adam Brown Crosby: I think he knows no more about concrete work than does the hon. gentleman who is now addressing the committee-'and that is not much.


William Pugsley: I will look into it at
once.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister should see to it that proper men are put in charge of the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Mad-din) is a very important one. A great deal of money is expended on operations done by day's work under the Public Works Department, and it is to be expected and desired that the persons in charge of these works should be compentent men, selected by the engineer without outside interference, and purely because they are able men for the work. In our province, there has been a system of applying to the local member, not for advice, but for the absolute choice of the man who shall be placed in charge of each of these works. Here is a letter, dated May 4, and addressed to Mr. J. c! Tache, resident engineer of the Department of Public Works at Chicoutimi, and the question I was putting to the minister a few moments ago is whether a similar letter is sent to the resident engineers throughout Nova Scotia, and whether a similar system is adopted in the choice of a foreman to overlook day's work in that province. This letter is written by the chief engineer at Ottawa to the resident engineer at Chicoutimi :	,
I am directed by the hon. the minister to authorize you to proceed, by day labour, with the works at the following places, for which appropriations have been granted by parliament during the session just ended. Will you please apply to the persons mentioned for the names of competent foremen, or for any other information which you may require in connection with the works in their respective counties.
And the name given here is that of Joseph Girard, M.P., for Chicoutimi and Saguenay. The letter proceeds :
You will please bear in mind that the above-mentioned sum must on no account be over-expended, and I would ask you to give positive instructions to the foremen to that effect. The foremen are to be paid at the rate of $2.50 per day, unless you are otherwise instructed.
There is absolutely nothing in that letter from the chief engineer, acting under

the minister, demanding that the resident engineer shall choose competent men and men who have knowledge of the work under their charge. The only thing he is told to do is to apply to the local member and put on the job whomsoever he recommends.


William Pugsley: It says ' competent foremen.'


Herbert Brown Ames: But the judging of their competency is left to the local member.


William Pugsley: By no means.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it under this system that the lobster packer and butcher have been chosen to superintend the work at Cow Bay, where we are spending from $10,000 to $15,000 a year ?


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: I would point out that my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) is hardly fair or candid in dealing with this subject when he attempts to misconstrue the letter to which he has referred so as to lead the committee to believe that it did not rest with the engineer to determine the competency of the men who might be recommended by Mr. Girard. The ordinary rules of grammatical interpretation of any document must show us that the letter calls for competent men who may be recommended by Mr. Girard, and that as to their competency, .the resident engineer himself is to determine. And the minister informs me that there were special instructions besides. The engineer was asked to secure, on Mr. Girard's nomination, competent men. That could not be determined by a member of parliament but was to' be determined by the engineer responsible for the work. The naming of the man would be for the member, but the judging of his competency would be for the engineer. I do not think that the hon. member (Mr. Ames) is so innocent as not to know that this system of getting members of parliament to recommend men who might be employed in matters of this kind has been going on since confederation. It is no great discovery to make in this forty-second year of confederation that men are recommended for employment by members supporting the government. Is there anything new, or anything very wrong about it?


Herbert Brown Ames: ' By their fruits ye shall know them.' And what kind of men do we get?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As good men, and in many cases better than those the country had when my hon. friend's friends were in power. Who are the best judges of these men unless it be the representative of the county? And who knows the men better than the man who represents the county?


Adam Brown Crosby: That is Mr. Maddin.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Apparently, he does not want it, and besides he is not in the confidence of the government.


Adam Brown Crosby: The hon. gentleman said ' representative.'


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In this case I was discussing what my hon. friend from St. Antoine had said with regard to Chicoutimi and Mr. Girard, and was dealing with this case as one illustrating the general principle. The question of recommending to the government a man to have charge of an expenditure is not a question of competency only. A map. might be competent but not honest; he might not want the government instructions to be carried out, and certainly the government would not want to be responsible for a man who is not recommended by one in whom they have confidence. Is this a new doctrine? Why do these hon. gentlemen prate about a thing that their friends did when they were in power, and would do again if they came into power to-morrow? We might as well be frank about this. No government would accept the recommendation of a man who did not have their confidence. Only yesterday, my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) started a discussion which took the whole afternoon about an expenditure in Nova Scotia. But if the Conservative candidate in that riding had been elected and sat here as a representative even if he had not recommended the man in charge, they would not have raised any question about that expenditure. If recommendations of the men who are to be inspectors were left in the hands of the opponents of the government, what a nice time hon. gentlemen opposite would have criticising the Minister of Public Works.


Herbert Brown Ames: I should be sorry to believe that the ideals which the member for Pic-tou (Mr. Macdonald) says are shared by all, are likely to be the ideals which are forever to obtain in this country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is my hon. friend any better than his party, when he is claiming high ideals? Any better than Sir John Thompson, or Sir John A. Macdonald, who led his party before him, and who instituted that system?


Herbert Brown Ames: I would think that the practice the Minister of Public Works should adopt would be for his chief engineer to secure, in the first place, a competent resident engineer, and then let him choose the most competent man to be found in the neighbourhood as inspector of the construction of the public work. Then I think we would get honest work done, work that was worth 100 cents on the dollar.


Adam Brown Crosby: We are here discussing a question of expenditure, because we have

reason to believe that there has been waste in connection with it. I know this Mr. Leslie, he is a councillor in the municipality of Halifax. I do not know whether he understands the kind of concrete that should be used in this breakwater, but he may understand some other kind of concrete he gets from the government. He is not a man I would select to superintend the building of a concrete work. In the county of Cape Breton there must be somebody that knows just as much about concrete work as Mr. Leslie; therefore it is strange that he should be appointed to a position of that kind, when he is not a resident of the county, does not live near the county at all, but only visits there during the lobster season, which lasts only about six weeks in the summer. I would have no objection to the appointment of a Liberal if he was suitable for the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister has not a.nswer-ed my question as to whether a similar letter is issued to his officials in Nova Scotia?


William Pugsley: I have not seen any letter issued in Nova Scotia, but I have no doubt similar instructions are given to the resident engineers.


Herbert Brown Ames: The member for Pictou has intimated that there are other instructions which go with it.


William Pugsley: We are in touch with the resident engineers all the time, and they understand that it is their duty not to accept as inspector any man who in their judgment is not thoroughly competent to inspect the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understood the minister to say that written instructions accompany the letter.


William Pugsley: They have their general instructions, they understand that in no case shall they accept an inspector who is not thoroughly competent.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then will the minister lay on the table to-morrow any letter of this character which is issued to resident engineers in Nova Scotia, together with any other instructions which may accompany the same?


William Pugsley: Yes, to-morrow, or at an early date, if there are such.


Samuel Hughes: Can the minister mention an instance where the resident engineer has declined to accept the nominee of the party?'


William Pugsley: Not at the moment, but I know it has happened.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: There are a number of constituencies in Nova Scotia that are not represented by members supporting the government. I would like to know upon whose recommendation, in those eonstitu-Mr. CROSBY.
encies, the resident engineer appoints an inspector?


William Pugsley: The instructions in that case were to confer with the gentleman who had run in the interest of the government. That is the course which has always been pursued.


James Davis Taylor: In view of this statement by the minister, it is a question whether we should proceed any further with the consideration of this vote. It seems to me a shocking statement for a responsible minister to make to this parliament, that the government should adopt so low an ideal, that they should place in the hands of a defeated candidate the appointing power, no matter how small may be the number of electors who voted for him, and no matter what his standing in the community may be.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What would the hon. gentleman say if he was defeated by a bogus telegram?


James Davis Taylor: I was saying when the hon. gentleman so rudely interrupted me


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It is not in order to attribute rudeness to an hon. member.


James Davis Taylor: The Chairman reminds me that it is not in order to describe the remark of the hon. member, but I would like to say that it is much more an offence for any hon. gentleman to be rude to a member who is addressing the House than it is for the member who is on his feet to express his view of the interruption. But, since the falsifying of a telegram is introduced into this discussion I would like to ask the hon. gentleman who has interrupted me why he does not first pay attention to his own household, why he does not first have an investigation into his own Department of Justice which is much closer to him than the location of the despatch to which he has alluded.
I would like to call his attention to the


William Pugsley: Do you not think, Mr Chairman, that instead of discussing William Miner we might take up this item?


James Davis Taylor: -falsification of the telegram addressed to the Department of Justice and ask if these hon. gentlemen have taken any precaution to investigate that. I say that until they do take that precaution it ill becomes them to refer to any other despatch of that nature. Apologizing for this digression, made in answer to the unseemly interruption of the hon. gentleman, I would like to return to the subject which brought me to my feet and say that I do not think we should subscribe to the extraordinary doctrine laid down by the Minister of Public Works that he should

accept the advice of persons outside of this parliament, who have been rejected by the electors of any constituency, who have been turned down and whose places have been taken by the men who sit in this House. We should not subscribe to the doctrine enunciated by the minister that he should take their advice in preference to ours. That is a doctrine which is offensive to the dignity of this House, one to which this House should not assent, and the fact that it has been laid down by the Minister of Public Works on this occasion is a sufficient ground for us to declare a halt in these proceedings and ask for the adjournment of this committee so that we may take into consideration whether or not the parliament of Canada subscribes to a standard so low.


John Allister Currie: We all recall the words of the minister earlier m the session when he stated that the patronage list had been entirely abolished. Has the minister issued fresh instructions since then to the responsible engineers asking them to discontinue the old system of making appointments and to select only the best men.


William Pugsley: There has been no change in the instructions which have gone to the engineers as to the appointment of foremen and the selection of their men.
Cow Bay Run and Osbornes-breakwaters,


William Pugsley: This is a revote to complete the work.
Cribbin's Point wharf-part renewal of superstructure, $3,300.


William Pugsley: This is a revote to complete the repairs.
Digby harbour -* improvements, including repairs and additions to pier, $30,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract.


Clarence Jameson: Who has the contract?


William Pugsley: Messrs. G. E. and A. Bigelow.


Clarence Jameson: What are the terms of the contract?


William Pugsley: The date of the contract is the 22nd of May, 1908, and the date of completion is the 22nd of November, 1909.


Clarence Jameson: What will be the rate of remuneration?


William Pugsley: The foreman on the works according to my memorandum is to get $2.50 per day.


Clarence Jameson: What is the amount of the contract?


William Pugsley: $17,900. This will construct the spur pier. It does not include the taking down of the old pier and rebuilding it with creosoted timber.


Clarence Jameson: Does this include anything for the reconstruction of the old work?


William Pugsley: We will require about $30,000 more to finish up the whole work.
Harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-harbours, rivers and bridges-general repairs and improvements, $30,000.


William Pugsley: This is a general vote.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is there anything included in this for the construction of a wharf at Spry bay, Halifax county? Was it not commenced last year?


William Pugsley: Yes, we spent $269 last year and if any small amount is required we can take it out of the general vote for this year.


Adam Brown Crosby: The work that was done there was very small and in order to make it of any service it will be necessary to have some further work done there this year.


William Pugsley: No doubt that will be considered by the engineers.


Adam Brown Crosby: There is a wharf in Halifax county at Peswick near Musquodo-boit. There was a wharf constructed at the head of the harbour. While it serves a good purpose there it would have been of greater service if it had been constructed nearer the mouth of the harbour on the west side. There should be a further expenditure of $1,000 to build a block for the use of the fishermen at the mouth of the harbour. I would like to bring that to the notice of the minister and I would be glad if he would ask his engineers to make some inquiry about it.


William Pugsley: I will have an inquiry made.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Will the minister explain the reason for inserting the word 'bridges' in this item ?


William Pugsley: That has no application to Nova Scotia but it is a general term used in reference to the other provinces where there may be inter-provincial bridges.


John Stanfield: It might apply to the bridge the minister built at Tatamagouche Bay about a year ago.


William Pugsley: That was a wharf.


John Stanfield: The photograph shows it is a bridge.


William Pugsley: The province built the bridge.


John Stanfield: Well, it has dropped down about 18 inches and is in need of repair.


William Pugsley: That is worthy of attention.


Clarence Jameson: I wish to refer to the Sandy Cove breakwater which was built by the government in 1904. The minister, in reply to questions put to him this session stated that the contractors for this breakwater were released and their deposit of $800 returned to them on the 3rd of December, 1904. Subsequent to that the department received notice that a number of labourers on that work were unpaid and that certain men who had furnished material which had gone into its construction also remained unpaid. This woVk was constructed at Sandy Cove on Digby Neck which there is about one mile in width. There are properly speaking two coves, one on the bay of Fundy side and one on St. Mary's bay side, and the village of Sandy Cove is located


William Pugsley: To which item is the hon. gentleman speaking ?


Clarence Jameson: I am speaking on the item before the committee.


William Pugsley: I do not wish to interfere with the hon. gentleman discussing a question of this kind but it certainly does not arise on the vote now before the House. Let me say that this claim which the hon. gentleman is referring to has already been pressed upon the attention of the government just as strong as the hon. gentleman can press it. It has been pressed on the government by his predecessor and by the hon. member for Antigonish and the matter is now under consideration. There is nothing which my hon. friend can say to-night which can affect the determination of the question.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Jameson) is perfectly in order in speaking as he does on this item.


William Pugsley: This is a claim against the government which if granted would be a matter of grace on the part of the department and which would require a special appropriation.


Clarence Jameson: I will ask the Chairman if I am in order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I was not following very closely the remarks of the hon. gentleman but on an item such as this I think it would be quite competent to refer to a vote which the hon. gentleman would desire to have in the estimates. I would not be prepared to rule that out of order.


William Pugsley: This work is not paid out of this general vote. There was a special appropriation for it and the claim referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jameson) is in no way pertinent to this item.


Clarence Jameson: I will continue what I was saying when the minister interrupted me.


William Pugsley: What is your ruling, Mr. Chairman, in view of my statement?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If it is a matter which is under the consideration of the government in an official way it might be as well for the hon. gentleman not to press it. As there are special circumstances in connection with it a long discussion on this item would not appear to be in order.


Clarence Jameson: The minister stated in reply to a question of mine that these claims had been received by the government on the 20th June, 1905, and as they have been so long under consideration I think it is mv duty to refresh the memory of the minister with regard to them. As I was saying when interrupted, this wharf was unfortunately located on the Bay of Fundy shore and not at the village of Sandy Cove proper. The construction of the work involved an expenditure larger than the contractors had estimated, and it appears they were unable to meet the cost of construction out of the money they received from 'the government. I shall not now speak in regard to the large claim of Mr. J. D. Kirk for $2,085.50 but I shall specially deal with the claims of a number of poor men, residents of that locality, for labour performed and material supplied. They supplied the labour and the material in good faith expecting to get paid for it, but their pay was not forthcoming and the government released the contractors and returned to them their deposit of $800. The government has taken over the work, and while I believe that the expenditure was not justified because of the location, as it should have been constructed on the St. Mary'* Bay side of Digby Neck and at the village of Sandy Cove, where it would have been of considerable usefulness and would have assisted in the building up of that village, yet at the same time I do believe that the men who performed this labour and supplied the material should be paid. The government has taken over the work and has the advantage of the time and labour and material supplied by the men who have made the claims. If the work was justified, as it must have been in the opinion of the department before the expenditure was made, then these men have a very strong claim on the government for the amount still due them. I am not asking that anything be done for the contractors ; I am not asking that anything be done for any one except the poor men who performed the labour and supplied the timber. I do think that their claim should be considered by the government and that payment to them should not be any longer deferred.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In justice to the residents of a certain district of my county, I desire


William Pugsley: to bring to the minister's attention the fact that a portion of an item of $5,000 which was in the estimates last year was, I believe, expended on the construction of a wharf at Joggin's Mines. I have been advised that, owing to the work having been stopped last season and fenders not having been placed on the sides of the wharf, the work thus far done is likely to go for naught. I feel it my duty to bring the matter to the attention of the minister in the interest of public property.


William Pugsley: I will have it looked into.
Little Narrows wharf, $1,200.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is this a repair to an existing wharf?


William Pugsley: No, it is for the construction of a small wharf.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it to be built of creo-soted timber?


William Pugsley: We have no detailed plan yet.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand that the water there is largely populated by the teredo, the worm that destroys timber.


William Pugsley: If we find on the report of the engineer that it is necessary, we will have it creosoted.
Middle river-shear dams, $700.


William Pugsley: That is a revote.


Herbert Brown Ames: I know that it is a revote, but it never should have been voted in the first place. As I understand it, when voting for the harbours and rivers of Nova Scotia, the term rivers means navigable rivers, for the purpose of assisting shipping. There is a small stream in Cape Breton, a trout stream which I have fished in on more than one occasion, which contains so little water in summer time that one can wade across it without getting wet above his ankles; but sometimes, when the water is high, the farm land is washed into this brook, and the department has been persuaded somehow or other that it is a part of the duty of the federal authorities to build shear dams along the banks of this small river eleven miles inland. I can imagine no excuse that can be urged that can bring that expenditure properly under the vote we are being asked for. While I do not wish to divide the House to-night, I wish to go on record as protesting against that expenditure as being wholly and completely outside of our domain. If that principle were carried out generally, and every little river in any province where there was danger of farm land being washed away by the spring freshets, was to have cribwork built along its banks by the Dominion government, and the farmers whose land was protected were paid $2.50 a
day for building it, the department would see no end to the demands that would be made upon it. In these days of economy, when we want to spend our money as carefully as possible, it seems to me that the minister should avoid expenditures of this character, which have no other than a political end.


William Pugsley: This is a class of work which has been done more or less by all governments since confederation.


Samuel Hughes: Can the minister cite any instance?


William Pugsley: Oh, yes. In the province of New Brunswick, on the upper waters of the St. John river, ever since confederation, a few hundred dollars have been expended each year for the purpose of blasting out rocks.


Samuel Hughes: That is because it is an international river.


William Pugsley: Not at that point. Then, in the province of British Columbia work has been done, at the joint expense of the federal and provincial governments, on the Fraser and other rivers for the protection of the banks.


Samuel Hughes: The Fraser is a navigable river.


William Pugsley: The work has not been for the benefit of navigation, but for the protection of the property of the people living along the banks. In the same way twenty years ago work was done on the South Nation river, not to improve navigation, but for the purpose of enabling the water to flow more rapidly, and so preventing the lands being flooded. In the province of Nova Scotia and also in Quebec and Ontario, protection works of the same kind have been carried on. It has been done to a certain extent by both governments. Last session parliament made an appropriation to cut a channel across a portion of land near Portage la Prairie, the effect of which, it is asserted, will be to prevent the flooding of some 40,000 acres. Therefore, it is a question of degree. I admit very frankly that if this work were new, I would not at this moment and in the state of the revenues ask parliament for an appropriation; but the small amount now being asked is to complete the work which has already been begun.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is only this to be said, that the rivers the minister has cited are all rivers in point of fact; and while what he describes may not be defensible, the crime is not so great as it is in this particular case. There is no reason why the land of the particular men on this little stream, several miles inland, should I be protected any more than that of others,

but they had some strong pull. There are. I venture to say, in Nova Scotia, 500 streams as to which a similar excuse could be urged, and if we once commence spending moneys for this purpose, there will be no end to the demands and no possibility of refusing any.


John Allister Currie: As the minister has enunciated the policy of the government on this matter, I would like to call his attention to the fact that there is a very large stream running through the country I represent, the Nottawasaga river, which is navigable for about thirty miles, and has been used for many years as a means of transportation to the north. This river overflows every spring and renders useless some 30,000 acres of most valuable land in that section. In the province of Ontario we have not been accustomed to receive many of those favours. People have to go down into their own pockets to pay for these works, and in this case those interested have not seen fit to carry on the work for many years, but last session the Ontario government gave something towards cutting that river wider and deepening it so as to protect this land.


William Pugsley: It is undoubtedly proper provincial work.


Mr.   .T. A.@: CURRIE In the province of Ontario these works are provincial works, but not in the other provinces. I would ask the minister to bear this in mind as possibly his department may be asked to assist in that work along that river. If so, I trust he will give it the same consideration that he does these small trout streams in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.
Minasville wharf at Dalrymple Point, $9,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the construction of a breakwater, 300 feet long, 16 feet wide at the top, 4 feet deep at the shore and 19 feet at the outer end. Quite a number of vessels come there for lumber as well as fishing boats.


Clarence Jameson: Was this under contract?


William Pugsley: Yes, six tenders were received and the contract was let to Bigelow and Co., for $7,985. This will complete the work.
Port Hastings wharf, $11,600.


William Pugsley: Tenders were called for and a contract entered into with W. J. Landrey, of Antigonish. This will complete the work.
Portuguese Cove breakwater-to complete payments to contractors Reid & Archibald on final estimates inclusive of interest accrued at 5 per cent per annum on overdue balance of $1,120-revote of lapsed amount, $1,100.


Herbert Brown Ames: 


Adam Brown Crosby: This is a very important work, and I would bring to the notice of the minister the necessity of having a construction at the end of the breakwater, a kind of tee. This is necessary to make it complete.


William Pugsley: I will consider this
suggestion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Why is 5 per cent interest to be paid to the contractor?


William Pugsley: This is a delayed payment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What amount is the interest?


William Pugsley: South Lake Lakevale-opening channel from Lake St. George's bay, inclusive of protection work, $6,500.


William Pugsley: I move to reduce that item by $4,500. The amount will be provided for in the supplementary estimates of the current year.


Herbert Brown Ames: That is, $4,500 will be asked foi that will be spent in the year 1908-9?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is it required for?


William Pugsley: For the work of opening the channel.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has the $4,500 already been spent?


William Pugsley: It will be spent before the end of the current year.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it all, or practically all, owing in wages at the present time?


William Pugsley: Yes, practically.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has it been owing since last September, October and November?


William Pugsley: I cannot give the particulars. There was a mistake-I do not know whether the fault of the resident engineer or the printer-and there was delay in making provision for it, and we understood that by leaving the whole amount in the estimates of the coming year, it would delay payment, and so we intend to ask for $4,500 in the supplementaries of the current year.


Herbert Brown Ames: Last year the amount asked was $5,625. But the Minister of Finance said:
That estimate was made some time ago. Progress has been made so that so large an amount is not required. I propose to reduce the item to $700 and move that the amount be reduced accordingly.
So, we were given to understand that $700 would be all that would be required, but in addition, $4,500 has been spent. Who made the mistake?


William Pugsley: It was reduced through ar. error. There is a good deal of correspondence, and the matter has taken a good deal of trouble to straighten out. It was a mistake to have the vote reduced last year.


Herbert Brown Ames: It was a mistake. In this way, if I am rightly informed: the work was commenced and was continued until the appropriation was exhausted. Legally, no more money could be expended at that point. But the elections were close at hand, and Antigonish was a close county, and the member for the county felt that it would not be well to have the work stop suddenly in September or October. So the work was continued; the men were hired but not paid, and they continued to work until some time after the election. The form of irregularity may have been avoided by not paying out money, still, the amount of $4,500 wages is due to these men for the last four or five months. That is my information.


William Pugsley: Quite right.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is that the principle followed in the department-that if a fund is exhausted, the department feels justified in keeping men at work trusting to a subsequent parliament to see that they are paid?


William Pugsley: The moment an appropriation is exhausted, or even when it is about exhausted, instructions go from the chief engineer to the resident engineer to stop the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: Why not in this case?


William Pugsley: The amount required for this work was placed in the printed estimates which were passed by the committee, and went to the chief engineer and he gave his instructions to the resident engineer, not being aware that on concurrence the amount was reduced. But that reduction was made in error. Ordinarily, when an appropriation is about exhausted, the chief engineer sends out word to the resident engineer and the work is stopped. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) will remember that in the very letter he quoted the instructions to the resident engineer were that the amounts voted must not be over expended.


Herbert Brown Ames: But the hon. gentleman does not touch the real point. It is hardly credible that the season would have nearly slipped by before the engineer found that only $700 had been voted. That must have been discovered with the first pay -roll that came up exceeding the $700. Yet other pay-rolls came up week after week and month after month, and these were not repudiated. A search of the files of correspondence with the local men would show why the work was not stopped. We are
justified in protesting against this as an absolute irregularity. When the appropriation was exhausted, the department instead of discharging the men and taking the risk of losing the county-


William Pugsley: The hon. member is entirely in error.


Herbert Brown Ames: This opens up a method of doing business under stress of political pressure which shakes considerably the confidence of the people in the department. We have supposed, here in parliament, that when an appropriation for one of these works is exhausted, the work shall cease. It is a principle that has been fought for for hundreds of years that money that is not voted cannot be spent. When the appropriation was exhausted, the government should not have continued the work, even at the strenuous request of the hon. member for Antigonish to employ the men on that wharf. Is this the only case the minister knows of arising in the months of October or November?


William Pugsley: I am sorry to see the hon. gentleman so suspicious; one so good should be disposed to be charitable. The hon. gentleman jumps at the conclusion that what was done was done at the instance of the local men.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the hon. minister say that there are no letters on file to that effect?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: This was brought to my notice, and, so far as I know, no communication of any kind took place with the local men. The correspondence arose between the chief engineer of the department and the resident engineer. As I have stated, the amount was voted, and, on the strength of that the timber was procured and the work commenced. But owing to a misunderstanding, the amount was reduced on concurrence. Now at that time the work had been commenced, the timber had been bought. The deputy minister brought the matter to my notice, and I made inquiry and found a report from the resident engineer stating that unless the work was carried to completion, what was done would be absolutely destroyed and the money wasted. Under these circumstances I authorized the engineer to allow the resident engineer to go on. I thought the proper thing to do was to finish up the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: When the minister gave that authority, did he expect that the men would be paid as they did their work ? Were the men given to understand as they worked through September, October and November, that the appropriation was exhausted, and that they would not get their money until

parliament had met and voted another appropriation ? Was it just to the men to keep them at work on the expectation that money was coming from Ottawa when no money had been voted?


William Pugsley: The engineer was told to inform the men they would have to wait for their pay.


Herbert Brown Ames: Did the engineer inform the men while they were still at work during those three months, that they would have to wait till parliament voted more money ?


William Pugsley: He was instructed to do so, and I presume he did.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the minister lay on the table all the papers he has in connection with this transaction, within the next few days?


William Pugsley: I will do so.


Samuel Hughes: Was the minister within his right in ordering this work to go on when only $700 had been voted ? Was the minister within his right in ordering the expenditure of $7,000 more ?


William Pugsley: I have explained that this work was done in order to prevent the loss of materials and the destruction of work ^ already done. Something similar to that is done always when a contract is let. Parliament may vote $5,000 or $10,000 for carrying on a work, which may ultimately cost three times that. But the contract is entered into subject always to parliament appropriating the necessary amounts. The contractor goes on, but of course he has to trust to (parliament making the necessary appropriation later.


Samuel Hughes: Have these men been paid from any other fund, or any other source, or is the money due to these men personally ?


William Pugsley: I do not know whether the men have been paid yet or not. I could find out. I will undertake to get that information.


William Price: I would like to ask the minister a question. Supposing there had not been an election last year, would these men have been paid ? Would they have been kept on the work ?


William Pugsley: Everything would have been done exactly as it has been done.


William Price: This looks like an election job.


William Pugsley: No, the election had nothing to do with it.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand the minister will give us all the papers in connection with this matter, with all the letters from the local members with reference to it.


William Pugsley: I will be glad to do so. Mr. AMES.
Tangier harbour-wharf extension, $1,000.


William Pugsley: That is in Halifax county, and is to extend the wall which was built in 1907-8. This will complete the work, which is being done by clay's labour. We have only obtained the material.


Adam Brown Crosby: When did you obtain the
material ?


William Pugsley: The expenditure up to the 1st of January was only $328, evidently for material.
Wallace bridge-wharf, $1,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the construction of a wharf at Wallace bridge. The wharf runs at right angles with the bridge, towards the harbour.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With respect to the wharf at Wallace bridge, I put a question on the Order Paper the other day, and the minister stated in answer that the total cost was $1,324, and that a portion of it was completed. Is there another portion of this wharf to be completed, and is this vote to complete that other portion ?


William Pugsley: The total cost was estimated at $2,500. We had an appropriation last year of $1,500, that leaves a balance of $1,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the reply the minister
gave to me he said that a portion was completed, and that small vessels could use it.


William Pugsley: We are not asking now any vote for an extension. This finishes the work.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then this vote does not agree with the answers the_ minister gave
me.


William Pugsley: Evidently there was an application for a further extension which we have not decided to make.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Has any portion of this $1,000 been expended?


William Pugsley: No portion of this has been expended. This will complete the required work.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister quite certain that none of that money has been
expended?


William Pugsley: No, none.
Yarmouth harbour-improvements, $60,000.


William Pugsley: This is to continue the dredging work there.


Clarence Jameson: Is it under contract?


William Pugsley: Yes, to the Dominion Dredging Company.


Clarence Jameson: What rate per yard?


William Pugsley: Fifty cents per cubic yard.


Clarence Jameson: To what depth?


William Pugsley: To a depth suitable for those large steamers plying between Boston and Yarmouth.


Clarence Jameson: Is it to straighten the harbour ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Clarence Jameson: Will this complete the proposed improvements ?


William Pugsley: No, you can dredge a long time before you finish. As you keep diedging, the boats are getting larger.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Have this Dominion Dredging Company their own dredges ?


William Pugsley: Yes, they have quite a large fleet of dredges in different parts of Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is at the head of this company ?


William Pugsley: I think it is Mr. Stewart.


John Dowsley Reid: Of Ottawa?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: The son of the exmember ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Allister Currie: May I ask the minister if this 50 cents per cubic yard means scow measurement ?	.


William Pugsley: Yes, scow measurement.


John Allister Currie: Is it the policy of the government to favour dredging by scow measurement all over the country ?


William Pugsley: I do not know about it being the policy of the department, but that is the way it is being done.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know why a different policy is being pursued by the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Public Works? When the Department of Railways and Canals let their dredging contracts it is always in situ and when the Department of Public Works let their contracts it is always scow measurement. When we get evidence before the Public Accounts Committee from officials of the Department of Railways and Canals they say that the only way that the government are safe in letting these contracts is to provide for measurement in situ. When we get the engineers of the Department of Public Works before that committee they say that scow measurement is the only safe
way as far as keeping tally upon the work is concerned. I would like to know why there should be this difference in policy between these two departments?


William Pugsley: In the case of canal work there is no difficulty at all in taking measurements in situ by cross sections and soundings. By reason of the work being confined to narrow dimensions measurement in situ can very easily be made. In the case of harbour works it is more difficult to make measurements with- sufficient accuracy to make sure that you can determine the quantity to be dredged by measurements in situ. Of course, if you can rely upon the honesty and carefulness of your inspectors I would think that scow measurement would be more accurate. Everything depends on the integrity and carefulness of the inspectors. Canal dredging would be something like dredging for crib sites. In the case of dredging for crib sites at Quebec hon. gentlemen will remember that the tender was for measurement in situ, but in ordinary harbour work where it is not confined to narrow dimensions, I should think that scow measurement would be the more accurate provided the inspectors could be relied upon.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as the Department of Railways and Canals are concerned I do not think the minister will pretend that their work is entirely canal work. I know of a case in my own county where there was no canal work about it at all; it was simply dredging, widening and deepening the river between Prescott ana the next village. It was similar to harbour work and in that case it was measured in situ. As far as the inspectors are concerned, I think it was proved in the Public Accounts that, as a general rule, the inspectors who are appointed are not men of experience. We had a case last year before the Public Accounts Committee m which a shoemaker was appointed.


William Pugsley: I do not think that was so The late member for Simcoe had a strong idea of that kind but it was not shared in by many.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the minister will agree that the inspector we had before the public accounts Committee last year was a man not qualified for the position. In that case there was an inspector appointed for two dredges working a mile apart.


William Pugsley: The best qualification fcr an inspector is to be thoroughly honest.


Haughton Lennox: There were two inspectors appointed, but one did the work and had a rake off from the other.


William Pugsley: I think that only lasted a very short time. The man was dismissed.


Haughton Lennox: No, the work was finished.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The work was not finished, but he was refused employment next year.


Haughton Lennox: I dare say.


John Dowsley Reid: From what I have seen of scow measurement I do not think there is any doubt but that in every case the government are defrauded.


William Pugsley: I hardly think that. We are extremely careful.


John Dowsley Reid: No matter how honest the ministers and his officers may be it cannot be avoided. I have seen work going on in my county and I have no confidence whatever in scow measurement. If an in situ contract is let I believe the work will be carried out in an honest way but I have no confidence in so far as scow measurement is concerned. I believe the Department of Public Works are paying an enormous amount for work more than is being paid by, any other department that lets contracts by the in situ method.


William Pugsley: Take the western entrance to Toronto harbour; the measurement there is in situ. To do dredging work all over the country where it is not confined within narrow limits, it would require a very large and extensive staff of engineers. It would all have to be sounded with the very greatest care. Then, as to the different materials there would have to be a very careful examination beforehand. I am not thoroughly wedded to the scow measurement; it is a question for consideration.


John Dowsley Reid: The best evidence I have had of this is what the contractors themselves tell me. Contractors who have been doing work for the government for years have told me that if they could get a contract from the Department of Public Works on the principle of scow measurement they could take it at almost any price and make money out of it.


William Pugsley: Who in the world ever tcld you that?


John Dowsley Reid: A contractor working for the Public Works Department.


William Pugsley: Would you mind giving me his name?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think it would be fair to the contractor, but if I gave his name he would never get a contract in the Public Works Department again.


Haughton Lennox: 


William Pugsley: Perhaps he is a gentleman who never did get a contract.


John Dowsley Reid: He is working to-day for the Public Works Department.


William Pugsley: And if he does that it shows the man is a scoundrel.


John Dowsley Reid: It does not.


William Pugsley: It does. It shows he conspires with the inspectors to defraud the government and I should be sorry either to take that man's word or to give him a contract under the government.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not agree witji the minister, for the reason that the department lets the contract, scow measurement. If it is in situ there is not any possible chance of his getting any more than he would be entitled to, but with the scow measurement the inspector simply passes it along. We had evidence in the committee that there are from 20 yards to 40 yards difference in each scow; that a scow would hold 100 yards when there might be only 80 yards in it.


William Pugsley: Does not the hon. gentleman know that the quantities must be certified to by the contractor's own man as well as by the inspector for the government. There is no way of defrauding the government unless the contractor is guilty of conspiracy jointly with the inspector.


John Dowsley Reid: The contractor has nothing to do with it.


William Pugsley: Yes he has.


John Dowsley Reid: The government inspector is responsible for the certificate.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman think the inspector would be dishonest unless the contractor offers him some inducement to be so?


John Dowsley Reid: It was proved before the Public Accounts Committee last year that some of these inspectors were dishonest.


William Pugsley: Without being induced by the contractor to be dishonest?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Pugsley: Then what possible object could the inspector have in being dishonest ?


John Dowsley Reid: It was proved that one inspector was not attending to two different works.


William Pugsley: That man was dismissed.


John Dowsley Reid: It was proved the contractors were getting more than they were entitled to.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman say that an inspector would he dishonest without connivance with the contractor?


John Dowsley Reid: The contractor would not have anything to do with it.


William Pugsley: Do you think a man would be deliberately dishonest without any one wanting him to be dishonest?


Clarence Jameson: Who is the inspector and what is the amount of the contract?


William Pugsley: $5 per cubic yard for rock, and 50 cents and 35 cents for other material.


Clarence Jameson: What is the name of the inspector?


William Pugsley: The inspectors are Messrs. Johnston, Crosby and Kimball.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Samuel Hughes: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Supply: Public Works, and as we will likely go through them very quickly we will take up Interior and Marine afterwards, and probably Mines later on in the day.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will you take the Public Works for Prince Edward Island and Quebec as the first order ?


William Pugsley: I think they will be the first.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 1.45 a.m. Friday.

Friday, March 12, 1909.