1909-05-12

FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 186) respecting certain aid fob the extension of the Canadian Northern Railway.-Mr. Graham.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLONDIN-asked:
1.	Has the Transcontinental Commission chosen the site and located the exact place where the divisional yard, district B, eastern section, of the Transcontinental, at or near La Tuque, should be?
2.	What is the designation of that place by numbers of range or cadastre, from whom was it purchased, and what price was paid for it?
3.	What is the total amount of damages annually caused to the works of the National Transcontinental up to the present date, above La Tuque, from the latter place up to Ludger Noel creek?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1 and 2. It is under consideration.
3. None.


THE WATERWAYS AND BOUNDARIES TREATY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL-by Mr. Blain-asked: Has the government considered whether or not the proposed Waterways and Boundaries Treaty will prevent the construction of the proposed enlargement of the Welland and St. Lawrence river canals, o.r the construction of the proposed Georgian bay canal, without the consent of the commissioners, under that treaty, because of the fact that these works, or either of them, may reasonably be expected to affect the height of the water in Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario?
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: The whole subject of the treaty mentioned is under consideration at present.


GOVERNMENT LOANS.
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that to-morrow the House go int5 Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to raise, by way of loan, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by parliament by any Act heretofore passed, such sum or sums of money, not to exceed in the whole the sum of fifty million dollars, as may be required for the purpose of paying maturing loans and obligations of the Dominion of Canada, and for the carrying on of publio works authorized by the parliament of Canada.

That the sums of moneys to be raised by way of loan on any Act founded on these resolutions, shall be raised in (accordance with and under the provisions of that portion of chapter 24 of the Revised Statutes of Canada relating to the public debt and the raising of loans authorized by parliament; and that the sums so raised shall form part of the consolidated fund of Canada.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General has been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, and has recommended it to the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 106) to amend the Railway Act.-Mr. Graham.
On section 13,
Mr. LANCASTER.: I desire to add one word before this section is assented to. I do not think the minister understands one of the evils of this section, the first clause of it that comes from the Senate. It is absolutely out of place, and practically gives power to the board to repeal the whole of the section. I mean every word of that, that is the effect of it. In the first clause he has added these words:
Or unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the House.
I do not think you are giving any benefit to the people, but' if you are, all we are doing can be wiped out by a general regulation of the board. We are not sent here to allow the board to repeal legislation that we make, by a regulation that the people know nothing of.


George Perry Graham: With regard to subsection 4, my attention has been drawn to the fact that in applying this section to accidents that have happened, it would be more practical to say ' subsequent to the 1st day of January, 1900.' Conditions have changed materially during the last ten years, and it is only during the last ten years that fast trains have really come in.


Mr. J. D. REID.: The clause now reads that at every crossing where thebe has been an accident and some one killed, the train cannot run faster than ten miles an hour unless protection is afforded.


George Perry Graham: Yes, I have limited the time to accidents that have happened within the last ten years.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That protection will be ordered probably at the expense of municipalities. It is all wrong.


John Dowsley Reid: In my own constituency there are several places where accidents have happened at two or three crossings, but where it would hardly be fair to compel gates to be put on, they would not be necessary.


George Perry Graham: They could put on a bell at a small expense, and protect a crossing of that kind. Whatever protection the board sees fit will be provided.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before this clause passes I would like to say to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that his amendment adding subsection 3 to section 275 of the Railway Act seems to me very undesirable. Section 275, as it appears in the Railway Act at present is this:
No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ton miles an hour, unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act, or unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the board.
Then follows subsection 2:
The board may limit such speed in any case to any rate which it deems expedient.
Subsection 3 as the minister proposes to add it is as follows:
Subject to the provisions of subsection 4 of this section no train shall pass over any highway crossing at rail level in any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village at a greater speed than ten miles an hour, unless such crossing is constructed and thereafter maintained and protected in accordance with the orders, regulations and directions specially issued by the Railway Committee of the Privy Councli or of the board in force with respect to such orossing, or unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the board.	*
The board may from time to time fix the speed in any case at any rate that it deems proper.
That seems to me, in effect an enactment in somewhat different language, of what has already been provided by the sections which I have just read as they appear in the statute at the present time. There is one difference, namely, that the Act as at present deals with any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village and the amendment now proposed by the minister deals with highway crossings at rail level in any thickly peopled portions of any city, town or village. In other words, the Act as it now appears upon the statute-book, seems to be more comprehensive than the amendment which the minister proposes and therefore the amendment would seem to me rather restrictive in its tendency and not to afford any real relief at all in respect to what is a dangerous situation in some localities. I am dealing with this altogether apart from subsection 4, and, for my part, I do not see any advantage, but I see a very serious disadvantage in placing upon the statute-book the provision of subsection 3 as proposed for the reason. It will probably Tesult in confusion, in dif-

Acuity of construction and in making any real remedy on the part of the public more difficult in the future than it is at the present time.


George Perry Graham: I agree with my hon. friend to a certain extent. This subsection 3 is really the Senate's amendment.


Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.: That is the only merit that it possesses?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Which is not saying much for it.


Mr. GEAHAM.: I cannot say that is the only one. I have read their discussion very carefully and, as a result of that discussion, I adopted their amendment as it came back to us. I thought that was perhaps the best method of dealing with the question. I am not altogether wedded to it, but we had sent this Bill over to the Senate several times. I wanted to get something of the kind on the statute-book, and to get it through both Houses and therefore I adopted the amendment. I see the difficulty that my hon. friend raises, with this exception that we are not taking out the section to which my hon. friend refers but we are adding this to it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the mischief which makes the confusion.


Duncan Graham: The section in the statute-book now deals with a railway running through a city, town or village whether at crossings or not. It has to be protected by fences through the portions of the town where there is not a crossing, and the section does not deal directly with the question of crossings. This addition deals directly with the crossing, not interfering with the other portion of the Act.


Frederick William Borden: The minister seems to have come to the conclusion that it would be better to adopt the Senate amendment because he does not really know what to do with it. That reminds me of the situation which is said sometimes to have occurred when a lady, having been persecuted by the attentions of an admirer whom she does not very greatly regard, marries him to get rid of him. The results are said sometimes to be unfortunate and I am inclined to think that the results of the minister's policy, which seems to be very similar, may be equally unfortunate as far as the public are concerned.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Bill which went to the Senate, and which the hon. gentleman says the Senate has amended, struck out an unnecessary and obsolete section and contained a proper section instead. This House came to the conclusion that the present section of the Act, which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. E. L. Borden) has just read, is obsolete. It requires the slowing down of a train Mr. E. L. BORDEN.
in passing through a city, town or village, whether running on a highway or not, and there are plenty of other sections in the Act which require fencing of the railway track. It requires the train to slow down whether it is running on the highway or not, thereby putting a burden on the railways which this House did not see any sense in imposing; therefore, we concluded that we would make it fair and limit it to the protection of people on the highway level. I propose on the third reading of the Bill to substitute the section which the Senate have struck
ut for that which is now before the House. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) will perhaps remember the long and tedious discussion which we had in the committee over this question, and how we gave way to the railway contention in regard to that, struck out that section and re-enacted a section which is up to date and which does not put on them the burden of reducing the speed to ten miles an hour on that portion of their track where they cannot interfere with anybody unless they are trespassers on the track.


Mr. NANTEL.: I want to propose an amendment to the Bill. I move that a section be added as section 14 in the following words:
Railway companies shall print in both the English and French languages the time tables and bills of lading that are to be used along their lines within the limits of the province of Quebec.
The principle of the usage of the French language has been accepted and sanctioned by three clauses of the Railway Act, clauses 243, 271 and 312. Section 271 provides that:
Every company, upon whose railway there is a telegraph line in operation shall have a blackboard put upon the outside of the station house, over the platform of the station, in some conspicuous plaoe at each station of such company at which there is a telegraph office; and when any passenger train is overdue at any such station, according to the time table of such company, the station agent or person in charge at such station, shall write, or cause to be written, with .vhite chalk on such blackboard, a notice stating, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the time when such overdue train may be expected to reach such station.
I consider it very important that the French neople should be in a position to read in their own language just when a train overdue is expected. It would be better to have a general clause to the effect that the timetable and other railway documents be printed in both French and English in the province of Quebec.


*Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The suggestion that the agent should have to write this notice in English and in French seems to be reasonable and is now the practice.

As far as bills of lading are concerned, I know that the companies agreed 12 months ago to have them printed in French.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I would prefer to have that in the law.


Mr. MONK.: There is in the Bill a sanction of the principle of the u<se of the French language in two instances where the absolute necessity of the adoption of that language does not appear very strongly. The use of the French language is par-ticuiarly necessary in the matter of contracts. There are parts of the province of Quebec where railways subsidized and practically built by us run, where the English language is not understood; it has not yet reached those parts of the province and there is in those districts a very considerable traffic in wood and other freight. It is very important that a man in that part of the country who uses our own railway should be in a position to fully understand the conditions of the contract he enters into. Therefore that part of my hon. friend's amendment appears to be very useful.


Wilfrid Laurier: After the discussion which took place in this House two years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway agreed to have their bills of lading printed in both Fresch and English, and I am sure if their attention is drawn to this they will be glad to adopt the suggestion.


Mr. MACDONELL.: I wish to propose an amendment to section 341 of the General Railway Act. The Bill we are now discussing appears to contain many provisions amending the Railway Act and correcting faults which have been made manifest during the past year and have been brought to the attention of the Minister of Railways. He seems to have carefully considered these grounds of complaint and to have pretty fully embodied them in this Bill. A cause of complaint arises under section 77, the complaint being that the railway companies are discriminating against some rural municipalities in connection with the issue of what is known as family tickets or commutation rates from a central point to suburban points within a close radius. Section 77 of the Act prohibits any discrimination in rates. Section 341, which I ask to amend, on the other hand permits the railway companies to issue these commutation rates or family tickets or reduced rates on their lines of railway. The complaint is that the railway companies have been issuing these commutation rates or family tickets to certain stations within a radius of 20 or 22 miles of Toronto. They have issued these tickets to certain favoured stations or districts and have declined to issue them to other stations within an
equal or less radius of Toronto, so that they have discriminated against certain localities by declining to issue commutation or family tickets at the same rate as to other stations. They have not only discriminated against certain rural municipalities, the town of Brampton particularly, but they have also discriminated by withdrawing these family tickets at will. The matter was brought to the attention of the Railway Commission at Toronto a week ago. One or two rural municipalities, notably the town of Brampton, applied to the Railway Commision for an order to prevent the railway companies from withdrawing these commutation tickets at will as they had chosen to do, and consequently compelling the railway companies to issue commutation tickets or family tickets to localities or stations within the same radius of the city of Toronto or a less radius. For instance they issue these commutation rates to Oakville and I think Streetville Junction, 20 or 22 miles from Toronto. Brampton is about the same distance but they decline to issue the cheap rates to Brampton or any other station within a radius of 20 or 22 miles from Toronto. According to the full report published in the Toronto 'World' and other papers of Thursday last, the railways then took the position that they had the right not only to issue and withdraw these commutation tickets but to issue them to a certain class of persons. The chairman of the board facetiously asked the railways if they could issue them to all the members of one political party and not to the members of the other. The railways took the ground that they could do so, that they could issue them to any class of persons they pleased and deny them to other members of the public at will. On the argument it became apparent that although section 77 clearly legislated against discrimination against freight or passenger rates by any Tailway company, still the commissioners were in doubt as to whether section 77 governed section 341 which latter section is the section specifically giving the railway companies the right to issue these commutation, family or excursion tickets. The chairman fo the board ruled that inasmuch as he could not interpret the effect of the conflict between these two sections, the matter would have to go to the simply means that the right of these Supreme Court. What does that mean? It municipalities to obtain these commutation or family tickets will now have to be submitted to the Supreme Court, and will doubtless go on to the Privy Council; so that they will not be able to obtain the benefit of what they consider they are entitled to for two or three years, or until the matter is finally disposed of by the

Privy Council; and in the meantime the railway companies, in open defiance of section 77 of the Railway Act, are giving commutation rates to certain favoured localities and denying them to others within the same radius, and are asserting their right to withhold these rates from any class or section of the community they choose. What I ask is that this conflict between these two sections of the Act may be removed, so that the board may have the right to deal with the matter on its merits. The city of Toronto, by resolution of the municipal council on Monday of this week, has asked that this anomaly be removed by legislation of this parliament this session, so that the Railway Commission may not be prevented from dealing with the matter by any legal technicality. There are certain districts of this country in which this discrimination does not take place. For instance, I understand that within a radius of forty or fifty miles of the city of Montreal there are some eighty suburban towns and villages to which the railways issue uniform commutation rates. In the districts surrounding the city of Toronto the reverse is the case. The railway companies issuing commutation rates to' certain favoured localities and denying them to others at no greater distance from the centre. This is clearly discrimination against the latter localities, and I contend that one of the fundamental objects of the Railway Act is to prevent discrimination against either individuals or localities.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is the main reason for the Act.


Angus Claude Macdonell: It is the main reason for the Act, as my hon. friend says. The town of Brampton brought the question before the Railway Commission claiming the same rate as the village of Oakville, but this was denied, and both the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company claim that they have a perfect right under section 341 to issue commutation tickets to .any class they choose and deny them to others. In view of that open and direct defiance on the part of the railway companies, surely it is right and proper that the Minister of Railways should protect the public in this matter by means of the operation of the Railway Act. The amendment which I desire to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), is as follows:
Section 341 of 1 The Railway Act ' is hereby amended iby adding thereto the followng section:-
Provided further that where a railway has established or issued or establishes or issues commutation tickets or rates between a central point within a district and any outside point or points on its line of railway, Mr. MACDONELL.
such commutation rates or tickets shall not be withdrawn or discontinued without the consent of the board, and a similar commutation rate or ticket shall be immediately issued and established by all railways, op-i erating to such central point from and to such central point to and from every point upon its or their line or lines of railway within an equal or less radius as the farthest point to which such commutation tickets or rates have been established or issued, or is established or issued.
This amendment, if adopted, will cover the two features of complaint: first, the railway companies will not be able to withdraw at will a commutation rate, as they have ibeen doing; and, secondly, if they give a commutation rate withn a certain district for a certain distance from a central point, they will be obliged to issue to intermediate stations within that radius commutation tickets calculated on the same rate per mile. That will give equal justice to all sections within the radius, and will prevent discrimination against persons and localities, which I take to be the fundamental purpose of the Railway Act.


Mr. BLAIN.: I wish to endorse the amendment moved by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell). This is a matter that affects particularly the county of Peel, which I have the honour to represent, as well as every section of the province of Ontario within forty or fifty miles of the city of Toronto. Some years ago the Grand Trunk Railway issued commutation tickets allowing people to travel between the town of Brampton, where I live, and the city of Toronto, at about 54 cents for the round trip. The merchants of Brampton, considering that this was not in their interest, petitioned the Grand Trunk Railway Company to have these commutation rates cancelled and they were cancelled. The people of the town of Brampton now realize that it is a mistake on their part, and they desire that the Railway Commission shall have power to compel the railway company to restore these commutation rates. I may say that the Canadian Pacific Railway issues a round trip ticket between the city of Toronto and Streetsville, which is eight miles south of Brampton and within the same county and about the same distance from the city of Toronto, for 25 cents, which is a very low rate, and affords to a number of citizens of Toronto an opportunity to reside in Streetsville, going to Toronto in the morning and returning to their homes in the evening. I do not wish to enlarge upon this matter. The town of Brampton took its case before the Railway Commission, which decided that it could not under the Railway Act grant the request, and suggested that the case should he taken to the courts for decision.

The people of Brampton feel that they would have to wait for probably two or three years for a decision of the courts, which might not be in their favour, and that the best way to remedy their grievance would be to amend the Bailway Act in the direction my hon. friend from South Toronto proposes. This is not merely a local matter; it is in the interest, not only of the people of Ontario, but of the people of every district in Canada where similar conditions exist. I urge it upon the committee, and particularly upon my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. No doubt this matter has been brought to his attention, and, knowing the county of Peel and the whole country surrounding Toronto as he does, I am sure that he will be anxious to meet the wishes of the people, while not injuring the interests of the railways; for if this amendment is granted, lower rates will cause a great increase in traffic, and I do not think the railway companies will suffer in the end.


George Perry Graham: I am sure my hon. friend from Toronto, as well as my hon. friend from Peel, will not misjudge me when I point out that while I sympathize with them in the position in which they find themselves, and while the amendment proposed would no doubt have a widespread significance, I have not had time to see what it means. I, yesterday, saw the representatives of the city council of Toronto, which passed the resolution referred to this week, but as I was coming to the House I had not a moment to discuss the matter with them. I am sure that my hon. friends will not consider me unreasonable when I say that I would not like to adopt such an important amendment without giving it study. I am not at all unsympathetic with them, and I will take the matter up during the recess and consider it.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I hope the minister will take the matter into his best consideration. To show the attitude of the railway companies upon this matter, I desire to read a paragraph from a report of what tcok place before the Railway Commission ast week. Mr. Beatty, who appeared as counsel for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, said:
' My contention is that we have the right to give or withhold as we see fit, and that where we have given we have the right to withdraw as we see fit/
'Do you mean to say/ interjected Judge Mabee, chairman, ' that in the case of commercial travellers, for instance, you eeuld give special rates to the Grits and withhold them from the Tories? Or, take the case of the legislature, could you give them to the government side and withhold them from those against the government? '
Mr. Beatty: ' I think we could, my lord, but of course it wouldn't be done '
That shows the broad claim which the railway companies make to discriminate by giving advantageous rates to some people, or some localities, and not to others at their own sweet will, or, having once given a rate, to withdraw that rate. I merely quote this to emphasize the seriousness of this position to the Minister of Railways, in the hope that he will take this matter into his very best consideration and apply some remedy. As he says, the amendment is one of wide application, but the need is equally wide, and when we have counsel for the railways openly defying the public, as was done in the language I have quoted, I think it is high time that the government took some action of a remedial nature and prevented this question being hung up by litigation in the courts for two or three or possibly four years. The discussion before the Railway Commission concluded with this statement:


The Chairman:: ' The whole question hinges on the question whether section 77 has any control over section 341 or not. The matter will have to get to the Supreme Court some time. [DOT] It might as well go now as any other time. We will make a stated case and let the Supreme Court decide this point/
I think this is the place to correct anomalies in the Railway Act and prevent injustice being done by reason of any conflict between the provisions of that Act, the effect of which is to enable the railways to discriminate against persons or localities.
Amendment negatived, and Bill reported.
Mr. GRAHAM moved the third reading of the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before the Bill is read a third time I desire to move:
That the order for the third reading be discharged, and that the said Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to amend the same by striking out section 13, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:-
13. Section 375 of the Bailway Act, chapter 37 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
275. No train shall pass over any highway crossing at rail level in any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village at a greater speed than ten miles an hour, unless such crossing is properly protected, or unless such crossing is constructed and thereafter duly maintained in accordance with the orders, regulations and directions of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council and of the board in force with respect thereto. The board may limit such speed in any case to any rate that it deems expedient.
2. The company shall have until the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ten, to comply with the provisions of this section.

I wish to tell the House briefly why 1 feel called on to move that amendment. I would speak first of the defects in the Senate amendment, which is in the Bill included. The minister says that he is adopting the Senate amendment and returning it to them. The Senate's amendment was made to legislation passed by this House unanimously in four different years, after the fullest discussion here. In fact, this matter has been before this House for seven years. The railway companies were given the fullest opportunity to present their views before the committees which dealt with it, and any meritorious suggestions of theirs have been given effect to in the proposed legislation. This compromise Bill having been adopted by the House for four years was sent to the Senate and that body reversed the decision of this House. It is not as if our legislation had been passed hastily or on the eve of an election, it was the result of the most mature deliberation, and an election occurred during the period of its discussion.
The Senate amendment first adds a subsection to a section that the special committee and the House considered useless and obsolete; that is the section compelling the Tailway to reduce their speed to ten miles an hour in thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages, whether on a highway level or an elevated way. It is not wise to inflict unnecessary and useless burdens on a railway company, and that section would be construed to mean that if a man was entitled to the same protection on the track between the highways where he had no right to be. This House struck that section out, as what was desired was protection for the people where they have a right to be, on the highway. It was considered that there should be no restriction on the speed of the trains on an elevated way or where they were not endangering public life. The second defect in the Senate amendment is that the liabilities are confusingly multiplied. By the present Bill we leave that section, an onerous, unnecessary and useless burden on the railway and add to it another section, adding the words highway crossing at ' rail level ' so that if a train is in a town or village on the highway level there are two inconsistent sections, because the first section applies whether the railway crosses the highway at rail level or not, and the second section also applies when it is on the highway. The greater includes the less, and that train running on the highway level would be subject to both sections. How will the Railway Commissions or a court decide? They will first say that they do not believe parliament understood what they were doing when they passed this legislation, as it includes inconsistent Mr. LANCASTER,
sections, with inconsistent conditions. That is a strong objection to the Bill, its confusion and inconsistency, which will compel any one desiring to avail himself of its benefits to fight the matter through the courts, probably to the Privy Council, and if such difficulty arises, it will be entirely our fault, because we have passed confusing legislation. If the Senate had passed an amendment to afford any protection to the people, even although it did not go as far as I thought it should, I would have been inclined to accept it. But the Senate are trifling with the people by leaving that section standing and enacting a section which repeats the same condition of affairs with a different responsibility, which must result in confusion. It must be remembered that the Senate were not unanimous, their amendment was carried by only thirty against sixteen. Sixteen voted to adopt our legislation, so that there was a majority of only fourteen senators.
Thirty senators are to reverse the opinion of 221 members of the House of Commons, plus 14 of their own number; tnat is to say, '235 members, the great majority of whom are elected by and responsible to the people, and who know what the people want, the opinion of these men is to be reversed by 30 members of the upper Chamber. Without desiring to say anything disrespectful of the Senate, I must say that the people expect us to have more respect for ourselves than to submit to any such state of things. The Minister of Railways does not argue that this is a good amendment, but simply that, as he cannot get anything else to pass the two Houses unanimously, he will take what is no good to the people, and what is going to cause confusion and litigation. The Senate amendment contains also a clause which the Minister of Railways asks this House to pass, namely, giving authority to the Railway Board absolutely to repeal the whole section, even if there is any benefit in it, which I doubt. It contains this' clause at the end of the section which is being substituted for what this House did four years in succession, ' or unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the board.' It is all to be subject to a regulation which they may make and repeal the whole thing. When we pass laws here we do not delegate to the board power to repeal the laws we make. Once we agree upon some measure of principle surely it is wrong and inconsistent for us to give that board power, by a stroke of the pen, to repeal any such measure. There is no parallel case in any other legislation as to say that certain things shall happen unless the board passes a regulation to the contrary. They may make a regulation to sweep the whole of this legislation out of existence if they choose to do so. I have every respect for
630S

the board as administrators, but I have no respect for them as legislators. They have no franchise to legislate, they have in no sense any right to legislate in regard to the people's welfare. It will keep them busy to administer the laws we send to them to administer, and it is absolutely wrong and unconstitutional for us to pass legislation, and then say that the board can, of their own motion, repeal that legislation.
I have one more word to say. The senators have gone into the press about this matter. Senator Dandurand writes a letter to the Montreal 'Star' of April 16-1 will not read the whole letter, but he says that if the Commons persisted in the Bill he believed the Senate would give in and pass it, if the Commons did not see fit to accept their amendment. He does not pretend to say that he thinks the amendment ought to carry. He voted for the amendment in the Senate, and there was a very interesting and sincere contest as to whether the amendment should be adopted after the Commons had passed the legislation three years in succession. Senator Dandurand writes, among other things, this:
I wish to add that if the Commons felt that our amendments were uncalled for, the Senate would most likely allow the Bill to pass in its original form.
There is a statement of one of the senators who voted for the amendment which the minister wants put in here, instead of the amendment which the Commons has passed and sent to the Senate on four different occasions. The Prime Minister himself stated, I think properly, this session, on the second reading of this Bill that I am now asking the House to re-enact *-for that is the effect of my motion-that for one he was not inclined to revise his opinion that he had held for four years. I thought that was dignified, I thought it was proper, I thought it was all we could do. Should not this House, after considering a matter for seven years, have not enough respect for themselves to say to the Senate: We know what we are doing, and we will again send this back to you, why should we abandon the rights of the people which we have been asserting for these four years? This amendment which I am moving is the Bill that went through the House, it is the House of Commons Bill that we sent to the Senate. The Minister of Bail-ways in 1906 introduced the amendment, which passed the committee, dealing with the same section, 275, that I am asking this House to re-enact to-day instead of the substitution which has come from the Senate. It provides what is right between the people and the railways. It says that the railways should have three alternatives. First, that in the limited area mentioned, where they are running fast trains, where buildings 200
obscure the view and noises obscure the sound, where we have declared for several years there is a special danger, the railway should afford protection, not at the mercy of the judge or jury, but only at the mercy of the Railway Commission. Nothing could be fairer, and that is what would have been done if the Bill had. been passed. It also gives them as a second alternative, if they do not want to protect at all, even when the Railway Commission has ordered them to do so, to reduce the speed to ten miles an hour, so that the people can have a chance to get out of the way of the train. It says practically that if the people cannot get out of the way of a train not running faster than 10 miles an hour, they must take their chances, and if the railway wants to run faster than that, the railway should protect the tracks. Then in the third place it gives power to the Railway Commission to settle what kind of protection there should be in any particular case, and power to limit the speed to any rate they deem expedient. Nothing could be more reasonable or more just. If there were any undue burdens upon the railway company it would be because the Commission ordered it. They are not at the mercy of any court, all they have to do is to get an order from the Commisr a ion as to what is fair in each case. If they do not do that, they are allowed to reduce the speed to 10 miles an hour and so avoid an order by the Railway Commission. That is not onerous legislation, it is not unfair legislation, and it is the least the people will be satisfied with, under the circumstances.


Mr. MILLER.: I do not want to make a speech on this matter, but I am always willing to put myself on record.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think this amendment is out of order. The member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) states that his amendment is the Bill that he introduced into this House, and it is still on the Order Paper in the form of an amendment. Having been returned from the Senate it appears as Order No. 30.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I raised the same point when the Bill was up. The hon. gentleman's own amendment would have been out of order too.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It was raised when I was in the Chair, I called the attention of the House to that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister raised the question by introducing an .amendment, which itself would have been out of order, and I pointed that out.


George Perry Graham: I am not objecting at all.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Rulel No. 30 says:
All items standing on the orders of the day (except government orders) shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the Order Paper.
The Bill is practically order No. 30. It has been returned from the Senate, and now if this amendment were adopted, the same provision would again go back to the Senate which has been returned from the Senate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not finding any fault with your ruling, but I raised the point when we were in committee, because the hon .gentleman's amendment to section 13, which I moved to strike out, is subject to the same objection, as it deals with the same subject matter.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Of course it can only be done by the unanimous consent of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment of my hon. friend would only be out of order for the reason that the Bill itself is out of order. Therefore, the point of order, if taken, would strike very much farther. It would eliminate the whole Bill from the Order Paper until that particular part of it had been stricken out.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think that if Order No. 30, had been called and stricken out this amendment could have been proceeded with, but as long as No. 30 remains on the Public Bills and Orders I do not think the amendment is in order.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the Bill is out of order also. That is the inevitable result.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Do I understand that the House consents?


Mr. TALBOT.: I object.


Mr. NESBITT.: So do I.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then the whole Bill is out of order because we have dealt with this matter in regard to the Bill. The amendment being similar, the Bill is 'equally out of order.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not have taken the point of order because we have been proceeding with this matter by consent, but if the point of order is taken by some on'e I would say that the Chair should be sustained.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the Chair is right except that the objection will apply to the whole Bill. One portion of this Bill is in the exact terms in which the Senate amendmtent has come back to us and therefore the rule which has been very properly invoked by Mr. Speaker would apply to it as well. The best way to get out of the difficulty would b'e to adjourn


George Perry Graham: the debate on the third reading, call up the order, discharge it and then dispose of this matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think my hon. friend is right in that. The point of order should have been tak'en when the amendment was introduced. But, the House unanimously agreed to it and therefore I think the point of order is well taken with respect to the amendment which is now moved. I would not press the point of order because I would rather have the House deal with the question, but if a member of the House takes the point of order, in my opinion, it is well taken. However, I would urge my hon. friends not to press the point of order and to allow the discussion to proceed on its merits.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that with the consent of the House this amendment can be put?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. Put the question now.
On the motion being read,


Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion is put I merely desire to say that I shall vote for the amendment because I think it is right and also for the reason that I have voted once for it already this session and three times in previous sessions. Under these circumstances I do not see why I should vote against it now.


Wilfrid Laurier: I desire to say that I shall vote against the amendment although I voted for the Bill before. I have listened with great attention to the arguments of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and he made a good deal of the fact that this Bill has been passed by this House three or four times. That is true but on every occasion it was rejected by the Senate, which, however, this session has thought it proper, after rejecting this Bill on several occasions, to adopt it with an amendment. The very fact that this Bill has been adopted by this House and rejected by the other branch of the legislature on so many occasions shows that there is a good deal to be said in favour of both sides of th'e question, pro and con. Therefore, I think that my hon. friend, having done good service, should be satisfied with the success which he has obtained already. This world is not perfect and I think a legislator should be satisfied when he obtains as much as my hon. friend has obtained especially in view of the legislation which has been introduced by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) this year to do away with the evil of level crossings and in view of the very fair measure of redress for the evil which that legislation provides.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask if this amendment has any effect upon the rest of the Bill?
Mr. LANCASTER No, this is just to strike out one section of the Bill and insert another.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Lancaster).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Ames,
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barker,
Barnard,
Barr,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burrell,
Clare,
Cowan,
Crosby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Daniel,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Foster,
Fraser,
Goodeve,
Gordon (Nipissing), Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
Jameson,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Lortie,
Macdonell,
McCall,
McCarthy,
Maddin,
Magrath,
Middlebro,
Miller,
Monk,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Paquet,
Porter,
Price,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Russell,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster),
Thornton,
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Lennox and Addington), Worthington, Wright.-70.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Allen,
Boland,
Borden (Sir Fred'k), Brodeur,
Brown,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chisholm
(Antigonish),
Clark (Red Deer), Congdon,
Conmee,
Currie
(Prince Edward), Dubeau,
Dugas,
Ecreraent,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Geoffrion,
Gervais,
200}
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Girard,
Gladu,
Gordon (Kent), Graham,
Guthrie,
Harris,
Hodgins,
Hunt,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
McAlister,
McCoig,
McColl,
McGiverin,
McIntyre (Perth), McIntyre
(Strathcona),
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross,
Roy (Dorchester),
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Stratton,
Sutherland,
Talbot,
Templeman,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebec County),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Verville,
Warburton,
White
(Victoria, Alta)-100.
PAIRS:
Mess
* Ministerial. Aylesworth,
German,
Black,
Chisholm (Inverness), Harty,
Ethier,
Paterson,
Carvell,
Gauvreau,
Carrier,
Michaud,
Sifton,
Wilson (Laval), Demers,
Lavergne,
MacNutt,
Clarke (Essex).
:ieurs
Opposition.
Beattie,
Bristol,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Currie (Simcoe), Forget,
Haggart (Lanark), Kidd,
Maclean (York, S.), Marshall,
Meighen,
Osier,
Owen,
Perley,
Roche,
Thoburn,
Wallace.
Amendment negatived.


Mr.  C. J.@: DOHERTY (Montreal, St. Annel moved:
That the order for the third reading be discharged, and that the said Bill be referred back to Committee of the Whole House with power to amend the same by striking out section 9 and substituting the following:-
9. Subsection 1 of section 298 of the said Act is amended by striking out the words ' to crops, lands, fences, plantations or buildings or their contents ' in the first and second lines thereof, and by inserting after the word ' recoverable ' in the ninth line thereof the words 'under this section.'
The entire effect of the amendment I desire to move would be to eliminate from the section of the Act now before us the words substituting for the enumeration of certain kinds of property, the words ' to property.' The purpose of the amendment in the Act now before the House is to extend the liability of the railway company

which under the section of the Railway Act is limited to damages to crops, plantations, houses, buildings and their contents, so as to make it cover damage to all property. My amendment would make the section of the Railway Act apply to all damages caused by fire resulting from locomotives. My reason for moving this amendment is that it seems to me that parliament is placing itself in an anomalous position in so far as while the amendment contained in the Bill makes the railway company liable for damages to any property from fires caused by locomotives irrespective of whether or not there be fault on the part of the railway company, damage to the person is entirely excluded from that liability. In other words this legislation puts parliament on record as being more solicitous for the protection of property than for the protection of the person, and it seems to me that in cases that may arise this will result in what will strike the public mind as injustice. The section as now amended by this Act protects the property holder inasmuch as it gives him recourse against the railway company for damage caused to his property by fire without distinction as to classes of property. On the other hand it protects the railway company inasmuch as it limits the extent to which the railway can be held liable for damages caused by a particular fire. However, it absolutely excludes from any recourse the person who by fire proceeding from a locomotive suffers injury to his person. For instance if my house should be burned I would have recourse against the railway company to the extent of $5,000, no matter how much greater the amount of my damage _ might be, but if my servant should be in that house and by that fire should be crippled for life, he would have no recourse against the railway company. It seems to me there is no sound reason for discriminating between damage to property and damage to the person and treating unfavourably the man who suffers damage to the person. I think it is a distinction that if ever brought home to the mind of the public by the occurrence of an accident such as I have suggested will produce a revulsion of feeling; the public will agree that the legislation is unjust and this parliament will be subject to the reproach that while it is solicitous for the protection of property it does not concern itself with the protection of the man who owns no property but who is damaged in his person, whose integrity affords him his only means of earning his livelihood.
I desire also to point out that extending the liability as I suggest will not work any great hardship to the railways as the cases in which personal damage will result from fires of this kind will not be numerous, although when they do happen they will be Mr. DOHERTY.
very hard cases. We are extending the responsibility of the railway companies with respect to damage to property of any kind and by further extending it to cover damage to the person we will very slightly increase that liability. The damages which can be collected against the railway company are limited to $5,000 in the case of any one fire. As it will happen that in the great majority of cases where there is personal injury there will also be injury to property, in such a case the $5,000 will have to cover both. The party who has suffered injury to the person will be indemnified not at the expense of the railway company but at the expense of the person who has suffered the damage to property wherever the latter's loss amounts to $5,000, as the $5,000 must cover both claims. I propose this amendment because I have difficulty in seeing on what principle you draw the line between liability for damage to property and liability for damage to person, and because I feel that the effect of so drawing the line, whenever that distinction or limitation proves effective, will be the cause of very serious hardship. I submit that this limitation of the liability to damage to property is one which we should not make. While by this Act the limitation of damage under the Railway Act to certain classes of property is removed, a substantial concession, justified by the fact that the railways are liable even if they be not guilty of fault or negligence, remains in the restriction of the amount of damages recoverable to $5,000. I would urge strongly that we are making a great mistake in limiting the liability of the railway in such a manner as not to cover damage to the person.


George Perry Graham: I had no intimation that this amendment was going to be moved. It is a question that would stand hours of discussion. It has been discussed at length and in all its bearings in the Railway Committee this year and last year. A Bill dealing with this question was introduced last year by the then member for New Westminster, Mr. Kennedy, and the argument put forward by my hon. friend was put forward very strongly last year in the Railway Committee, but the committee unanimously decided to report the Bill as I have introduced it, striking out the illustrations contained in certain of the descriptions and using the word property. This year the Bill was again introduced by my hon. friend from Essex and was threshed out in all its bearings before the Railway Committee, which again passed the Bill that I have placed in my Bill. I merely include in my Bill the Bill which was passed twice by the Railway Committee after thorough discussion. The question is a broad one, to which there are two sides, and I would hardly feel justified at a moment's notice at this stage of the session in accepting an amendment of such far-reaching character.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would be very much inclined to support the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty). I have a recollection of the discussions to which the hon. Minister of Railways refers, but I do not remember the omission of damages to persons. The House sees, from the clear explanation given by the proposer of this motion, that it does not change the conditions or the limit of liability, but it refers to a condition which we should not lose sight of, that is, that all damages should comprise damages both to the person and to property. That being the case, I do not think the change has the importance which the Minister of Railways supposes, and I think the amendment commends itself to the support of the House.
Amendment negatived on division/ and Bill read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


POST OFFICE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 136) to amend the Post Office Act-Mr. Lemieux- read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
2. Section 39 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
39. The salaries of those in grade A shall he at the rate of one dollar and seventy-five cents per day; of those in grade B, at the( rate of two dollars per day; of those in grade C, at the rate of two dollars and twenty-five cents per day; of those in grade D, at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per day; and of those in grade E, at the rate of two dollars and seventy-five cents per day.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: This is an increase in the various grades. The letter carrier receives at -present $391.25. Under the proposed scale he would receive $547.45. On his regular appointment, under the present scale, he would receive $469.50. After one month's probation, he will receive $636 per year. In the second year the present scale is $467.50; the proposed scale will be $626. The third year, the present scale is $547.75; the proposed payment will be $724, and so on.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Has the minister made any provision for a certain class of letter carriers to which reference has been made before?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand my hon. friend refers to the mail carriers who have not accepted the grade system. According to some of my hon. friends, those letter carriers would be willing to come under the grade system. I have an amendment which will cover their case and bring them under that' system.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the hon. minister taken into consideration the point I raised when the resolution was adopted on which this Bill is founded? My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) and myself called his attention to the fact that to ask the letter carrier in large cities, a man with a family, to begin his work at $1.75 per day is to discourage him completely at the outset. In large cities, of over 100,000, where the item of rent is very heavy, he should receive $2 per day to begin with. When we consider the responsibility of the letter carrier, the amount of work he has to do, physically as well as mentally, and the amount of education he is supposed to have, giving him an average family of four or five, he will: find great difficulty in making both ends-meet on $1.75 per day. I would urge the minister to give him $2 per day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As a matt'er of fact the letter carriers begin in the service at a salary of $2, because their probationary period is only one month, after which they get $2 per day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very glad to hear that. I think the minister has done a large measure of justice. Another point I referred to the other day is this; We are granting the Civil Service increases of salary, quite considerable in some cases, and are dating these back to the 1st of September last. Would it not be fair, in the case of these postal employees, to have their increased remuneration date back to the beginning of the new fiscal year? This would not be much for the country, but it would mean a great deal to these men.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not sure if I have the authority to date the increases from the beginning of the fiscal year. The resolutions do not read that way, and I do not know that I would be warranted in doing so.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I would endorse what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), both with regard to the payment to these men and to the dating back of their increase, at least to the period when it was agreed that^ they should receive the increase. I think the minister will bear me out in the statement that when he introduced his resolution, public opinion very strongly supported him in his measure. I think public opinion would support him in dating the increase from that time. The cost would not be great, and I am sure that the public would heartily support such an action.


Mr. FOSTER.: I do not think there will be any difficulty in relation to the wording of the resolution. The resolution was not for a definite sum of money, it was that in the outside division of the Post Office Department the salaries of messengers,
[DOT]6315


Angus Claude Macdonell: The minister must consider the great number of years that these men have been admittedly underpaid. I do not think it would be going too far to date their pay back.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have had several interview's with leading men among the fraternity, and they appear to be satisfied to have the Bill taking effect on the date of prorogation. I have my doubts, and so has the clerk of the House as to the feasibility of what my hon. friend suggests, dating back the payment to the first of April. It is not covered by the resolution. If the resolution had meant that the payment would date back to the first of April, well and good, but there should have been a special proviso in the resolution to that effect. Every Bill is deemed to take effect on the day of its sanction, and I fear I am not warranted in dating back ,the coming into effect of this Bill.


George Eulas Foster: My suggestion was that this resolution states that they shall be paid so much per year. We could insert here a clause that the salaries under this Bill shall commence at the beginning of the fiscal year, which would be perfectly in order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose that no one would object to such a proposal and I shall therefore add that amendment to the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I would inquire with respect to some requests preferred by certain letter-carriers in Halifax?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have an amendment to add concerning the letter-carriers who did not accept the grade system which was introduced some years ago, when Sir William Mulock amended the Post Office Act.


George Eulas Foster: Why would they not accept the grade system?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose they found they had more advantages under the old system. Fot instance, they could absent Mr. FOSTER.
themselves from the service in case of illness and be paid just as if they had been working, whilst under the grade system they cannot, but are paid for each day's work. That was the chief reason why the letter carriers refused to come under the new system.


George Eulas Foster: There was also some benefit on the ground of superannuation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Their rights were not superseded as regards superannuation; they were told that if they came under the grade system they would have their rights the same. However, as they are a very deserving class of officials, I have decided to bring them under the present Bill and to give them the benefit of now accepting the grade system. I move to the present section 39 this amendment:
Any person who before the 15th day of May, 1902, was appointed messenger, porter, letter carrier, mail transfer agent, or box collector, and is still filling any such position, and who did not within the time limited by chapter 28 of the statutes of 1902, or any extension thereof, elect to accept the provisions of that Act instead of the provisions of the Civil Service Act, may elect to become subject to the provisions of the Post Office Act, section 37 to 45, both inclusive, relating to graded employees, by signifying such election in writing, signed by him, and delivered or transmitted by registered letter, addressed to the Secretary of the Post Office Department, within three months after the passing of this Act; and thereupon this Act, instead of the Civil Service Act, shall apply to him, and he shall be classed in grade 1 C.'
Which will give him the maximum of his present salary, which is $600. He will come in under grade B, which will give him $626, plus the $20 bonus which he is en-tittled to receive every year for his holidays.


Mr. RUSSELL.: These employees who have been working under the old Act, and who the minister is now bringing in, are practically in the highest grade, grade D. They are to all intents and purposes on the same level as those in the new Act under grade D, and why not let them now come in under the new Act in the same grade and the same class they are in now? Those who are entitled to grade D will then come in under the new Act in grade D.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The maximum salary of those eighty-five letter carriers, because it applies only to the eighty-five to whom I now give an opportunity of coming under the grade system, was $600. They will immediately receive $625 plus $20, and then be eligible for the other grades until they reach the maximum of the present system. But they do not get less, they will get more at once.


Joseph Russell: Their position now under the old Act corresponds to the highest grade under the new Act. I do not think it fair to class them back to a lower grade in the

new system. They are now at the top in their class and are entitled to an increase as well as the men who came in under the new Act.


George Eulas Foster: How do the grades run?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the order of A, B, C, D and E. Beginners come in under grade A at a salary of $547.75. For the first year the salary is $626, which is the maximum. Then grade B is $704.25, which is also the maximum. The next grade is $782.50, and the next $860.75.


George Eulas Foster: A newcomer begins in grade A, at what salary?


Rodolphe Lemieux: $547.75 for one month, that is based on a year's salary. Then at the expiration of that month he comes in at $2 a day, that makes his salary $625. All the time he is in grade A he remains at that salary. In grade B he gets $734. He remains there two years, and then he will get $782.50 during two years. He may be promoted for special service to grade D at $860.75. Grade A includes a probationary period of one month, where he may remain during the remaining eleven months of the year.


George Eulas Foster: There is this to be taken into account, which I think is only fair with reference to these men. They did not get their statutory increase, and the minister probably knows that there were I think three or four years during which, on some principle I never could understand, the yearly increase was kept from these men and they did not receive it. That is a disability they have had to contend with all the time up to the present, not due to any lack of good work on their part. Therefore they labour under the disadvantage of having, for that period, suffered from what was acknowledged to be a misconceived policy. They suffered in that respect, and to that extent. Now those that have come in since have not suffered by reason of the retention from them of the regular increase.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They started at the bottom of the ladder.


George Eulas Foster: They have been at the lower end of that ladder for a very long time, and they are kept down three or four rungs at least on account of the deprivation of their regular increase.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Like all the others, who come under the grade system, they begin at the bottom of the ladder and rise up. But it must not be lost sight of that these eighty-five men who are now seeking to come under the system which they refused to accept, although they were invited to come under it on three different occasions, have the benefit of the superannuation, which the grade men have not. They will have a superannuation based on the salary as increased. They get an immediate increase of $45. They get $626 a year, besides $26 given as a bonus under the grade system. Every letter carrier receives a bonus of $20 a year, which represents the curtailed holidays which they used to get, and we now give them a sum of money instead, which they much prefer. So on the whole I believe that the eighty-five gentlemen will be satisfied with the status we give them.


Robert Laird Borden: When the letter carriers were transferred from the old system to the grade system, did they suffer any diminution of salary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, they do not suffer any diminution, nor will the old letter carriers suffer any. They will get an increase. They will get more than they got under the maximum of their class.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that perfectly. They do not suffer any diminution in salary. Are these men doing the same work as those who have been receiving an increase in salary from time to time or has their treatment been exceptional?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, but they are at the maximum of their class.


Robert Laird Borden: Were they in 1902?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Practically all of them.


Robert Laird Borden: The injustice of the present proposal, if there be an injustice, seems to consist of this, that these men, after a long period of service, are put at precisely the same salary as that which any man, now entering the service, receives after one month?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: It hardly seems to be fair to put men who have been eight, eleven, fifteen or twenty years in the service, upon exactly the same basis in respect of salary as any man will receive in one month from to-day, if he should enter the service now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend must be more just than that. I believe that we are doing justice to the old letter carriers. They were afforded the same opportunity as was afforded to all letter carriers, but they refused to accept it because they considered they had some vested rights in the matter. They were afraid that perhaps the superannuation might be changed should they come under the graded system. They were afraid also that leave of absence would not be easy to obtain, because, as I explained when the resolutions were introduced, there were great complaints on the part of the postal authorities because letter carriers had been abusing the system of leave of absence. Therefore, they maintained their status because they thought they had certain advantages. The others

who were in the service came under the grade system and although these people were offered, on three different occasions, the opportunity to come under the grade system, they refused. Now, let us establish some compensation. They will get a fair measure of benefit from this new Act and they cannot expect to jump immediately to the maximum of the salary provided by this Bill. They will come into the class into which they are entitled to come, plus $26 and $20: They will get for themselves exclusively the benefit of the superannuation which the others have not got under the Act, and for years they have had what would be considered an advantage over their fellow workers.


George Eulas Foster: They do not get any bonus?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They do not get any bonus.


George Eulas Foster: If these men do not get a bonus they will have the extra leave?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. I think, balancing the pros and cons we are treating them generously. At all events it is my intention to treat them generously.


George Eulas Foster: I think the minister has that intention so that we will try and reason with him, and if he is not carrying out his intention I am quite certain that he will change the modus operandi so as to carry it out. These old men have been in the service longer than a good many who have come in under the new system. If they had not been good men and done their work well they would not have been continued in the service. It is of some moment that a man's experience be counted in his favour, and if a man has been serving five, seven, eight or nine years longer than another, presumably he has more facility, having more experience and, on the whole, makes a better officer. Until they get up to a certain age at least the more experience, knowledge and tact they have the better officers they are. These men have been doing the government's work to the government's satisfaction. They have been long engaged in the work. It is true they have a little advantage in extra sick leave over and above their companions who have come in under the grading system, but if they have that they do not have the bonus of the companion under the new system. Although he has less sick leave and is, consequently, at a disadvantage with the older man in that respect, he feels in his pocket the $20 which the older man does not feel. He says:	True, I have less advantage in the
matter of sick leave, but I have more advantage in the matter of money, while you have the extra leave. That works out to about an even balance. Now, let us take Mr LEMIEUX.
the question of superannuation. The superannuation is based upon the carrying power of the contribution, plus the management by the government, and a certain rate of interest. It is almost no burden to the department. If there is any balance to be struck there the old man has a little advantage because he gets the advantage of having his superannuation managed by the department and to a certain extent helped by the per cent of interest that his contribution carries. That is a certain advantage, and that is one good thing that a man in the graded system has not. But in no other respect has he any advantage. The new man steps in and in one month's time he is exactly on the same level with regard to all advantages with the exception of superannuation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Which is very important.


George Eulas Foster: I think I have given the full importance to it. The new man does not have to pay anything out of his salary for superannuation, and I have stated that the government adds a little to its value in the rate of interest and management. But the man who has been working for eight, ten or twelve yeaTS, or more, and who has done his duty well, does not feel that he is being quite fairly treated when the newcomer comes in and in a month's time is getting exactly the same pay that he has with all the advantages that he has, with the exception of a little disadvantage in the matter of superannuation. Does not the minister think that something is due to long service, and that this old-service man ought to be allowed to go into a grade which is higher than that of the new entrant? I think the minister will see that that is reasonable. The minister will not say that because they have stood out they -will not get any benefit. We do not want to punish men for having been sturdy in keeping to rights which they value. A great deal of our civilization has been built up on that principle. We would not have had much of a country unless we had had that principle. I do not think we should punish these men for that. Surely a man who has long service to his credit should get a higher grading than the newcomer.


Joseph Russell: I would like to ask the minister if he does not think that even though the old employees did not come in under the new system, they are just as much entitled to an increase in their pay as are the clerks under the grade system. They certainly have earned the right to consideration on account of length and efficiency of service. We have been told that the different officials have had their pay increased because of the increased cost of living in the cities, and surely this applies

to the faithful old employees of the post office who live in the larger cities of the Dominion and are under the same conditions as the others. These officials, for whom I speak, are at their maximum salary under their own Act; they have been, some of them, seven years without any addition to their pay, while those who have been graded have been receiving annual increases from the time they entered the service. I think it only fair that the older men should be put in class D and quite a number of them who are some of the best carriers we have should be eligible for class E.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The advantages under the old system were considered so great by the letter carriers that they refused to come under the grade system, although-


Joseph Russell: I think they were wrong in that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At all events they refused to come in although under the grade system they would have obtained an increase of $124. They considered they had other advantages under the old Act which they should not give up. I do not think the letter carriers who are now seeking to come under the grade system have anything to lose, but on the contrary have everything to gain by accepting the proposal which is made.


Frederick William Borden: How many years does it take to pass from grade B to grade C, from C to D, and from D to E?


Mr LEMIEUX.: Two years in each grade, but they could be transferred to grade D for special service.


Joseph Russell: The older servants have contributed to the superannuation fund for the great number of years they have been in the service, and if they enjoy any advantages over the grade system in that respect they have had to pay for these advantages. I do not think that is any argument against not bringing them under the grade system on the same level that they now stand in as regards classification. Even though they refused to come in, it would be only fair to raise their pay now. I think it would be a good thing for the department to have them all under the same Act. I think the minister should bring them into class D, and then thev would only have to wait a short time until they got into class E.


Mr. STEWABT.: The only reason I have heard advanced by the hon. the Postmaster General against the claims of these men is that they had a chance to come under this grade system and they did not avail themselves of it, because they had some advantage under the superannuation fund which they did not see fit to abandon. Now, quite
a number of those letter-carriers in the city of Hamilton have been twenty years and over in the service, and nothing that the Postmaster General has said can justly be taken as a reason why men who have come into the service eight or ten years after these men should get better pay than them. I hope the Postmaster General will consider this matter favourably as to the claims of these men. There are many of the letter-carriers in my city who are over 20 years in the sevice, and they are working side by side, day in and day out, with men who have only been ten years and less in the service, but who get higher pay than they do. I do not think that is fair play. The old carriers admit they were mistaken when they refused to come in, but I do not think that mistake should be visited on them now. The Postmaster General should put every one of these men in grade E.


George Eulas Foster: When was the graded system introduced?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In 1902.


George Eulas Foster: How many of these 80 men have been working for a number of years without any increase at all? Having reached the maximum of $600 they have not since then been receiving any increase.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They were increased $40 per year automatically until they reached the maximum.


George Eulas Foster: At what salary did they commence?


Rodolphe Lemieux: $360 per annum.


George Eulas Foster: That is less than one dollar per day. There is not much to be said in favour of that for a living wage, is there? Had they been in the service for ten years and got $40 every year of an automatic increase they would now be getting $760, and does the minister think that for good men who entered the service at $360 a year that would be too much? They entered the service at $360 per annum, they got an increase of $40 a year until they reached the maximum, but if you take it that one of these men has been for ten years in the service and is now only receiving $600, that would be an increase of $240 in all or $24 a year. Why, you could not get a man to look after your chickens, and do it well, for that wage. Now you say they had their chance and did not take it. That is true. They rested on their rights, thinking at the time that would be better. This is actually penalizing them for not coming in. If they had come in, they would now 'be on a higher grade than they are. If we are not to be vindictive, and I am sure the minister does not desire to be, we should go beyond this. A good man who commenced ten or twelve years ago at less than a dollar a day can only go by little increases up to $600. That

is not treating good men properly. If they are good and proved men, they ought to go into_ the new grades, if at all, at a rate proportionate to their time of service and efficiency. If the minister will say that he will grade them according to their efficiency and length of service, that will satisfy me entirely.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the fair thing for the letter carriers as a body would be to put them on a footing of equality. There are letter carriers under the grade system, which is being amended to-day, who have reached the maximum of $704.25, and they will be eligible for the next grade, giving them $783.50. This will put on a footing of equality those under the old Civil Service system and those under the grade system. Eighty-five old letter carriers will come in at the maximum of $704.25 plus the bonus of $20, and they will get their superannuation besides, so that they will all be on a footing of equality.


Mr. MADDIN.: I would like to ascertain from the Postmaster General what progress has been made towards instituting free mail delivery in the city of Sydney?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The city clerk has been asked to send us an official return of the population, and as soon as we have that, we will act.


James William Maddin: Is any provision being made in the estimates for it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not necessarily. There is a lump vote for that.


Joseph Russell: I would like to urge still further the case of the men I have referred to. The number is so small that the amendment involved would not be very large, and no doubt they have merit on their side.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think I have stretched the matter to the very limit.


Joseph Russell: We are very thankful for what the Postmaster General" has done.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Why not take the power to grade the men according to their length of service? That would .put them on an equality.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is raising a new question when the Bill has practically passed to the satisfaction of the committee.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
On section 3-section 51 repealed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Section 51 of the Post Office Act reads as follows:
Newspapers and periodicals weighing less than one ounce each may he posted singly at a postage rate of half-a-eent each, which Mr. FOSTER.
shall in all cases be prepaid by postage stamp affixed to each.
We have practically done away with the half cent stamp which was in use some years ago, when papers weighing less than an ounce were carried by the mails. There are no papers of such weight to-day at all events, the gapers are sent by bulk at the rate of one-quarter of a cent per pound. Therefore, in order to avoid mistakes and errors in our post offices, we have decided to do away with the half cent stamp.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4, elegibility for appointment.
Rodolphe Lemieux: We have fixed an age limit of thirty years. We think that a man entering the service should not be over that age, especially a letter carrier. We want as letter carriers active young men who can give good service for some years and acquire some experience. There was no statutory limit, but we had some regulations. Now, there will be a statutory limit, and no one will be taken over 30 years of age.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CIVIL SERVICE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 137) to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Lemieux.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Under the present law, the minimum salary attached to a fourth class clerkship, which is the lowest in the service, is $400 per annum, and the maximum is $700, reached by annual increases of $50. By this Bill the minimum salary will be made $500 and the $700 maximum will be reached by annual increases of $100. The first amendment relates to schedule 'B' of the Civil Service Act. The object of amending that schedule is to include the clerks in the money order exchange office among the numerous officers who come under this schedule. At one time these clerks were attached to the Montreal post office, but it was considered better to make a separate branch for international money order exchange work, which will still form part of the outside service as before. Stampers and sorters, who are now paid at the rate of $360 per year, with an annual increase of $50 up to a maximum of $600, will receive upon entrance a salary of $500 per year, with an annual increase of $50 up to $600. The great majority of the employees begin as sorters and stampers; and after they show the necessary efficiency and aptitude, the rule of the department is to appoint them to clerkships. Under the present law the initial salary of $360, from which must be deducted 5 per cent per annum for the retirement ifund, does not provide a living, in view of the increased cost of provisions, &c. The

result is we have great difficulty keeping those officers who have acquired some skill and experience. I propose to make the initial salary of fourth class clerks $500 instead of $400, .and they will reach the maximum of $700 by a yearly increase of $100 instead of $50.


George Eulas Foster: Why does the hon. minister put the annual increase so high?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, $700 as a maximum is not a very large salary. Besides, generally those who enter into the fourth-class clerkship have served as stampers and sorters, and have acquired experience. As stampers and sorters their annual increase is only $50 a year, but when they reach the maximum of $600 it is only fair that they should be entitled to an advance. They will get an increase of $100 a year until they reach $700.


George Eulas Foster: What does your stamper and sorter get?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He comes in at $500 and goes to $600. Then, if he is eligible for a fourth-class clerkship, he enters that class at $600 and goes up to $700.


Mr. LALOR.: Is there any provision for increasing the salaries of the railway mail clerk?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I would like to impress their case on the minister. There is no class more poorly paid. They undergo considerable risk and axe underpaid.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When we introduced the resolution, this was brought to my attention and I replied that this year, being rather a lean year, we could not consider the case of the railway mail clerks, although they have my sympathy. But the railway mail clerks are quite different from the other postal employees. A Tailway mail chief clerk can reach a salary of $1,500 less his mileage. A first-class clerk receives $900 less his mileage. When they get a fair mileage, such as between Montreal and Toronto, they get a salary as high as $1,850 to $1,900. I admit that the railway mail clerks are a very efficient class, and I know that they have difficulty in obtaining proper insurance on account of the risks which they run in their work. But as I explained to a delegation who waited on me I cannot this year at least consider their case.
I must be satisfied to deal with the lower classes of the Post Office Department, we must begin at the beginning and later on I hope- we will be able to satisfy the railway mail clerks.


Mr. SPROULE.: It seems to me they are different from all other classes in the | service owing to the extra hazardous nature 1
of their life work. In the first place the mail car is generally placed next to the locomotive and so is the car most frequently destroyed in wrecks.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This has been represented to me on different occasions. I may inform my hon. friend that I have referred the railway mail clerks to the Board of Railway Commissions and in the reference I have given them my support. I believe they should be provided with every facility for safety and convenience on the trains.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The mail cars are badly arranged for the service, they are very poor and little or no accommodation is provided for the comfort of the clerks. Then there is no standard pattern of mail car. The government should provide a model of a standard mail car which would be the same for all roads, and there is no doubt that the railway companies, if their attention was drawn to the matter, would agree to such an improvement. The time has come when the government must consider a change from the wooden mail car to the steel car.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Mr SPROLLE.: I asked some time ago after an experience of the Pennsylvania railroad in a wreck where the wooden cars were entirely destroyed while the steel cars escaped practically uninjured, whether the government did not consider that the time had arrived when it would be advisable to get the railway companies to build steel cars. The answer was that the great additional cost would prevent it. I have made some investigation, and I am informed that a difference between the cost of an ordinary wooden car and a steel car is not great. It would be a peat advantage if the companies would take this up or if some pressure were -brought to bear on them to have not only a standard car but a much safer car both for the mails and the employees. It is essential that we should adopt every piecuution for the safety of the mails and of the government employees in charge of them. These men are engaged in a hazardous and arduous occupation which demands continuous and close attention under the most adverse conditions. I would urge as strongly as possible upon the minister and the government the consideration of these suggestions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I accept in a proper spirit the remarks made by the hon. gentleman. I must admit that some of the railway companies who receive the statutory mail subsidy do not always give us the proper cars, but of late, in view of the representations which have been made by the mail clerks themselves, I have caused a very close inspection to be made by the superintendent of the railway mail service, Mr. Armstrong, an old and trusted official of the department, and he has now adopted

a standard for railway mail cars. All the cars which are now built have to be accepted by the department, and I have instructed Mr. Armstrong to see that protection is given to our officials. I have noticed in some of the old cars that the comfort of the railway mail clerks is very poorly provided for. We have taken proper precautions to stop that in the future. I believe tii at what has been said this afternoon may be of some service to both the railway companies and the department, and as far as I am concerned I intend to enforce the proper regulations and see to the protection of our mail clerks.
Mr. SPROUT,E. I think the department should go further and ascertain the difference in cost between a standard steel car and a standard wooden car.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: The clerks in many large towns and small cities who are under the pay of the postmasters of those towns and cities receive a mere pittance for their work while the postmasters receive good round salaries. Has the Postmaster General made any provision in this Bill in regard to these employees.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, this Bill affects the cilices which come under the Civil Service Act, but the department is now engaged in the classification of our various offices. There are large offices which come under the Civil Service Act such as Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver and there are others, which are under the semi-staff system. We are preparing a classification to take over, without adding to our expenditure, those offices where the postmasters draw a percentage of the revenues as their salary and out of that pay the salaries of their subordinates. We are preparing the classification so as to bring the larger portion of such offices under the direct control of the department. I expect that at the next session I shall be in a position to lay that classification before the House and stop what I consider, from representations which have been made me in the House, to be a sweating system in some cities. I am attending to this matter very seriously and I believe that in a few months that scandal will have ceased.


Mr. PORTER.: It will also have the effect of materially improving the service. Where the postmaster pays his assistants or help he gets the cheapest help he can and the service deteriorates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not like to make an exception in the case of stampers, sorters, and others, who come under this Bill, and treat them differently from the letter-carriers. Therefore I move that the same amendment which was moved a moment ago, dating the salary back to the 1st of April, be adopted with reference to these men.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Mr. CROSBY.: I am glad to see that the department is waking up to the necessity of doing something for the civil servants in the outside service of the Post Office Department, giving them some recognition. I would be glad if the government could have seen their way clear to go still further, and make the minimum a little higher. In the city of Halifax, for instance, we have men in the post office service who are receiving mails at all hours of the night, particularly during the winter season, and as the minister well knows, many men have to go to the post office and wait until the steamer arrives, sometimes in the small hours of the morning, in order to be on hand to sort the mails just as soon as they arrive. Some men have to go to the office very early in the evening and remain there waiting for a boat that may arrive at any hour, and continue until that mail arrives, in order to sort it and send it out. Now I have often thought it was almost a disgrace to Canada that these men should he getting only $400 a year. In our banks it is well known that a clerk is not permitted to marry until he is in receipt of a salary of $1,000; and it does seem hard that a young man going into the post office department at a minimum salary of $400, should only get $50 a year increase until he reaches a maximum of $600. I think if the minimum can be increased the maximum should be increased. I would be glad if the minister could see his way clear to put the maximum somewhat higher. I understand that the lowest grade clerks, stampers, and sorters, will come in at not less than $500. Would it not be a good thing to make that maximum $1,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A stamper or sorter getting not less than $500 will go up to $600. Then he will be eligible for a fourth-class clerkship, where he gets $700 as the maximum after one year's service. Then he will be eligible for the third class, and then for the second class. Under this amendment, fourth-class clerks begin at $600 and reach $700 within a year. Then a third-class clerk will have a salary of $800; that is in the junior class. In the third-class senior he will get a maximum of $900. In the second-class junior he is eligible for $1,000, and in the senior second $1,200. In the first class he is eligible to get a salary of from $1,200 to $1,500. As 1 explained when I introduced the two Bills, this year I am only giving an advance to the lower class in the service. Without making a promise I can say that the case of the other officials who are in the superior classes appeals to me, and some day sooner or later I may have to take the House into my confidence.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am glad to see that the Postmaster General is giving some consideration to this matter, and I would have been more glad if he could have seen his way clear to make the minimum $600 in place of $500. It is frequently said that the men in the inside service are getting very large salaries, in fact some people say they are getting too much. I am not so particular about those who are getting too much as I am about those who are not getting enough. I would like the Postmaster General to consider whether he could not make this minimum $600 in place of $500, and then let the maximum be $900 in place of $800. Now while he is in good humour, I know we have his sympathy, I would like to get his action.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very sorry, but I must disappoint my hon. friend to-day.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Some weeks ago I asked the Postmaster General for some explanation why the running expenses in some post offices were relatively so much higher than in others.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend spoke of Ottawa, and I will give the House the explanation given to me by the accountant of the department:
The expenditure of the different city post offices under the heading of contingencies, is given in detail in the Auditor General's Report, part S, pages 75 to 86. Wages paid to labourers are included in this item, which accounts for the large excess in the miscellaneous expenditure of some offices over others.
At Ottawa a large number who were shown as labourers on the post office list were actually employed in the department during the year 1907-08; most of these were trans-f erred from the inside service under the new Civil Service Act on the 1st of September last, so that the item of contingent expenses of the Ottawa post office will not be so large tor the year just closed nor in the future.
The sum paid to such persons out of the total amount of $60,757.28 shown in the Auditor General's Report was $13,922.85 for the year 1907-08, so that the actual expenditure of the Ottawa post office paid as contingent expenses only amounted to $16,834.43
As a matter of fact, they were employed for the department and not for the Ottawa post office. Between 85 and 100 men were employed under that head.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I think that shows that the minister should see if it is not possible to adopt a different system of bookkeeping, and making the explanations a little more explicit than they are in the Auditor General's Report. For instance, I find that we spend in the Yukon $127,000 in collecting $14,000, that the Dawson City post office costs $21,000, while Hamilton costs a little over $4,000, London a little over $5,000, Winnipeg $17,000 and Toronto $29,-
000. I think it might be well for the minister to investigate that part of the expenditure of the Post Office Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a mistake in the hon. gentleman's figures because it costs more in Toronto than the amount which he mentioned. As regards the Yukon, we spend $127,746.91 for the mail service. This is a large amount. The revenue is about $15,936.70. The revenue is relatively small, but my hon. friend will understand that because of the increased cost of living, the feeding of horses and other items in connection with the carrying of the mail in the Yukon, we have to pay the contractors more to perform the service there. But, we must maintain the service. We have to give a service between the several mining camps and you must expect that in some sections of the country the revenue will be less than the expenditure, while this disparity will be compensated for in other sections of the country. Since the inception of the mail service in the Yukon the expenditure has not increased. We pay, in this section of the country $200 a year for a daily service between two points, say five miles distance, while in the Yukon for the same service we will pay four, five, six or seven times more. Our mail service in the Yukon district is supervised by a man of eminent ability and of sterling character, Mr. Hartman, and if we pay a higher figure the expenditure is very carefully scrutinized before it is made.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES.
[Stage Direction]
Resolution respecting the granting and payment of increases in salaries to members of the Civil Service-Mr. Fisher-read the second time and concurred in.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 187) to authorize certain increases in salary to members of the Civil Service inside service.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
Mr. FISHER moved the second reading of the Bill.
George Eulas Foster: Does the minister propose to say anything in regard to this Bill?


Mr. FISHER.: This question has been now for a long time before the notice of the House. This is quite a short Bill. It is not on the file but the copies of the Bill which were printed are exactly as the Bill is introduced with the exception of the last clause where a change that was proposed by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is incorporated in the Bill as it was

incorporated in the resolution. If .my hon. friend desires it I can go over the Bill now, but if my hon. friend would allow me to move the House into Committee of the Whole upon the Bill I would take it up clause by clause. We agreed across the floor of the House that we would attach schedules to the Bill containing the details of the payments that would be made under the Bill in the same form as the civil government estimates are submitted to the House. These schedules have been prepared and printed and have been before the members of the House for a couple of days. There are one or two slight typographical errors in the printing, but I have the schedule here which is correct and when we get into committee on the Bill I propose to correct theses light errors. The Bill provides for an increase of $150 a year in the salary of each civil servant in the inside service. That will be a permanent and immediate addition to the salary and of course, it is well understood by the House that the salaries of civil servants in Ottawa will go on from the 1st of September last, and that they will be $150 more than they were under the old law at that date. There are some exceptions which are provided for in the Bill. The first and most important is 4that the increase shall be on the salaries as existing on the 1st of September last when the amended Civil Service Act came into force. The second important provision is that where after the organization and classification on the amended Civil Service Act the officer obtained an increase by reason of the classification, that increase should ,be offset against the increase of $150 proposed under this Act. The next exception is that the increase shall in no case bring the salary of the officer above the maximum of the division or subdivision in which under the Civil Service Act he is, so that in some cases instead of getting $150 the officer would get a less sum.


George Eulas Foster: And in some cases nothing.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And in 35 cases in the whole service here at Ottawa, nothing. I must say that it was a surprise to me that it worked out that so few of the officers in the Civil Service were subject to that disability. I submitted that list when the resolution was before the committee. At this stage I do not know that I could add more than to say that the first schedule was made out before the end of the last fiscal year, and now it has been made out in the form of two schedules, one for the payment of the increase from the 1st of September to the 1st of April just passed, and the other for the increase during this present fiscal year. The increase for the present fiscal year not having been provided Mr. FISHER.
in the main estimates or the estimates for the present fiscal year, there were consequently two lists, one the payment of the increase from the 1st of September to the 1st bf April, and the other for the fiscal year commencing on the 1st of April. We have all the schedules except that of the Senate employees, and I submit that we might go into committee, examine the schedules we have as much as is desired, deal with the provisions of the Bill, and leave it in Committee of the Whole so that we may go back and add the Senate schedule which we hope to get in a day or two.


George Eulas Foster: What amount does the schedule show that this increase will involve?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has been added up for each department, but I do not think the sum total is given.


George Eulas Foster: It is about $340,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I dare say it is, but I do not know.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister decided to give the increase to all those who came in from the outside-inside service irrespective of whether they received increases or not?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The increases are calculated on the salaries which were enjoyed by the officers on the 1st of September without regard to when they may have had increases before that date.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister made any provision to equalize what seems to be an injustice to those servants of the Crown who have rendered valuable service for many years, who have had all the difficulties and disabilities to contend with which are the foundation for this increase, and who get not a single penny of it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not quite understand what class my hon. friend describes.


George Eulas Foster: There are 35 who get no increases at all, and these presumably have been doing good service. The increase wa3 granted because of the insufficiency of salaries and the increased scale of living, and it happens that there are 35 employees who have had to contend with all these difficulties and who get no help from this Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A deputation of Civil Servants approached the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues and asked whether something could not be done in that way, and the reply was that we could not see any logical way which would deal with their case on any broad general principle. These 35 officials were on the 1st of September at the maximum of their respective classes, and if we were to disturb the arrangement

in the Act and pay to any of the officials a higher salary than the maximum salary of his class we would be paying an officer a higher salary than was considered ample, under the scheme, for the work done in that class. We did not think it well to introduce that disturbing element. In some cases men have been a long time at the maximum of their class and consequently have not had an increase, but under the new Civil Service classification the maximum of the class was raised in almost every case by $100 at least and in some cases more, and so the great majority of those who were at the maximum before are receiving an increase of at least $100 out of this $150, and consequently are not in that number of 35. I have not at the moment the list of that thirty-five under my hand. I remember that in my own department there are among the number four gentlemen in jeceipt of $4,000 a year. I do not remepiber whether there are any others. But if we once departed from the principle of not placing a man above the maximum of his class, we would be disturbing the principle of paying salaries by classes for particular work. Some people have thought that length of service alone was sufficient to justify promotion in the service.


George Eulas Foster: Who ever advanced that?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have heard it often advanced, and I know that it has been frequently acted upon, as there are many men in the higher classes of the service doing work exactly similar to what other men in lower classes are doing. The fact that a man has been for many years at the maximum of his class is almost prima facie proof that he has not been qualified for promotion to work of a higher and more responsible character. My hon. friend might say that favouritism prevented his promotion. I cannot say as to that. It is possible that in the public service, as in other services, personal considerations may occasionally enter; but I venture to think that in 99 cases out of every hundred a man who has been for many years at the maximum of his class and has seen others promoted over his head, gives pTima facie evidence that he is not worthy of promotion or that his characteristics or qualifications do not suit him for the work of a higher class. Some gentlemen among those thirty-five, are probably among those gentlemen. The cases I have mentioned in my department are at the very top of the service, and the only way in which we could consider them as entitled to an increase would be by practically creating another class or byraising the maximum of their class. Under these circumstances we did not see our way to making any change; but we did say to the delegation of the Civil Service Association which waited on the government that their cases would be carefully considered in the way of promotion in the future, and that if it seemed to be justifiable to give them promotion, by reason of the necessities of the service, or by reason of their own qualifications and character and their capacity for higher work we thought it should be done, and the ministers would consider the fact that they did not get this increase now, and when an opportunity came would carefully consider their claims for promotion. This is the most that we felt we could do, and I have no hesitation in repeating on the floor of parliament, not the exact words, but the spirit of what was said to the association.


George Eulas Foster: I have just a few remarks to make in reply to my hon. friend. When he says that there are thirty-five who did net receive an increase, he does not state the whole case. That is an extreme illustration of injustice under the Act, as there are a great many more than thirty-five who received an increase of less than $150- some of $50, some of $75, some of $100, and so on. That is an injustice and a hardship on the face of it, that the man who happens to be at the maximum can get none of the $150 increase, though he has had all the disabilities. It is only a little less of an injustice if he be deprived of a portion of the $150 increase. YTou start 'on the assumption that to make some compensation for the disabilities, -each man should receive an increase of $150; Thirty-five receive none; a number receive $100; a still larger number receive $75; and a number receive only $50; then you grade into those who receive none.
So that the minister has not stated the whole case when he has expressed his agreeable surprise that there were only thirty-five who did not receive any increase at all. The minister desires to be very logically, and he did not see how logically an injustice like this might be remedied. The main point, it seems to me, is that we should remedy the injustice. If it is necessary to be a little illogical, I would credit the fertile mind of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture with finding out means by which that could be done. But if there is no heaven-born principle that is outraged,
I would venture a little, trenching on the ground of the logicalness of the proposition in order that the injustice might be wiped away. I think everybody will agree with me in that. If it were a question of some great principle of human liberty or some basic method of administration, to v'olate which would be nejt to a crime against the decalogue, we of course should have regard to it and let the individual suffer; but in a case like this nothing of that kind is present. It is simply a matter of maximums, and I would appeal to the Prime Minister, who I can see is now soft-

ening a little under my appeal, whether or not the primary object should not be to remedy the injustice, even though we have to depart a little from the strict logical line? How many times has my right_ hon. friend gone out of the strict logical line in omer to attain his end, political or party? All of us have done it occasionally; and I would think that in this case the ministry of all the talents might find a way_ m which that injustice could be remedied. Last night I brought up the^ case of a. young man who was taken into the service in 1905 at $500; two years afterwards he received $600.	On finding
that the 1st day of September was coming on, I think on the 26th ^ of August, the minister added $200 to his salary Then a thought struck him, and on August 27 he added another $100. That-is 'to say a young man, doing work not technical, who came in at $500 in 1905, getting an increase of $50 a year, suddenly had $200 added to his salary and a day later $100, making an advance of $300, the purpose of which was to place him on the first of September in a grade where he could begin at $800 and go up to $1,600. The very essence of fairness is violated in treatment of that kind. What, however, did the minister care for fairness or logicality? He put the man where he wanted him to be. There are hundred^ of instances more or less on a par with that in the Interior Department alone. The minister made his increases of $100, $200, $400, and $500, and two of his colleagues-the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley)-added their quota to the same kind of thing. Here are two men doing the *same kind of work in the same department. One of them, after 10 or 15 or 20 years' service, has got to the head of his class and he goes no further; but the other, who was appointed only three years ago, gets increases of $300 on two successive days before the 1st of September, which puts him into a higher class and entitles him to be presented with this flat increase of $150. Whereas the other who has been doing the same work many years longer does not get that increase. He has been under the disability of an insufficient 'Salary and heightened living expenses during some 12 or 15 years of service, while the other has been under that disability only three years. Yet the latter gets the $150 and the old servant gets nothing. I mention this simply as a glaring instance, but scores of other can be adduced. One can imagine the sense of injustice excited in the man who has been thus unfairly treated. If the government wanted to be just, he will argue, if they wanted to give me some compensation for my disabilities Mr. FOSTER.
during a number of years out, of this $150, they surely could have done it. But because I happen to be at the maximum of my class, the government say they cannot give it. But why was I not put into a higher class? The minister says because I was not worthy to be advanced. I absolutely deny the proposition. Under the system which has prevailed in our country, a most deserving man-I am not speaking about brilliant ability which will enable a man to overcome any obstacle-but the plodding, good, solid worker, who does his duty and is not always tacking after political influence, who is a little sensitive, may remain at his maximum for years-not because he is not worthy of promotion, but because he does not get the pull to obtain it, because he is not persistent, because he has not a friend at court who will turn the wheel for him and bring it round until the spot favours him. If our Civil Service had been, as regards appointments and promotions, under able and straight Civil Service Commissioners, we could have pretty well concluded that if any individual clerk had not been promoted it was because he did not deserve promotion; but that cannot be said under our past system. Nor can it either be absolutely 'the case under the other, because it must happen that if you have two thousand clerks divided into four classes, there must be some-and deserving ones too-who do not get a chance to be promoted, and who feel all the more the strain of smaller salary and higher living expenses, and $150 is a compensation to these men. But in this case, such a man will not get it. He feel's the injustice, and that feeling is intensified by seeing a new man pitchforked over him at the whim of the minister, just as the new Act is going into force, just as that Act comes fresh from parliament, where all these things should have been explained and authority given by parliament to do them. What did the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) do? One month before the 1st of September, without parliamentary authority, fresh from mingling with his masters in this House, who alone can vote the money and fix the salaries and name the men selected for larger salaries-that minister, 30 days before the 1st of September, took it upon himself to call into Class 'B' and fix the salaries of 45 officials- men who did not belong to the service at all. He called these men in and gave them salaries amounting to over $35,000 in order that on the next day they could go into the new schedule. Parliament knew nothing about it. Parliament was never advised about it. That was a usurpation of the pow'er of parliament, and I wonder that the right hon. the Prime Minister should have allowed a thing like that to be done under

his nose and his eyes and never make a protest. Why, the very essence of our system is that parliament should be consulted in these matters. Here we had parliament passing a measure providing that certain persons in the outside service shall come into the inside service at the salaries they were enjoying. Parliament passed that Bill knowing how many were in the outside service, and what they were being paid and thus knowing to what extent the inside service would be increased. The Bill was passed on that understanding. But thirty days before it goes into effect, a minister sets to work and arbitrarily makes a new list of 45 new appointees, calls them into existence, fixes their salaries, and puts the country in for $35,000. That is an imperious exercise of power. It was such abuses as that which in the old days caused the revolt from the rule of the King to the rule of the people, and many bloody wars, were fought to make that principle good. Yet here we are to-day, with no bloody wars and not a ruffle on the countenance of any one behind the Prime Minister. They think it all right for a minister to call into existence 45 new officials, without deigning to ask the authority of parliament, fresh from which he had just come. I want the Prime Minister to take all these things into consideration. I want him to understand that there is injustice, that that injustice rankles and has been caused to rankle by these unnecessary, arbitrary, and unconstitutional acts. I am not saying anything against the members of the two services. 1 do not know them. I am arguing this on principle, and I consider this sort of thing unjust.
I believe that the government ought to do one of two things, either to put the 'outside insiders' on the same level as the men who are near the maximum and in proportion as they received an increase the day before or the month before the coming into force of the Act, for the evident purpose of giving them a better standing in the new schedule, this $150 ought to be pared off just as it is pared off in the case of the old men so that they shall not pass the maximum. If a man the day before September 1, received an increase of $200 and was thus placed in a class where he can advance higher and higher, is it not fair if you reduce thei $150 given to the old civil servant who is near his maximum that you should also take into account the increase given to the 'outside-insider' the day before the Act came into operation by virtue of transfer to the schedule. If the government cannot see their way to do this they ought to devise some method by which the man who is "at or near the head of his class, who has done good service and is in good standing, should get his share 201
of the compensation out of the $150 for which there is no justification except to compensate the man who has had an insufficient salary and has paid highly for his living. I notice that in the British Columbia service, they have adopted an excellent plan for which I pleaded last year. They passed a Civil Service Act in that province, they had exactly the same conditions as we have. They established their schedules and classes and then appointed Commissioners whose duty it was to classify and grade the officials. These commissioners have classified and are now grading the officials and allotting them to their proper places. I have a letter from the director who says they have met with no difficulty. These business men and men experienced in office work, particularly in government office work, go in and consult with the deputy minister and the higher officers. They have a set of questions which they display and which are put in the form of schedules taking and covering all the pertinent information that could be required of that officer. These questions arei all to be answered. Then there is the experience of the man to aid and there is the advice and consultation with the responsible heads. Out of that they are getting a classification which the Civil service feel is giving them justice, and under which the distribution is made in a businesslike way. If some such authority as that made the classification here, we would not have seen what we saw in the House of Commons the other day, and would not have had in our service what I am afraid we have to-day, a sense that injustice has been committed. It will take us a long while to escape from the conditions that have supervened unnecessarily.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend stated in his closing words that a sense of injustice to-day permeates the Civil Service. I cannot agree to that statement. When the classification was made and the policy which is now before parliament was adopted, the government took care to obtain, as far as possible, the opinion of the Civil Service. My hon. friend has stated that on one or two occasions we received delegations from the civil servants themselves. They have organized themselves into an association. The policy was submitted to them and after it had been examined by their committee they reported that the arrangement made was as satisfactory as it could be made. I do not know that it is satisfactory to everybody, I do not think it is, but I have reason to believe and I can assert from the assurances given to us on that and other occasions, that it is satisfactory to the great majority of the civil servants. There may be some who are dissatisfied, I will come to that later on. My hon. friend has stated



that in British Columbia the classification has been made by a commission appointed for that purpose and the work done under rules laid down in advance. I would be much surprised if, even in British Columbia, when the classification is completed in accordance with these rules established in advance, there is not somebody who is not satisfied. It is impossible sometimes in a matter of this kind to make such rules and to apply them without giving offence to some one. To-day my hon. friend appealed to me on -my softness. On another occasion he reproved me because I was too soft. He took me to task in connection with my dealings with the civil servants saying that I had not only been too soft but that I had acted from improper motives. He said that in agreeing as the government did to give an increase of $150 to the Civil Service, I was actuated not by a desire to improve the service itself but in order to curry favour politically with that very important class of the electors of the city of Ottawa. He does not say that today, he takes another tack and says that not only are there 35 civil servants who receive no increase at all but quite a number who fail to receive the $150. I put it to my hon. friend if the government had been actuated by the motives he attributed to us on a former occasion, the motive of currying favour with the electors of Ottawa who happened to be in the Civil Service, would we not have seen that the 35 men who did not receive anything did receive something, and that those who did not receive the $150 did receive the whole amount? But, Sir, while it was our intention to give to every civil .servant the fullest measure of justice and to give every one of them $150, we found it impossible, not only logically but practically, to give to all the increase which we would like to give them. There were 35 who could not receive anything. There were a large number, how many I cannot say, who received something but would not receive the full measure of $150. Why? The reason is that we must have a classification. The hon. member agrees to that I am sure. This classification must be arranged with a view not to the interest of individual civil *servants but to the effectiveness of the service. We have a classification into- classes I, II, and III, and in each of these classes there is a second division. This had to be done not because it would suit one particular man or another, but in order to promote effectiveness in the service. If we had had that system long ago the service would have been in a better position than it is although it is in a very good position to-day] as I am sure every one will agree-and the fact that my hon. friend makes himself today the advocate of the service shows that in _ his	opinion	it	is a goodand efficient	service.	It might be


Wilfrid Laurier: better. What is his objection to it? Now what is the objection of my hon. friend? One of his objections is that under the present rule it is possible for one minister or another to give an tfndue favour to somebody. Why did we introduce the Civil Service Act? Exactly in order to prevent any favoritism being shown to anybody; and so we put the service under a commission in order that everybody may be treated on a footing of equality. The present members of the government are men, and although I think they are pretty good men, they are human after all, and they sometimes fail. And because we recognize that m this matter, as in many others, we may be carried away by the pressure of friends, we have placed it beyond our power to be actuated in future by any such motives, and now the service must work mechanically with no favour shown to anybody. Now what is the tenor of my hon. friends' complaints to-day? It is that somebody is not as well treated as somebody else, that somebody who has not been as long in the service receives as much or more than some one else who has been in longer. But, Sir, this is no new principle, this is as old as Scripture. Does not the hon. gentleman remember how the Master sent certain men to work in his vineyard the first hour and others the eleventh hour? Then when they came to be paid there, was one there, perhaps it was the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), but I don't think it was, at any rate he possessed the same character as the Jion. member for North Toronto, and he said: ' Why, you should pay me more than this man because I have been working from early dawn, and this man only began at the eleventh hour, and still he receives as much as I do.' That is exactly like my hon. friend. But the Master says: ' Here is your money, take it, it is all you are entitled to. What does it matter to you if somebody else receives as much as you do?' That is what we have .tried to do, we have tried to do justice to all, and although I am sure there are some members in the service who perhaps do not receive as much as I would like them to receive-I do not speak as Prime Minister, but perhaps I might speak as a member of the city of Ottawa when I say that there are some who do not receive as much as I would like,, and it would be my pleasure and perhaps my'profit to give them more. But there must be a general rule for all; and therefore when we were told that some one did not receive as much as he ought, what were we to do? For my part there was no help for if we had to apply the rule which we laid down ourselves, that is to say, that any man. who comes within a certain class, if he is at the top of his class, it is not possible to

give him any more. But we are desirous \ to remedy any injustice when it is shown < to us that there has been an injustice, and < I am sure the Minister of Agriculture, who ] is a charitable man, will be only too glad 1 to do so.	'


Mr. CROTHERS.: The hon. the Minister ] of Agriculture, who has had this Bill in charge, told us early in the session, and j I think he repeated it to-day, that the proposed increases in the salaries of the civil , servants aggregated somewhere about $350,000. It is therefore not a trifling mat- : ter, but one which merits some careful con- i sideration. Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize with what facility friends may be made by a generous and even by a lavish expenditure of public money; I also realize how readilv dissatisfaction may arise by offering any opposition to an expenditure such as is proposed here. When we were working at the estimates early in the session, it occurred to me that the government was paying very generously the civil servants of Ot- i tawa in the different departments. I understand it is the inside civil servants we : are dealing with now, the servants of the i government who are employed in the different departments at Ottawa. As I say, it occurred to me at the time that the government was treating these civil servants very generously. I have taken considerable interest in the matter during the session, and I must say that I am still of the opinion, indeed I am thoroughly convinced, that while there may be a few that are underpaid-if there are, I do not know of any -I am perfectly satisfied that there are a great many who are very generously paid, and I am thoroughly convinced that the great majority are very grossly overpaid-
I speak advisedly and guardedly in that respect-having regard to the salaries that are paid for similar equipment elsewhere, and taking into account the length of hours the civil servants are required to work here, the retiring allowances that are provided for them, and the permanency of their positions. Now in the first place, it occurred to me that the departments here are very grossly overmanned. The civil servants engaged in the departments here are putting in about five hours a day, I do not think they average that. I had occasion a few weeks ago to call at one branch of a department. I called at about a quarter to two in the afternoon, supposing I would find the office open. The office was closed, nobody had returned from lunch yet. I took a seat out in the corridor and remained until twenty minutes after two before the officer came who had charge of that room. During that time, up till twenty minutes after tw<4, the clerks were coming in by ones, twos and half dozens; I do not know how much longer after twenty minutes 201i	;	!
past two they kept coming in. I asked the caretaker who was in the hall: 'What time did the clerks come to the office?' 'Well,' he said, 'they are supposed to get here at half-past- nine, but they keep coming along until ten.' 'What time did they go home to lunch?' 'At half past twelve.' 'What time are they supposed to return?' 'They are supposed to return at two, but they keep on coming until half-past two.' 'What time did they quit in the afternoon?' 'At half-past four.' So I think I am not doing any injustice by saying that they are not putting in more than five hours a day. Now I submit to the hon. members of this House that it would be very reasonable to expect these clerks to put in say seven or eight hours a day; nothing unreasonable about that, it seems to me. They are doing all the work now by working about five hours a day; and there are about 3,000 of them. Well, if they were to work seven hours a day we could get along with 600 or 800 less. Two men working eight hours a day will give us 16 hours work, while three men working five hours will give us 15 hours work. Therefore, two men at eight hours a day will give you more service than three at five hours a day. If you were to reduce the number by 500-and ' I conscientiously believe, Mr. Speaker, that the different departments in this city, the inside service, are overmanned to the extent of at least 500-1 believe that 500 less, putting in a reasonable length of time every day, say seven hours, would be fully competent to do all the work that is required to be done in these different departments. A reduction of 500 at an average of $1,000 each means half a million dollars. But the average is a great deal more than that The average is between $1,600 and $1,700. But with 500 less civil servants, and I reallv believe we -could get along with 500 less, the people of this country would save at least half a million dollars. Now I believe, Mr. Speaker, that every hon. gentleman in this House, I believe every man an the country, is willing, ready and anxious to pay every servant who is rendering service to the public of this country, full and generous compensation for tlie work that uc does. I do not think there is any one in the country that desires to take the servicel of a single public servant without adequately paying him for that service, but I believe, and I speak advisedly and guardedly, that we are paying the inside service at Ottawa fifty per cent more than service similarly equipped by nature and by art in other industries of the country is receiving to-day. I have arranged the Civil Service here into classes based upon the; estimates that we had before us at the beginning of the session. With your permission I want to call the attention of the House to the number.

Beginning with deputy ministers, we have one who is getting $8,000, a thousand dollars more than the minister. We had before this House, two or three years ago, a question of what salaries should be paid to the judges and then the House fixed the salary of the chief justice of the Court of Appeal of Ontario at $8,000. The chief justices of the different divisions of the Supreme Court in Ontario get only $8,000. Here we have, one deputy minister getting $8,000 a year.


George Perry Graham: Without wishing to interrupt my hon. friend, it is fair to state that the deputy minister in that case is also the chief engineer, and combines the two offices and that as chief engineer he is earning far more than the salary he gets for both offices.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think that is any excuse. He might combine half-a-dozen offices. He does so much work in so many hours and when he is working in one department he is not working in another. That deputy gets $8,000. Another deputy receives $7,000 and another $6,000. We have 16 occupying the position of deputy minister at $5,000 each. Then, we come to the division next to that of deputy minister, and in some of these divisions the clerks or officers are receiving the maximum now, some are receiving the minimum and some are between tne maximum and the minimum of the 3,000 clerks. Not having gone into the individual cases, I find that there are 98 who are entitled to $4,000 apiece in the different departments. That is the maximum of their class, which calls for a salary of from $2,800 to $4,000. In the next class, that between $2,100 and $2,800 there are 181. There are 356 in the class from $1,600 to $2,100. In the class from $800 to $1,600 there are 813 and in the next class, from $900 to $1,200, there are 504. I noticed that the Civil Service Amendment Act of last year stated that the duties of this class are copying and routine work. Is there any hon. gentleman in this House who knows anywhere, outside of the Civil Service at Ottawa, people who are receiving $1,200 a year for copying and routine work? In the next class, from $500 to $800, there are 745. If we take it by departments we find the following Tesults:
Number of em-
Department.	ployees.
Governor General's Office.. 6 Privy Council.. ..
Justice	
Supreme Court.. ..
Exchequer Court..
Dominion Police.. .
Militia and Defence Secretary of State..
Publio Printing.. ..
Interior


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Number
of em- Average
Department.	ployees. salary.
Indian Affairs	
66	1,861Mounted Police	
8	2,450Auditor General's Office....	70	1,620Finance	
86	1,355Customs	
170	1,637Inland Revenue	
39	1,636Laboratory, Inland Revenue.	11	1,600
Chief Electrical Engineer's
Branch	 6	1,600
Inland Revenue, Weights
and Measures	
3	2,000Methylated Spirits Warehouse	
2	1,650Department of Agriculture	257	1,483Marine and Fisheries	
163	1,683Railways and Canals	
90	1,730Public Works	
226	1,671Department of Mines	
8	2*212Mines Branch	16	2,131Geological Survey	
61	1*964Post Office Department..	..	435	1,234Trade and Commerce	
18	1,733Annuities Branch	
7	1,671Labour	
17	1,788Superintendent Insurance..	13	2,107Civil Service Commission.	..	5	1280Legislation	
79	2,'201
That will give an average of $1,677 throughout. I want it understood that these averages are based upon the maximum. The Civil Service Commission requested the director of the census to make out schedules showing the average salaries paid managers and clerks in the different industrial institutions in the country, and I find that taking Canada throughout, the average remun-erinion paid to males so engaged was in 1906* $916 a year and to females, $360 a year, or an average of $638 for both sexes, as against $1,677 paid the civil servants in this city. In British Columbia the average paid to this class of persons was $826 a year; in Manitoba, $749; in New Brunswick, $554; in Nova Scotia, $523; in Ontario, $641; in Prince Edward Island, $637; in Quebec, $639, and in the Territories, $713. I have here the Civil Service list for last year and I notice from it, on page 26, that on the 1st of January, 1906, all on the very same day, ten additional clerks, nearly all females, were taken into one of the departments at a salary of $700 a year, and I presume they now have $900. Consider the qualifications required from these clerks and compare their remuneration with the remuneration paid, say, to public school teachers in the province of Ontario, and you will find that nowhere else are officials paid anything like as much as they are paid by this government. Now, let us see what happens in the Post Office Department. Taliing the deputy as one gTade, the chief clerks as another, the first-class clerks as another, and the second-class clerks as another, in the fourth grade there were forty-eight officials last year and some of them were receiving salaries as high as $1,500 a year. Can you find any other institution
25
4
89
60
6345

in the country where the servants work five hours a day, where they have a permanent situation, where they will get a retiring allowance, and where those occupying the fourth grade in the office are receiving from $1,200 to $1,500 a year. In the next grade, which would be the fifth grade, we have thirty getting $1,100 and 158 getting from $1,000 to $700 a year. In the same way through all the other departments the employees are getting immense salaries. Take the Department of Indian Affairs (page 228 of this report) and there are seven chief clerks, six first-class clerks and eleven second-class clerks who get salaries from $1,450 down to $1,250. This is really the fourth grade of servants in that department and they are getting from $1,200 to $1,450 with I suppose $100. more this year, which would bring the maximum up to $1,550. Then you have the junior second-class clerks many of whom receive $1,100, and going down to $800 the lowest. A great many of these are young ladies, very estimable girls I have no doubt whatever. I want to say here that I have no fault to find at all with any of the civil servants, I have had occasion to meet during the present session. I have found them all very courteous and very anxious to render any assistance that was desired, just as we might reasonably expect they ought to be.
I have no fault to find with them whatever, and I am not suggesting we should reduce their salaries, but I am suggesting that they are very generously paid now and a great many of them are grossly overpaid in comparison with what people are receiving for service outside the government The chief justice of the province of Ontario gets $8,000, the county court judges, many of them, less than $3,000, the headmaster of the Normal school in this city, which is so expensive to live in and who occupies a very important position gets $3,000; the principal of the Collegiate institute gets $3,000; the public school teachers in the province of Ontario average only between $500 and $600 a year, and here we are paying the large salaries I have pointed out. I have been in several of the departments and I have asked what is this one and that pne doing, and they are simply running a typewriter, or putting away files and some of them are getting $1,100 to $1,300 a year. Now, we all know the remuneration for such services in other places. I say without any fear of contradiction that these salaries are one hundred per cent more than are paid for similar services in the city of Toronto for example. As I said in _ my opening remarks, I quite realize the facility with which one can make friends by a generous expenditure of money that belongs to other people, and I realize that it is just as easy to make enemies by opposing any thing of that kind. But there are times when a man must give ear to individual conscience; there are times when a man
must give ear to his conscience in the matter of his public duty, and this is an occasion as it appears to me to assume the position I do, so far as I am individually concerned. I have no doubt there are other gentlemen who do not agree with me, but from the closest attention I have been able to give this question, I am thoroughly satisfied that the departments in the city of Ottawa are grossly overmanned, and that the work could be done, if the officials were engaged for a reasonable time, say seven hours a day, with 500 less than we have now employed, which would mean at the very least a saving of half a million dollars a year. I am thoroughly convinced that the civil servants in the employ of the government at Ottawa to-day are generously paid and that many of them are overpaid. That is my opinion and I feel it my duty to express it although I have no doubt there are others who may not agree with me.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
At six o'clock the committee took recess. After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 1,-increase of $150.
Mr.   POSTER@: This gives authority for an increase of $150. Will the minister tell me how much of an increase was provided by the Bill passed last year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The increase under the classification was $35,838. The special increase expected at the time of the introduction of the Bill was $346,395. These would give a total of $382,333, but we may strike off $2,200 as some deaths have occurred and some few have reached their maximum in the ordinary course.


Mr. TURRIFF.: Has that matter to which I referred when the Bill was first brought into the House been decided yet, that is whether a uniform system of hours of work has been adopted by this government? In some departments the hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., with the usual time allowed for lunch. In most of the other departments the hours are from 9.30 to 4.30, and in some from 10 to 4, with the usual allowance for lunch. When I was in the service, that was the source of a good deal of hard feeling. Here would be one department in which the clerks came at 9.30 and worked until 5, and right next door clerks came at 10 and left at 4. I would suggest that now, when these large increases are being made-to which I do not object at all-a uniform number of hours should be fixed, either by the Act or in some other way, and not leave it to

the discretion of any minister, deputy head or chief clerk.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The question of hours of working has always been settled by order in council. I do not think there has been any order in council on that matter since this government has been in office. My recollection of the order in council is that it is general. The disparities alluded to are simply departmental regulations, which possibly in some cases may conflict with the order in council. I appreciate very much the difficulty arising from lack of uniformity. Even in my own department, I found the hours in some of the offices longer than in the others, and I made them uniform in all the offices. I cannot say from memory just which department had longer or shorter hours, but I believe the general rule is fom 9.30 to 4.


John Gillanders Turriff: I quite agree with the minister that in a majority of cases the hours are from 9.30 to 4, but in some they are from 9.30 until 4.30 or 5. In the Interior Department, during one part of the yeaT, the officials are kept until 5, and in some others until 4.30. But in one or two departments, they come at 10 and leave at 4, which causes dissatisfaction. It would be a very simple matter for the government to pass a order in council, if there is not one in existence, making it obligatory on every official to be in his office during certain hours, and from 9.30 to 5 is not too much.
From 9.30 to 5 o'clock would not be too long hours. To say that from 10 o'clock to 4, with an hour or an hour and a half off at noon, is a day's work is not correct. A man hardly gets started at His work in that time. The present system is most unsatisfactory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be an improvement if all the clerks in the department went out for lunch at the same hour. The existing system is a very bad one and most inconvenient for the members of parliament. The departments are hardly open before ten o'clock, then the committees of the House commence at 10.30 or 11. When the committees close some of the clerks in the departments are at lunch and the chances are that it is necessary to get a file of papers from some clerk who is not there, so that practically nothing can be done until the clerks return from lunch. The House meets at three, routine proceedings continue until about 4 o'clock, when the departments are closed. It is thus very difficult for a member to get any information or to transact any business with a department, and two or three trips may be necessary to do what could be done in 15 minutes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I confess that in my department I have taken the ground that


John Gillanders Turriff: from 9.30 in the morning until 4 o'clock, no office should be left unattended, so that any one may get information from any office or the person in attendance can make a note of the information required and have the chief officer send it to the inquirer. As a general rule the chief clerks in charge of a branch are not expected to register in the book of attendance, they are supposed to be men of sufficient standing to be trusted to do their work and to be on hand during the proper hours. Usually they are the men who have to remain longer hours, and it is the ordinary class cf clerks, who have no special responsibility, who are able to leave the office at the exact time of closing. I venture to say that very few of the chief clerks in my department get away at anything like 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and I think they are all there at 9.30 in the morning. I know that in the Post Office Department all the clerks go out for lunch and return at the same hour, and during that period there is no one in the department. If the House generally think that is the better arrangement, I am quite willing to adopt it, but I thought it was better to keep the offices open so that any one coming to Ottawa and having business with the department would be sure to find some one in attendance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the use of keeping the office open if you cannot do business? A clerk may have to get a file of papers from another office which is closed. I know that many of the chief clerks work long hours, but I do not think that is the rule.


George Eulas Foster: What is proposed under the first section?
The Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the head of the department based upon a report of the deputy head, may grant to any officer-
&c. What is supposed to be requisite in order that this officer may get the increase.' Evidently a recommendation on a report is necessary. On what does the deputy head proceed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the first place the deputy head must make out a list of those who are entitled to this increase under the provisions of the Act, with the respective payments which, as my hon. friend knows, will vary. That can only be known to council, which decides the question on the report of the deputy head sent to the minister and recommended by the minister. That is a matter of pure routine detail which is required before the order in council can be passed in regard to any particular department.


George Eulas Foster: So far as that goes, it is simply mechanical.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That part is simply mechanical. I would say this Act is largely 1 based on the recommendation of the Civil i Service Commission which reported on the ; condition of the Civil Service here in Ottawa and whose report brought about the legislation which was passed last year and this. That report recommended that deserving clerks should get an increase. That is to say that those who are not overpaid, those who are deserving generally by their standing and character, &c., should get it. My own understanding of this is that practically every clerk in the service will get the increase to which, by the provisions of this Act, he is entitled.
I can conceive that a clerk might be in one of the departments who is overpaid to-day and who is not doing good work, but has never quite done anything to justify his dismissal, especially if he happens to be on the superannuation list, and that such a clerk ought not to get the increase But I think that such cases will be very few and far between. For the deputy minister to report against the increase would require a very clear case indeed; at the same time I can conceive that such a case could occur, and this clause is drafted in such a way that it is not absolutely incumbent upon the deputy minister to make a recommendation with regard to every clerk in the department, good, bad or indifferent, and it is not incumbent, therefore, upon the minister to make the recommendation or council to pass it. That is the conception I have of this clause.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me that it either goes too far or does not go far enough. If you do not mean to take into account the question of conduct, the question of efficiency, or the question of overpay, but simply to make sure of the mechanical conditions, that means one thing. But if the minister does intend to give discretionary power to the deputy, so that, though the mechanical conditions are all right, yet, if the clerk in question is in some degree wrong, or is considered by the deputy to be amply well paid, or if the deputy sees that the clerk has received an increase of perhaps $400, $500 or $600 on an already fair salary and thinks he ought not to get this $150-if these things are to be taken into account, we should go further and should give the deputy a basis, for I think that otherwise the deputy would hardly take the trouble to do more than see to it that the mechanical conditions are complied with. Mind you, I go this far: I would provide for some sort of supervision other than over the mechanical conditions, and I would have the report of the deputy with reference to the clerk countersigned by the Commission, that is, approved by the Commission. This is what should be done if you are going further than to provide for the mechanical conditions merely.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: For my part, I consider that this means practically what the ordinary statutory increases have meant in days gone by.


George Eulas Foster: That gave the deputy the option.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and this gives him the option. But the hon. member (Mr. Foster) knows as well as I do that, in practice, unless a man had something decidedly substantial against his status or conduct, the statutory increase went as a matter of course. He will recollect that at one time this government tried to adopt a different course-that the statutory increases were only to be given when they were evidently deserved.


George Eulas Foster: Or, to be more correct, they were entirely cut off.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Entirely cut off unless a decided report in favour was given, and then the increase was granted.


George Eulas Foster: In some departments they were absolutely cut off for years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because no decided report was given. But the understanding was among the members of the government-and I think that was explained to parliament- that the statutory increase should be granted only when there was a decided reason for giving it to the clerk. The old system- and that has been reverted to; I say that , frankly; we found the innovation was not ' practical and could not be continued-was that the statutory increase was given as a , matter of course in every case unless there was something substantial against the clerk i concerned. I look upon this wording here
*	as meaning practically the same. It is
*	taken as subject to the restrictions of the [DOT] Act but will go as a matter of course un; less there is something substantial against r the official. Just what that would be, I i think, is intended to be left in the hands f of the deputy minister, who is the one dii rectly familiar with the character, conduct ) and capacity of each individual clerk in the 3 department. I do not think there is any-f body else so well able to look into that and r decide upon it as the deputy minister, and t I would not like to take this power out of l his hand.
j Mr. FOSTER. The great lack in the Civil 'r Service has been and is to-day-and it I should be remedied-the lack of uniformity. . Instead of the principle being worked out I with something of the same method in all 1 the departments, each department has been, i, to a certain extent, a law unto itself. The y course taken depended, then, very much i upon the deputy. If the deputy was a y painstaking, careful and conscientious man, e he looked into these details and things were i- not allowed to slip through. But if the r. deputy was a hail fellow well met, one who

desired to be popular in the department, one who did not care a tinker's-a-a-consideration, as to what happened, everything was allowed to go. Then, the example of the lax department made itself felt, and the careful deputy soon came to the conclusion: 'Well, it's no use me making myself unpopular in my department when others take so little care.' There is where the fundamental lack has been in the administration of the Civil Service. And I sincerely hope that, in some way or other-through the Commission, I suppose, and the proper co-operation of the government-regulations as to hours, as to treatment of the classes in all these respects that are decided unon will be made obligatory in every department, so that one department may not be driving a coach and four through the Act while another department is trying to live up to it. I know what the effect has been in that respect in the past and what it is to-day. While this matter is up for consideration, and in view of what my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) said, I want to add a word to express my conviction-I am not saying that I am absolutely correct in it, but it is my conviction, and it is one concerning the soundness of which I have no doubt in my own mind-that if a proper system of doing business, with the avoidance of duplication such as any competent man would use in his own business, and with competent supervision and a rigid living up to hours and to work during those hours, the work of to-day could be done with one thousand less people than to-day. I believe that absolutely. My hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) said at least five hundred could be spared.
I believe that fully one thousand could be spared if the work were properly co-ordinated and systematized, and if duplication, useless, tiring, death-dealing duplication in the departments were entirely cut out. And you will never have that until vou. have some central organization to see to it that these principles are put in operation in every department. You have some deputies who will never do it unless they are forced to do it; you have some chief officers who will never do it until they are forced to do it by order and the rule of discipline.
I have been in sympathy with generous payment of the civil servants, and I have advocated it through this series of discussions;
I have been an advocate of it since I first knew anything of the Civil Service. I believe in the Civil Service based on merit and experience from the first gate to the ultimate goal, this principle to be carried -out both in appointment and promotion. With that principle adopted, and with generous payment, I believe that it is the bounden duty of this government and of this parliament as behind and superior to the government, to see to it that business methods are Mr. FOSTER.
put into force here on the Hill, and that overcrowding, useless work and duplication, and what the boys call lying off from your duty-they have another name for it-does not find a place here in the Civil Service. I am satisfied that with the Commission that has been appointed, with the principles which have been laid down so far, and which should he improved upon, and with the force that we may get gradually coming in as the result of it, the Civil Service as a whole will be the equal of any Civil Service in the world, because you can get over the difficulty provided you will adopt uniform methods, cut out duplication and avoid overcrowding. I just want to support my hon. friend back of me in the position that he took and to re-enforce it by stating what has been the result of observation for a good many years and of actual practice for a number of years in a department. If the deputies are really to take into account the conditions that we spoke of then I think that some words ought to be put in to give them authority to do it and to give the Commission authority to see that it is done.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Referring to what my hon. friend said last, I do not see very well how the Commission could in any way improve on what the deputy ministers can do. The deputy ministers are in close touch with the clerks in their departments, and most of them have had long years of experience with and observation of these men. But I expect, and I think it is contemplated in this Act, that, unless there should be some very specific reason for a man's not receiving the increase allotted to him under the restriction of this Act,_ he should get it and if the deputy minister decides that a certain individual is not worthy of the increase, I think he ought to make a definite report giving his reasons for that, which report will come before the minister, and, through him, before council, just in the same way as the statutory increases have been allotted.
To what my hon. friend says about the position of the Civil Service I take no exception. His experience and observation have taught him very much what my experience and observation have taught me.
I find that one of the most difficult and ungrateful tasks on the part of an officer is to make his subordinates work. That is one of the duties that lies upon a higher officer, and in the last resort, on the deputy minister. I dare say the minister may be able to infuse a certain amount of his spirit of devotion among the officers, but the minister is hardly fairly to be called upon to deal with matters of this kind. He has other and, I should say, more important, work to do and the deputies have largely the control of how the department is being carried on in- all

those respects alluded to by my hon. friend. The deputy has to see that the chief clerks and those in charge do their duty and he has to keep them up to the mark. Those men, in turn, have to keep those under them up to the mark and insist upon them doing their duty. The question of discipline is a difficult one and one which, as my hon. friend knows, it is hard to manage. I trust and believe that as a result of the legislation of last session there will be a great improvement in that respect in the service. We all know that in times past, if anybody was appointed to the service and had a friend at court, if he got into trouble and was reprimanded in any way, he went to his friend and tried to get relief. I have had that experience myself and I have no doubt my hon. friend has had in the old days. I have tried to explain that it should make no difference. Sometimes I have succeeded but I do not know that I always did. But under the new Act this is removed almost entirely, if not absolutely, from the Civil Service. The men who get into the service will get there on their merits. Promotion will be practically on merit and the general tone of the service ought to be very much raised for that reason as well as from the fact that with a competitive examination I believe that on the whole the best class of men will get into the service and that in their morale and conscientiousness as well as in their actual capacity and knowledge they will likely be better. Still there is always the difficulty of keeping eveybody up to the mark in his work. I think that private employers find that too. I dare say they are more careful about it because the success and profits of their business depend absolutely upon it. In the case of the public service that stimulus is not there, but still I know that there is a large number of conscientious men who do their best and who even overwork themselves rather than force others to do their duty. That is a misfortune and a difficulty which it is going to be very hard to o'vercome. I have tried to overcome the difficulty, that my hon. friend alludes to, of the lack of uniformity, and I think I have succeeded to a certain extent. I do not know that we can do everything at one stroke, but we have made a provision in the Civil Service. Act of last year by which the minister may call upon the Commission to overhaul his department and make a report upon its organization, classification and work. I hope that provision will be available at such time as the Commission may be able to do it. Up to the present time I may say that the Commission have been extremely busy in organizing themselves and their woTk and preparing for the first examinations. When they get over that and get the machine running smoothly they
will have more time, and I have no doubt they will be called upon to do some work of that kind. That provision is a provision which never existed before in the Act and if it is availed of we will be able to secure reports which will tend to uniformity in the different departments, and I trust that these reports will be acted upon, as I think they will be.
On section 2, increase under organization and classification to offset increase under this Act.


George Eulas Foster: That clause states in one case what I would like to see stated in the other. It states that if a permanent employee belonging to the old Civil Service, upon the organization, obtained an increase in salary of, say, $100, this $150 shall not be paid to him, but that $150, less the $100 that he got, shall be paid to him. That is based on the idea that this $150 is towards compensation, and the whole of it is not to be paid out in this case because the clerk in question has been compensated to a certain degree by the raise in salary. He has got an extra $100 by the change in classification, and so that $100 will be taken from the flat increase of $150. I think that the same sauce should be meted out to the others. Just prior to the 1st of September, 1908, the other man received an increase, not by virtue of the Act but by the will of the minister or the deputy minister, and surely that also should be taken into account in the payment of $150, especially in the cases of the large increases. I do not think the regular statutory increases given legally te the inside service in so far as they may have been given to the outside service should be considered; I would not dock that off. But any increase other than that should be taken into account in the bestowal of the $150. In the Interior Department 504 came in from the outside service and about 200 of them received increases amounting to $50,000 in all, a few hours prior to the 1st of September, and side by side with them you have the clerks who were already in the inside service. Both are under the same minister. The man in the old inside service has passed his examination, has gone through the different grades, has faithfully performed his duties, and alongside of him you have a man brought into the inside service who never passed a Civil Service examination (although he may be an equally good man I admit), but he has received $400 of an increase, and you add on to him the whole $150, while you deduct from the $150 any increase the other man may have got. I will admit frankly that in the outside service there may have been some conspicuous examples of able men who were paid far below what they should have been, and that the minister might feel justified in

increasing the salaries of such men. But the fact of the matter is that the thing was done indiscriminately, and that young men without experience were all at once boosted pp to large salaries by large additions to their salaries for some reason or other. I would like to see this measure of fairness: that in the case _ of those outside-insiders who received this increase-with the exception of the statutory increase- the deductions should hold there as well as with regard to the regular service. I have discussed this question until I am just as tired of hearing my own voice as the minister no doubt is, and I do not suppose I can elaborate it further by hours of speaking. I have cited example after example, and the minister knows my meaning and the force of it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This matter has been already threshed out and I think the House understands the position. This Bill is a complement of the Act of last session. We believed that the Act of last session Mould accomplish a great deal of wha:t is intended to be accomplished by this Act, but when we came to work out the details we found it did not give that general relief to the service which was expected and which was recommended by the Civil Service Commission of 1907. We therefore introduced this Bill to remedy that defect. We appreciate that men got increases between the Act of last session and this present Act. Some were the statutory annual increases, some were larger, some were made on the estimates of last session, some were made by the ministers where they had the right to do so in the reorganization of their departments, some were made by order in council, some were merely preparatory to the coming into operation of the new Act. In some instances the salaries which the officers of the outside service who were to come into the inside service were receiving were not commensurate with their usefulness to the country compared with the salaries paid to those already in the inside service. Coming into the inside service on the 1st of September we had no longer any latitude in the way of increasing their salaries or recognizing their service. It was therfefore right that each minister should carefully examine into the standing and value of every individual who was going to have this change in his status. We looked into it carefully, and examined it, and discuss-it from all its sides, and we felt there was no possibility of drawing an arbitrary line at any particular date except at the date when the new Civil Service Act came into force. I recognize that perhaps some men have profited more than others, but that would be so whatever course we adopted,
I think the decision come to by the gov-Mr. FOSTER.
ernment that this Act should take effect as from the same date that the other Act came into force was the simplest, straight-est, and best, and that it will probably result in less injustice and bickering than would any other proposition. I think this arrangement should commend itself to the House.


George Eulas Foster: Parliament came to the conclusion that it would include in the new Act certain members of the outside service, and the new Act came into force on the 1st of September. I am taking no objection whatever to the date. There was the regular inside Civil Service and there was what was equivalent to the inside service although not hitherto included, and we said we would take them in, and the absolute condition upon which we legislated was that they would be taken in at the salaries they had at the date the Act came into force. We knew what these salaries were. What I complain of is that in the interim some ministers went to work and absolutely created a new class of men entirely, just for the purpose of putting them into the new organization on the 1st day of September on a higher classification than they otherwise would have obtained. I deny that the ministers who did this looked into it carefully. The facts show they did not. The Minister of the Interior is a careful man and a man of good sense, and I cannot believe that the Minister of the Interior took into consideration every one of these cases before putting his sign manual to them. No doubt that work was done by the officials of the department. What in the world is the justification, as I pointed out last night, for appointing a young man in 1906 at $500 and giving him his annual increases, and then adding $200 and $100 to his salary just before the 1st of September 1908, so as to put him in a higher class than the Act intended he should be in. He is'not an artist, he is not an engineer, he is not a technical man of any kind; he is a good hockey player I believe, but he was doing ordinary clerical work. Now, you add $150 more to that young man's salary and the man who has been working faithfully in the department for years, and who has attained the maximum salary of his class is deprived of any share in this $150 increase. That is not fair nor just, and so I say that where an increase has been given over and above what is the fair statutory increase, the same provision should be made that the increase should be deducted from the $150 as you apply to these others. These men might say: 'Well, if we have to stand it, we can stand it if others are not treated differently.' But when others are treated better who are not their

superiors by any means, they do not feel that they have been given a square deal, and I do not think they have. One way you can minimize that is not to give the latter a full increase any more than the former.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have already tried to explain that I do not consider those who were formerly in the outside service in Ottawa to have been in the same position as the inside service. They are now coming in under totally new conditions of engagement. I threshed out this thing before and I think I showed that the charge made is not founded. As far as I am concerned, and I think the same may be said of my colleagues, I did go into the details of every individual who got the increase before the 1st of September. The largest number of those got their increases in the ordinary way, they had been getting them in the past, and those who did get a special increase got it because their services; were such as entitled them to go into a certain division in the inside service, to which the salaries they had been receiving in the outside service did not entitle them to, and they got sufficient increases to bring their salaries up to the requisite figures. That was done intentionally and each case was examined into. My deputy head consulted with the chiefs of sub-divisions, and I went over each case with him before making any recommendation to council. My hon. friend is quite ready to allow the clerks in the inside service to get the advance, but he thinks that those in the outside service, who for other reasons got an advance, should be deprived of the benefit of it ipro tanto. I do not think so. I think that the clerks in the outside service who got an increase before the 1st of September, got it because they deserved it and are entitled to come in the inside service at the place their increased salary entitles them to.
On section 3,
No increase under any Act to be founded on this resolution to any officer, clerk or employee shall exceed the difference between his present salary and the maximum salary of the subdivision in which he has been placed upoto organization and classification under the said Act of 1908.
On section 4,
That all increases provided for hereunder shall take effect from the first day of September, 1908.


George Eulas Foster: Where are these said schedules embodied in this bill?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They will be attached as a schedule to the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: There is no reference to the schedule.	i


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, that will be found in section 5. That section reads as follows:
That all sums of money voted by parliament for the financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, and applicable to the payment of salaries or increases of salaries of persons in the inside service shall be applicable to the payment of increases of salary granted under the Act, so far as such sums are not required for the specific purposes for which they were granted; and during the financial years ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, and 1910, respectively, there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada such further moneys as may be required for the payment of increases of salary under the Act as have not been voted by parliament, the whole not to exceed the amounts as set forth in the schedule to the Act to be founded on this resolution.


George Eulas Foster: The schedule purports to set out the increases and the number of persons who are to receive such increases. Take the Department of Agriculture, in the 1st Division ' A ' there are four who receive the increase of $150. For the full year the increase will be $600. What we want to enact is that the schedule shall be carried out, that is that the four in subdivision ' A ' shall receive $150 each; but if one should drop out, leaving $150 not expended, we should not be_ at liberty to add that on to some one else in division ' B.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly not. The schedule is arranged exactly in the same way as the civil government estimates are in the details of our estimates. This gives the number of people in each subdivision of each class who will get a certain specified increase. The main column shows that from September 1, 1908 to March 31, 1909, those four will get $350; and from April 1, 1909 to March 31, 1910, they will get $600, because this increase has not been provided for in ithe ordinary estimates of the present year. My hon. friend understands that in the ordinary estimates, when we want to grant a certain sum under civil government, say to the Department of Agriculture, we have so many first and so many second-class clerks, &c., specified in detail and the payments have to be made to them. Those aTe the clerks in the classification of the department; and unless that classification is changed, no other clerk can be paid out of that sum. This sum to be paid on the 1st of September is the result of the actual classification on that date, and we cannot use any part of it to pay anybody who was not in the position indicated in those schedules on the 1st of September. Therefore we could not pay it to anybody else except to clerks or employees indicated in the details of these schedules on that date.


George Eulas Foster: You ought not, but I do not see that the schedule itself will preclude that:

There may he paid out of the Consolidated Eevenue Funds of Canada such further sums as may be required for the payments of increases of salary hereunder as have not been voted by parliament, the whole not to exceed the amount as set forth in the schedule to this Act.
It seems to me that to make it clearer we should add the words after the word 'parliament' 'for the payment of increases of salary as specified hereunder'.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should say on reading that section that the whole amount applied to each individual line of the schedule.


George Eulas Foster: I would take it to mean that for instance the Department of Agriculture should not pay out more than $33,525, and the Auditor General should not pay more than the $80,500.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If that be the correct interpretation, the clause is not properly worded.


George Eulas Foster: It might be made to read: Not to exceed the detailed amounts as set forth in this Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am prepared to accept that, not to exceed in each case the detailed amounts as set forth in the schedule to this Act. The only question remaining is that of the schedule. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has a copy of the schedule. He will see on comparing it with the manuscript schedule which I laid on the table the day before yesterday, that there are a few slight typographical errors, and I would suggest that as we have not yet received the Senate schedule and as the schedule of the library and distribution office have to be adopted by the Senate also before becoming effective, we should rise and report progress.


George Eulas Foster: In reference to the House of Commons schedule, I notice that in the first division, subdivision 'A,' there are two officials who get the $150 increase. Who are
these two?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Laplante, the assistant clerk, and Lt.-Col. Smith, the Sergeant-at-arms.


George Eulas Foster: Is it proposed to give Mr. Laplante $150 as well as the exceedingly large increase he has already obtained?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I protest against the inordinate salaries that we are pushing upon some of our officers. Mr. Laplante is an officer who has certain duties to perform. He comes here the first day of the session and he discharges those duties. He gets rooms in the House and lives here. As soon as the session is over, he goes away, he has nothing else to do, good, bad or indifferent, with reference to this House or its Mr. FOSTEE.
duties until the next session opens. He has been here a little over nine years. Today, if the will of the minister is carried, he will get a salary of $3,550 and now you are shoving $150 extra upon him, making $3,700. I say that is an inordinate payment for the services given, and I mention this not because I have any feeling in the matter but because it is an example of the way we have gone far beyond the mark. I was opposed, as the minister knows, to giving the clerk $5,000 on the small number of years he had been in the service. We had a very efficient clerk before, Sir John Bourinot, who was an authority, a man of parts, who did the work for a long series of years and yet at his death he was receiving only $3,400. I pleaded last year that the clerk of the House should earn his promotion in salary by some years' service, that we should give him a sufficient salary, but that it ought not to be made at once $5,000. I protested in the same way with reference to the salaries of the assistant clerk and some others. After having given these large increases you are again adding $150 extra which makes the amount $3,700 for three or four or five months' work, not of any great responsibility. That you do in contrast to the Sergeant-at-arms who is an old officer of the House, who has been in the service of the House 'for fifty-one years and who has done his work efficiently and well. I consider that this is not fair treatment. I voiced my condemnation of it yesterday and I voice it again to-night. My contention is that in the case of Mr. Laplante and some eight or nine others whose cases we took up the other day, these increases are absolutely against the law. Those who made the classification acted against the law and they were our own clerk, and our own Speaker at that time, Mr. Sutherland. Mr. Laplante and the others to whom I have referred were not at that time getting the salaries that these other two gentlemen said they were getting on the 1st day of September, 1908. I have under my hands the pay-lists and the paylists show that on September 1, Mr. Laplante was being paid at the rate of $2,800, and that all these others were being paid at the rate of their previous salaries and for every succeeding month up to March 31, they were being paid their old salaries. It was not until the 1st of April, after the vote of this year came in, that the back balance was paid.
But this law is extant and the minister is bound to stand by the law. The clerk and the Speaker cannot break the law; the Economy Commission cannot fly in the face of the law; and I say this is illegal. The statute says-and we are all bound by the statute-that it shall be the amount of money which a man was receiving on the 1st of September, and not what these other two gentlemen say he was receiving and

which they have put in the classification as though it were being received. These two gentlemen, on the 18th of July, 1908, had that matter all arranged to put through this House, that is, to have the House adjourn without the House knowing it. It was only because a chance question was asked that it was brought up. Then we discussed it and decided that there was no appropriation and consequently they could not make these promotions and give these increases of salary. From that moment these two gentlemen knew they were without power. Still after this House was closed, these two gentlemen who made the classification declared that they were the salaries these men were getting on September 1, 1908, when they knew it was not so. And they either misled the Internal Economy Committee, or the Internal Economy Committee with their eyes open declared also that they would go against the express provision of the law. I put it plainly; I do not mince my words about it; I state exactly what took place. That is the position to-day. And I pleaded with the right hon. First Minister who leads this House, when I showed to him that it was not accurate, that he ought not to put through parliament that which was based on an inaccuracy. But it was put through. But I say to-day that these gentlemen cannot draw these salaries, if there is any Department of Justice which interprets the law properly. I have the law here, and it declares that these men shall be brought in on the 1st of September on the actual amount of money they receive, and that the change shall take place and the classification be made on the basis of their salaries. Mr. Laplante's salary on September 1, 1908, was $2,100. These gentlemen take it upon themselves to sav that his salary was $3,350. And it was not $3,350.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This question was discussed here yesterday, and the House, after the protest of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster), deliberately and unanimously carried the resolution for the classification of the employees of this House. Therefore, I do not propose to enter into the discussion of the question. I can only say that the schedule has been adopted by the House of Commons and is now the legal schedule under the Civil Service Act as amended last session. That being the case, it is to be inserted by me as the schedule of this Bill. I have no right, authority or power to take any other schedule and put it into this Bill. I do not wish to enter upon the question *which the hon. member (Mr. Foster) has been discussing; I do not wish to make any comparisons between employees of this House, but should prefer that each be considered on his own merits without reference to the other. This, I think, is the right and proper spirit in which to discuss the salaries, emoluments and privileges of the employees of the House. More than this, I do not think I should say. I do not think that, in committee on this Bill, the discussion is necessary or advisable. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


George Eulas Foster: Before that motion is carried, I desire to give notice that on the third reading I will move:
That the Bill he referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the Act by providing:
That no person transferred from the outside service on September 1, ,1908, shall receive an increase greater than the difference between $150 and any increase greater than $50 which may have been granted to him on or after January 1, ,1908.
That no person appointed to the outside service in Ottawa since January 1, 1909, and transferred on the 1st September, 1908, shall be eligible for the $150 increase or any part thereof.
That no clerk in good standing in the Civil Service at Ottawa on January 1, 1908, who has not since that date received more than the statutory increase of $50 shall be deprived of the full flat increase of $150.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understood that the hon. member (Mr. Foster) was going away


George Eulas Foster: If the minister will bring this up on Monday-by that time the Senate will be through probably.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was going to say that, possibly, I might be able to get the other schedules, and I would like to warn my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) that it might be advisable, in order to expedite the work of the House, to put the other schedules in the Bill and get the Bill through committee. It will be kept over for third reading, and he can then move his amendments.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman can get it ready for third reading on Monday.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will try to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient in connection with the Bill now before this House, intituled: 'An Act to establish a commission for the conservation of natural resources/ to provide for (a) the appointment of a secretary to the said commission and such officers and clerks under him as are necessary for carrying en the work of the commission, at such salaries as, under the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, are appropriate to the divisions and
[Stage Direction]
subdivisions of the service to which such officers and clerks may he assigned; (b) the employment of such assistants as are necessary for the purpose of any special work or investigation, and for their remuneration and expenses; (c) the actual disbursements of the chairman and members of the commission incurred in travelling to, returning from, and remaining at, meetings of the commission, and of the chairman in travelling or otherwise attending to the work of the commission.-Mr. Fisher.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the resolution which is required in consequence of the fact that the Bill, (No. 159), to establish a commission for the conservation of natural resources contains some clauses which involve the expenditure of public money. The Bill has been read the first time and before it is read the second time and taken up in committee, we have to pass the resolution which authorizes the expenditure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I desire to ask if, under the terms of the arrangement made with the American representatives regarding the conservation of our natural resources, we were obliged to establish this commission. If the hon. minister (Mr. Fisher) has before him the documents circulated amongst us concerning the convention-if that is the name by which I should describe it- may I ask him to point out that part which requires us to establish the commission.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I regret that I have not under mv hand at the moment the document referred to. One clause in it contained the recommendation that each of the countries engaged in the conference at Washington should establish within itself a permanent commission on its natural resources. This was a further expression of the spirit which actuated the calling of the conference at Washington, and which is embodied in the findings of the conference. I have no hesitation myself in endorsing the idea. I believe that Canada, as well as the United States and Mexico, has been passing through a period during which, to a considerable extent, while we have not seriously impaired our natural resources, we have been dissipating those resources without taking that care for the future which it is desirable that we should take. The administration of our natural resources is in the hands of different authorities, some provincial and some Dominion. We, therefore, cannot expect absolutely uniform action or treatment with regard to our natural resources. We believe that a commission of this kind, which, I think, by the provisions of this Act, will be very general in its composition, and will include representatives of the provincial authorities and men who have taken into eon-Mr. FISHER.
sideration these very important questions from all over the country, will be able to mould public opinion, to investigate and obtain information in regard to the present condition of our natural resources and will be able, having full information and having found out the best way to deal with these natural resources, to make recommendations and to put forward statements of facts which will induce the authority, whatever it may be in Canada which has control of these natural resources, to treat them in the wisest possible way for the benefit of the future as well as the present of our country. This is the object and intent, and I feel that the recommendation of that conference at Washington is one that we can well act upon. I also feel, and I think that in this respect hon. gentlemen will agree with me, that we, as well as the United States and Mexico, owe to President Roosevelt, who called that conference, an appreciation of his -public spirit, his foresight and his activity, which we can show best by trying to follow the lead of that conference and by acting in accordance with its findings. We in Canada are happy in that we have not seriously hurt our natural resources, but I do feel that if we continue the course which we have to a certain extent adopted, the time is not far distant when we will have seriously injured our resources, and future generations will look back to this period, or to the next succeeding period, if we do not change our ways, with regret and will say that the generation of to-day and the generation immediately succeeding us did not do their duty to the future of Canada. Under these circumstances I am _ very strongly of the opinion that a commission of this kind should be established. I hope and believe that such a commission, if it is rightly constituted, and if it is composed of the best choice of men in the country, will be able to do an excellent work in the interest of our country, and I trust that, if the authority is given by this Bill for the formation of such a commission, the men who are best qualified will be nominated to it and that their work will tell immediately as well as in the future.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend, in his rather long speech, has been carrying coals to Newcastle and preaching to the converted. as far as the conservation of our natural resources are concerned. I merely wished to ask whether we were bound to create this commission under the terms of our arrangement, and when we were bound to do so. I did not understand my hon. friend to answer that very simple question.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall be very happy to do it now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I would rather not risk it. I will say what I have to say.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend likes to hear himself talk, but he does not like to hear other people.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I have not given as good proof of that as my hon. friend. I do not think that any man on either side of this House or any man who has sat in this House at any time, has any doubt as to our wastefulness in regard to our great natural resources. We require no preaching to in that regard. We have wasted our forests, we are wasting them now in many parts of this country, some parts that my hon. friend knows, we are wasting our land to a very large extent and we are wasting our resources generally. I believe with my hon. friend that when we are fully aware of the condition of affairs, of the extent to which that waste is going on and of the detriment it is going to cause even our own generation we will be moved in the same direction as the great prototype to whom my hon. friend has referred-President Roosevelt. Certainly he has given an impetus to public opinion, but I think everybody will admit that many people, as well as President Roosevelt, have been aware for many years that this waste was going on. It is a pity that we were not the first to set the example in regard to the preservation of these resources. Individual members of this House have, from time to time, called attention to that waste. Not with as much authority, but with as much force as President Roosevelt did in his message. The point I wish to make is that we have conformed to our promises and our engagements made at Washington.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: May I interrupt my hon. friend?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There was no promise and there was no engagement. We accepted an invitation to the conference but the findings of the conference bound nobody and we are absolutely free to act just as we like the same as we were before the conference.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is what I was not sure of. I imagined that possibly my hon. friend who attended the conference might give us information of an exact nature upon that point. I say that we have followed up that recommendation promptly and to the letter in my estimation by creating here, amongst our own selves and in this very chamber, the assembly that requires to be informed in order to act, such a commission as is necessary to gather the information. I think I will be borne out by members of the permanent committee that has been created by the unanimous vote of this House when I say that the work we have done in that respect during this very session has been very considerable indeed and that it has opened the eyes of many of us to the extent of these resources. We have committees on each of the great subjects that were treated at that conference and these committees during this session of parliament, and next session particularly, without any additional expense to the country, will do their work in finding out what the resources of the country are, the extent of them, and the most practical means for preserving them. The members of this parliament, the very men who require to be informed upon the subject have constituted themselves into committees in order to gather that information. We can have the witnesses before us and we can examine and cross-examine them and have the information we obtain printed and laid before the House and circulated amongst the public by us. After a few years we will become so to speak experts in regard to our natural resources, and we will be in a position to adopt adequate measures. Under these circumstances it seems to me to be useless at the present stage to create an expensive commission. I know that the members of that commission are going to act without remuneration, but still we will have to pay their travelling expenses and the salaries and expenses of employees. We are asked this year for a vote of $10,000, but I have no doubt that the expenditure will soon amount to $25,000 a year. At a time when we are curtailing all unnecessary expenses I do not think there is any necessity for this. I am sure that President Roosevelt, although he is busily engaged at present in killing rhinoceri and elephants would be the first, (because he is a practical man) although he is deeply interested in the preservation of natural resources, to say that this expense is entirely unnecessary at the present time.


Mr. LENNOX.: This is but one sample of the extravagant expenditure into which we are launching by the creation of new departments and in various other ways. We have now committees of our own members at work who will become familiarized with these questions and be able to act in the best interests of the country, but, if we appoint this External Commission these gentlemen alone will have the knowledge of the subject and the members of this House will not be able to familiarize themselves with it as they can under the present system. Education is forced upon people as well as voluntarily acquired and the information gained in these special committees is one of the ways in which information is forced upon the members of this House, and the committees appointed this session to acquire knowledge of our resources will be able to communicate their knowldge to us. I am decidedly opposed to the practice, which seems to

be growing, of increasing the number of commissions. In this case the establishment of a commission will involve very considerable expense, in the payment of clerical aid, travelling expenses and living allowances. We should call a halt in this kind of expenditure for the present. It is a great deal better that the members of parliament should apply themselves in the various committees diligently to ascertain the extent of our resources and to disseminate the knowledge rather than that we should have an outside commission collecting information which will be buried in blue books.


Mr. BRODER.: This is a question important enough to have very careful consideration. You will have to study local conditions and receive evidence from local centres, and if your Committee of the House is to be effective you must bring witnesses from all over the country. So that the question remains whether or not it is cheaper for the commission to visit the different localities or to bring a large number of witnesses here. But while we are looking at the expenditure we must be careful not to forget the most effective means to bring about the best results. If our work is not effective it is dear at any price, but if it is so effective as to lead to the conservation of our natural resources then it is cheap at almost any price. That is the way I look at it and it seems to me that we should carefully consider the matter so that we may adopt the most effective means to bring about the best results.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is only within the last few years that civilized nations, especially the nations of this continent, have commenced to realize how much we have lost of our natural wealth, simply by not paying more attention to the laws of nature. In that respect the conservation of natural resources is altogether a new idea. The experience of what has already taken place in this House ought to be some guide for us. This session we appointed a committee to prepare information which might afterwards be disseminated throughout the country and that committee met three times without being able to obtain a quorum, to some extent, because, I should think, the members of the House were not sufficiently enthusiastic in the matter. At last, when the committee did meet the first thing it did was to reduce the quorum. Probably the chief reason why hon. gentlemen did riot attend was that they were members of other committees and were busily engaged in them. The purpose of this Bill is chiefly to have a meeting once a year to interest the provinces, to interest the universities, to interest all those who should take an interest to come here and Mr. LENNOX.
compare notes, and get information which could be circulated amongst the people. My hon. friend from Lennox


Some hon. MEMBERS: From Simcoe.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) bears an historic name and- it first came to my mind. My hon. friend from Lennox-well, I have made the mistake again from the force of habit, but of course hon. gentlemen will understand that I refer to my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). The hon. gentleman has suggested that we should be chary of our expenditure, but while I admit that this is an off year, yet we are not so reduced that we cannot bear some expense for the development of a good idea. The cost this year will be $12,000, and I think we can stand that. As has been said by my hon. friend from Dun-das (Mr. Broder) if we can .get the information and bring about the results _we expect, it would be cheap at that price and indeed at any price.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister give us an idea of what we may expect to get from this expenditure?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill provides that the members of the provincial governments who are in charge of the natural resources of the various provinces shall be ex officio members of the commission, and that the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Mines, and the Minister of Agriculture in the federal government shall also be ex officio members. The Bill also provides that the other members of the commission shall be appointed by the government.


George Eulas Foster: They will all be good Grits I suppose?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hope not. If they were, I have no doubt [DOT] they would be patriots and good Canadians, but I do not wish the commission to be partisan in any sense, and I am willing to fully acknowledge that there are amongst the Conservatives good patriots and men who know a good deal about their country. Is that going too far? In any province where there is a university, one member shall be appointed from the faculty of that university, thus implying that the government shall choose men who are educated and who have influence in the community. I hope that the other members will be chosen with regard to their enthusiasm and their interest in these subjects, men well versed in forestry, in mining and minerals, in water-powers and water-courses, in public health, in engineering and so on. I am satisfied we can get together a body of men whose dictum will carry weight with everybody in the country which has any control over our natural resources.
6369 MAY 12, 1909 6370


George Eulas Foster: When you get them, what will you do? Mr. FISHER. They will hold a meeting and discuss what recommendations they may he able to lay down for the treatment of the natural resources of Canada in the future, on such lines as may rightly appeal to the administrative authorities all through Canada, whether municipal, provincial or Dominion, who have control over our natural resources. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has spoken about the committee of the House. But a committee of the House is purely federal in its character. It does not enlist the sympathy or co-operation of the provincial or municipal authorities. It is proposed to have a small office staff to carry out the directions of the commission. That will cost about $10,000 to $12,000 a year and is provided for in the supplementaries. In another item of the supplementaries we are asking $10,000 for the general expenses of the commission, including printing, the expense of gathering the commission together when they meet, and so forth. There will be an annual veneral meeting at Ottawa or some other place, and the chairman can call other meetings during the year at the request of five members of the commission, which wll consist of some thirty-two members. Mr. FOSTER. How will the office be manned and what work will it do? Mr. FISHER. The details will be found in the supplementaries. There is a provision for a clerk in the first division A, two in the second division 'B,' and two in the second division 'A,' and a couple of stenographers in the third division. Their business will be to work out the plans of the commission. Mr. FOSTER. Under whose authority and supervision will that office be manned? Mr. FISHER. The chairman of the com: mission. Mr. FOSTER. It will not be a ministerial office? Mr. FISHER. No, not departmental. Mr. FOSTER. Will the chairman of the commission or the commission itself be allowed to choose its own officers? . Mr. FISHER. The officers will be in the Civil Service and appointed under the rules of the Civil Service. The Bill provides that the commission may arrange for special work or technical work, and engage people to do that. Mr. FOSTER. You will have about five officers in that office. Will those clerks be there to carry out the instructions of the commission under their supervision? 202 [DOT] REVISE r	Mr. FISHER. Yes. Mr. FOSTER. Do you propose that they shall be officers of high technical know-edge? * Mr. FISHER. No, their chief work will be the collecting of information and tabulating it for the benefit of the commission. The commission will require no doubt a great deal of statistical information and these officers will collect that. In some cases they will be engaged in formulating and I hope in issuing bulletins of information for the education of the public at large. One of the chief causes of the waste of our natural resources, is the carelessness, ignorance and inattention of the public. When we bring these matters before the public, they are ready to agree to almost anything, but the public itself is, as a general rule, rather indifferent and ill-infoTmed. The commission will have to gather information and give that out to the public and create a public opinion, and in that way lead to the adoption of effective measures to accomplish the object in view. Mr. MONK. I am sorry to take up time, but it is a pity that such important measures should come before us at the last moment. I would like in the first place to rebut the reproach my right hon. friend has made against the committee of this House. He is generally disposed to be fair, but for some reason or other he is not'just in that regard, at least in so far as the committee to which I belong is concerned. That committee has sat often during this session and has collected most valuable evidence with regard to our forest and water-powers, but the position is this- We have sometimes several committees sitting at the same hour, and although inclined to give the preference to this committee may be compelled to attend some other. I hope that before long the House will modify its rules in such a manner as to do away with that unfortunate state of affairs. Surely during this parliament there will be some change m our rules which will enable our committees to sit at different hours. But the important point is this. You are about to establish a body of a very vague character, and you are going to delegate to that body a task which properly belongs to us and which we should perform. The work of collecting evidence and largely the management of the affairs of that huge and cumbersome commission will fall upon its paid employees. I have no doubt, and I do not suppose the Minister of Agriculture has any doubt, that all this will be collected and printed in blue books which we will not have time to study, whereas by the system now in force we are brought into contact with our own employees and with exEDITION

perts whom we can cross-examine, and we thus have the time and opportunity to look into the different questions brought up very fully. The system proposed by my hon. friend is not only more cumbersome and more expensive, but it does away with that personal contact which this House ought to have with the men employed and interested in the conservation of our natural resources. From whatever standpoint you look at it, we have hitherto proceeded in the proper way, and I see in this new departure nothing but an attempt to establish a new body and increase the staff of the Civil Service, already too large. That certainly we ought not to do this year. My hon. friend has said that the committee of this House is not in touch with the great universities and teaching bodies. Certainly that would be a great misfortune but there is no foundation for any such statement. I venture to say that the evidence we take hare regarding the best means of conserving our natural resources will be sought after by all those bodies with much more interest than they would read the blue books published by this new commission-published perhaps only every two years, and lacking that vital interest which attaches to an examination by a committee of parliament. To my mind this seems a very absurd and unnecessary expenditure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is another danger with which we will be confronted. It appears to be the aim of the minister to make this commission a statistical bureau, which will collect data and information, and embody that in some report that will be distributed yearly to this House. But that commission can only accomplish something m proportion as we crystalize the information it gathers into action. But in this we are confronted with the question of jurisdiction. Most of our natural resources belong to the provinces; and if we pretend to exercise any control, we will find ourselves in conflict with the provinces. Unless some plan be devised whereby the provinces will co-operate with us, our proceedings cannot be productive of satisfactory results. What are our natural resources ? The water-powers are one of them. But this House, only a few days ago, incorporated a company to take control of some important water-powers belonging to the province, and we had the province fighting against that infringement of its rights. We had the spectacle of a province trying to conserve its natural resources and the federal authority trying to give them away. Then when we come to our timber resources, the provinces control these. We have not the power to say what rules shall apply to the leasing or cutting of timber. In like manner if we touch Mr. MONK
our mines, we will be infringing on the jurisdiction of the provinces. We can deal with the fisheries to some-extent, but in that case we have only joint jurisdiction with the provincial authority. It is now proposed that we should start another department which will require an army of officers with big salaries, to deal with matters which are beyond our jurisdiction, and each year we will find the Expenses increasing. No doubt it will be on the bountiful scale on which we find all the departments under federal authority established. It will cost us a great deal of money in the future, but it is doubtful whether we will get an ample return for that money. A few years ago we established a census bureau to collect data. What has become of that? We are paying out money but any data we get are not worth five cents. If we want to get information in regard to any subject, agriculture for instance, we have no data that can be depended on. If I go to that department and ask for information I am told it is not reliable. We are spending money every year to no useful purpose. Then I am afraid unless we are very careful we -will find ourselves in conflict with the provincial authorities.


Mr. BOYCE.: I do not know whether the provisions of the Bill have been submitted to the provincial governments whose representatives are to be members of the commission. I do not see how you are to compel the executives of the different legislatures to take part in the operations of this commission if they do not sympathize with and join in the work of the commission. You legislate the minister administering the department of natural resources in every province into being ex officio a member of this commission. I see possible difficulty in that respect, and it appears to me that the commission as proposed will be an unworkable and unwieldy body. For the present I would prefer the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister of having a commission of inquiry formed from the committees of this House under the jurisdiction of this House, reporting to us at very little expense. There are twenty members of the commission now proposed to be appointed by the Governor in Council in addition to 13 ministers of the Crown ex officio and nine members of the governments of each province, making in all a commission on natural resources of Canada of 32 members. The commission is so constituted that there may be conflicts of interest and opinion among its members, particularly in regard to provincial matters. How will you reconcile differences of opinion with regard to water-powers for instance where there is conflict between this government and a provincial govern-

ment? In view of the government's desire for retrenchment, I can hardly approve of the appointing of this commission, especially when we have our parliamentary committees which are doing splendid work, receiving evidence and getting information at very little cost.


Haughton Lennox: The first minister said that this commission would cost only $12,000 for the first year and possibly only $12,000 a year. From my experience of the way in which moneys mount up I venture to predict that within two years this commission will be costing $50,000 a year. If I could see that this was a well considered scheme I would not oppose it, but I am convinced it is not well considered, it is simply an attempt to make the people believe we are doing something when in reality we are doing nothing. I am inclined to think that the Prime Minister has no reason to lose faith in the committees he appointed this session. The proper system for us to adopt is to educate ourselves by obtaining from time to time first-hand information through the committees of this House. That is preferable to appointing outsiders to collect information which we will never digest or use. Let us get to work in the various committees and become familiar with all the information available so that we will be able to use it in the House and if we have to supplement that information by sending experts out into the field, let us send them ourselves. Let us initiate the proceedings ourselves and then we will have here a body of men who are quasi-experts upon the subject of our natural resources and who will be in a position to legislate intelligently upon these subjects. I have no faith whatever in a lot of theoretical men who by reason of the fact that they are appointed will think it their duty to collect a mass of information and shy it at our heads from time to time in the form of blue-books. I do not believe tliat this matter has been sufficiently digested to enable the government to outline a scheme which will be of benefit to the country for the present at all events. It seems a poor compliment to the members of this House who have been working vigorously upon the committees recently appointed to say that they have been doing nothing, and that therefore it is necessary to virtually farm this work out to others than members of this House.


George Eulas Foster: Have we not now a Department of Forestry, for which we are paying out a considerable amount of money? Is1 it proposed to set that on one side? Is it proposed to set that to one side, or what is to be done about it? It seems to me you are adding a fifth wheel to the coach and doing it without consideration.
202i
I am much in favour of conserving our nab ural resources as any man can be, but I would like to see the best methods taken, The end of the session is hardly the time to invite the 218 members of this House to sit down and discuss this matter with any hope of reaching the best conclusion. The idea launched seems to me, at best, but a crude one. I think it would be well to take a little more time to think this over, and next session-not many months from now-let us put our heads together and see whether or not we can work this out in the best way. I would like the Prime' Minister to think over the matter of the' re-organization of our committees. He finds* fault with the committees, but the diffi

culty arises from the fact that we have too many men on the committees. If we had smaller committees and better co-ordinated, and the work better distributed among them, we might do much more work and much more effective work than we do now. The fact is that you have the two committees of Public Accounts and Railways and Canals and Telegraph Lines, both of which are very large, and by the time members fulfil their duties on these committees, they have hardly time for any others. We have been talking about this for some time, and we all agree that something should be done. Then, why not get to work and do it, so that, another year, we shall have the advantage of a better organization? If that were done, we should not have occasion to find fault with the mere inability of members to work on all the committees on which they are now appointed.


Wilfrid Laurier: I quite agree.
I hope that next year when we are drafting the committees, we shall be able to reduce them to normal numbers. The committees are too large, and that is the reason why not so much is done as might be done. If we had a committee of small numbers, men could be chosen who were not on! other committees, and they would do good work.


Mr. AMES.: I do not think there is any question on either side of the House as to the importance and desirability of taking into consideration what may be done at an early date for the conservation of our natural resources.But there have been pointed out to-night some considerable difficulties standing in the way. The main difficulty is that the provinces of the Dominion have practically concurrent jurisdiction over many of these resources, and that no step can be taken by the Dominion without similar action being taken by the provinces, or, at least, without the provinces being consulted. If I recollect rightly the steps taken in this matter under President Roose-

velt, the first step was the calling of a convention of the governors of the different states for the discussion of this subject, inasmuch as these natural resources fell largely under their jurisdiction. Then, having consulted with the states, the larger scheme was eventually launched.


Mr. BELAND.: If the hon. member (Mr. Ames) will allow me, the Federal Conservation Commission in the United States was created before the state commissions were created, and, as to>
the convention of governors, that was called a long time after the Federal Commission was created.


Herbert Brown Ames: It appears, then, that I was not absolutely accurate on that point. But the fact remains that the Federal Commission in the United States did very little until after the holding of a convention of governors or representatives of the several states. It would seem to me the first step in this connection would be to ask the several provinces of this Dominion to select representatives familiar with their special laws and special resources and ask them to meet with representatives of this parliament and discuss what they are prepared to do together. When we find how we can step concurrently in provincial and federal legislation we shall know what are the best steps to take in this parliament. It would appear to me that the formation of this commission without reference to the provincial view of the question was a little premature, and that nothing would be accomplished until the provinces had been taken into the confidence of the government in this matter. There is a further consideration. We have had for some years a Forestry Association. That Forestry Association has been doing most excellent work. It has a considerable grant from this government, it issues a publication from time to time, and it is doing all it can to disseminate information regarding the necessity of preserving the forests. Are we to duplicate this work by means of this commission? Are we to bring the Forestry Association's career to an end by making its continuance needless? Or are we to traverse the same around? It seems to me there are a good many things to be considered before the step that the hon. minister advocates here is taken.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) spoke of the Department of Forestry-the Forestry Branch of the Department of the Interior, for it is not a special department. That will not be interfered with. It is not proposed or expected that this commission should be administrative or have charge of any natural resources. I may explain to my hon. friend from St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Ames), that it is not the intention to interfere, through this commission, with Mr. AMES.
the administration of any of our natural resources by the authorities now having them in charge. The hon. member spoke of enlisting the sympathy of the provinces. I agree; and it is with that idea that it is proposed in the Bill that a representative of the government of each province shall be invited to become a member ex officio and take part in the work of the commission. This is very much the same-allowing for the difference of conditions-as the President of the United States inviting the governors of the several states to meet him in convention and deal with the question of natural resources. In the United States, as my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) is aware, the executive and legislative departments are separate, and the governors are the head of the executive of their several states, as the president is the head of the executive of the federation. But in Canada the legislative and executive bodies are united, and the governments of the provinces take the place, to a very large extent, of the governors of the states, and therefore we are inviting the governments of the provinces to take part in this commission. The only difference is that, whereas the President of the United States called a single conference or convention of the governors, we are proposing, in accordance with the deliberate suggestion of the conference at Washington-which, no doubt, the United States will carry out as we are proposing to do-the establishment of a permanent commission which will go on with this work all the time instead of dealing with it only intermittently and spasmodically. And we hope to enlist the sympathy of the provincial authorities, and that, with their concurrence and assistance, this commission will be able to collect information with regard to natural resources under the control of the provincial authorities, just as they will collect information concerning natural resources under the control of the Dominion authorities. It is not intended to be a departmental commission or to interfere with any administrative work, but simply to try to enlist the sympathy of the people and of the authorities administering any of our natural resources and get them to decide what is best to be done in an enlightened way and to do it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are you not really taking the second step first. Can you expect that the provincial authorities will send a representative who will be one amongst a gathering of thirty or forty members named by this government. Is it not far more likely that the provincial authorities would accept that privilege if they felt that they were invited to come as representatives of the several provinces and if only such representatives were first called together to consider a comprehensive scheme? Would it not be

advisable first to hold such a conference as I have mentioned, with three or four representatives from the federal government and two or three from each of the provincial governments, to come to this convention with a practically open mind and say: 'We are all interested in this matter over which we have concurrent jurisdiction; what is the best method wre can recommend to parliament and to the several provincial legislatures for the creation of a permanent body that may collect, disseminate and put in force information regarding the best method of preserving our natural resources?' It seems to me as if we were taking the second step first. Would it not be better not to pass this Bill at the present time, but to vote what may be necessary to enable this government to convoke a convention here next fall, bring the representatives of the provincial governments together, submit this proposition to them, and after you have received the endorsation and enlisted the good will of the various provincial authorities, with whom you must- work if you are to accomplish anything, you would be in a position to come to this parliament next session and say: 'This is what the provincial authorities recommended and what they are prepared to do in seeking provincial legislation concurrently with our own?'


Mr. WRIGHT.: I do not think that we would benefit very greatly by the formation of the commission proposed in this Bill. It seems that the object is to gather information together and to diffuse that information among those who may be interested in the subject. I think the public, are pretty well informed with regard to the conservation of our natural resources. They pretty well understand the necessity of acting in this matter. What we need to-day is legislative and administrative action more than anything else. We all know that our timber is being destroyed, is being ruthlessly butchered, and that applies to the timber under the control of this Dominion as well as to that which is under the control of the various provincial legislatures. I happen to represent a constituency which has been engaged largely in the lumbering industry and I travel back and forth between my home and Ottawa, through other ridings where the timber industry is very largely in evidence. It has been painful to me going back and forth to see the way in which the timber is ruthlessly cut down. Saw logs that a man could put on his shoulder and carry away are being cut. This timber is being slaughtered to the extent of thousands and hundreds of thousands of logs every year. It is a shame. Of course, it is not under the control of the Dominion government. It was sold forty or fifty years ago when the conditions were vastly different from what they are to-dav. But. I believe
that the same conditions prevail in regard to timber under the control of this government which has been sold within the last few years without any adequate arrangement being entered into to preserve the timber, to prevent the slaughtering of small timber and without any proper scheme of reforestation. The government ought to take hold of this matter and provide a proper system of reforestry in so far as their authority goes and they should impress upon the legislatures of the various provinces the urgent necessity of taking up the same question. The provinces are taking hold of it and they are probably somewhat ahead of this government in the progress which has been made up to the present. I think the gathering together of the representatives of the various provinces would be conducive to the formulation of a plan looking to the preservation of our natural resources, and I would be perfectly willing that a vote should be passed through this House with such an object. But I do feel that it is necessary for this government to take some action at once without waiting for a commission to gather information for four or five years before anything is done. We cannot commence too soon. I do not think that another lot of timber should be put on the market until proper regulations are made to conserve the timber, to prevent ruthless cutting, to prevent fires and to properly look after it in other respects. The same thing is true with regard to water-powers. The government seems to be anxious now to appoint a commission to look after the matter, but this very week they passed a Bill through this House handing out one of these great water-powers to a private company. That does not look as if they were interested in preserving the water-power. I do not think that we should alienate a single water-power under the control of this government until some proper scheme is formulated. -D intend to look after the resources of this country we cannot begin too soon and 1 do not know why we should wait for the appointment of a commission, because I think the government has sufficient knowledge in its possession to justify immediate action.


Mr. ARTHURS.: It seems to me that it would be infinitely preferable to have a conference between the representatives of the provinces and this government before such a commission as is proposed is set in action. It also seems to me that this commission, if formed, must fail for the very same reason that the work of the committee in this House has been unsatisfactory. The information which has been furnished to the committee of the House has been so incomplete in its character that it is almost impossible to get any satisfactory idea of the amount of timber there is at the present time under the control of this govo379


CPMMONS
[Stage Direction]
ernment. At one meeting of the committee at which I was present we were given certain figures as to the amount of timber in a province, but the party who gave us those figures was not sure whether they represented only the timber under federal control or whether they included timber which was under provincial license. It would be far better to expend this sum which is proposed to be used for this commission in sending out practical men to find out just what our natural resources both in timber and water-powers may be at the present time. There is no doubt that we have immense water-powers in the northern part of this province and throughout the various provinces of the Dominion which are at the present time very little known and which cannot be utilized by the public in general because they have no means of knowing what water-powers there are.
Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that there is a great deal of force in the suggestion that if you desire to invite and secure the sympathetic co-operation of the provinces you had better consult thefh first. I think there is absolutely no difference of opinion on both sides of the House as to the importance of what the government have in mind. I thoroughly support and sympathize with any reasonable effort for that purpose, but I can readily see that the provincial governments might not care to be represented by one man in twenty-nine or thirty. There will be thirty-one or thirty-two members of this commission, perhaps. They might regard the presence of one of their ministers as committing them in some way to follow the advice of a body of that kind with reference to important public matters concerning the welfare of their province. While I would thoroughly support any well directed effort of the government along this line, it does seem to me it would be wise to have communication with the different provinces before you settle down upon any decided line of action. If afterwards you come here with a proposal, even though I might not think it the best proposal I would support it because it would be what I think is a step in the right direction.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The idea of giving representation to the provincial governments is because of a desire to co-operate with the provincial authorities. When this commission gets together, I should hope it would be 'only a short time afterwards when provincial commissions of a like character would be established. The result of discussions at the United States commission has led to the formation of a large number of state commissions. There was a conference on forest conservation called some time ago by the Prime Min-Mr. ARTHURS.
ister, and while that conference created a good deal of interest in the preservation of our forests there was no permanent body to carry on the work in a broad way. I believe that greater good would result from that conference had there been a permanent commission to continue the work. In reference to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) I may say that the Forestry Association does excellent work, but it has no permanent organization to carry on the work all the year round. They have a secretary who does what he can, but they have no office and no permanent staff, and one of the complaints of the association is that they have not the means to carry on that work as they would like. The Forestry Association has resolved itself largely into one annual meeting at which those interested come together and read papers, followed by valuable discussions, but I am sorry to say that the great mass of the people of Canada take very little interest in it. I was in Toronto at the annual meeting, and although there were about 100 present at one meeting, I think 40 or 50 would be the average attendance, and there was little reference to it in the pre_ss, which published only a short resume of the proceedings. A permanent body like the commission could carry on this work of education the whole season through, because we will place at their command a staff for that purpose. There is no difficulty at all about legislating and administering if public opinion demands the right kind of administration and legislation. Up to the present it is evident that public opinion has not been educated in this country on this matter, or otherwise we would not have had the administration and legislation we have had in the past. I am satisfied that this commission will bring forth valuable results.


Robert Laird Borden: I was under the impression that before constituting their permanent commission in the United States, they did call together the representatives of the various states and thus enlisted their sympathy and support.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My recollection is that first of all the President appointed a general commission which authorized the taking of wdiat was called an inventory of their resources, and they reported to the second commission, which was a commission comprising representatives of the various states.


Robert Laird Borden: This is largely an educational work, and to make it a success we must enlist the sympathy of the provincial governments. Would it not be wdse to attempt to do that before we constituted the commission ? Subject to that, I would be inclined to support the es-

tablishment of a commission, not of course at too great expense, even if it did only a moderate amount of work to commence with. The important thing is to call public attention to the fact that we have great natural resources which are being unnecessarily wasted and destroyed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What would be the total annual cost of this commission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We take a vote of $12,000 for the salaries and staff and $10,000 for expenses, making a total of about $22,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will that be sufficient?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hope so.


Mr. GEORGE GORDON.: While we are discussing the conservation of our forests, I notice that the Department of the Interior has decided to part with the timber on some of the Indian reserves, and I wish to point out to the Minister of the Interior that a mistake is being made in establishing the conditions of sale as they are at present. These conditions do not in any degree tend to conserve our forest resources. The timber upon these lands is sold subject to a ten years lease, so that if it is not cut in ten years what is left reverts to the Crown. The reserve I have particularly in mind is covered with a growth of small timber, and I do not think the lessee should be compelled to cut that timber within a specified time. I think it would be much better to sell the timber outright, and the purchaser paying his dues and everything at once, he should be allowed to keep that timber on the reserve as long as he sees fit to let it grow. I would suggest to the Minister of the Interior that it would be in the interests of all concerned if the suggestion I have made should be adopted.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to and referred to Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 159).
Bill (No. 159) to establish a commis-ion for the conservation of natural resources, read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 3,
The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Mines and the member of each provincial government in Canada who is charged with the administration of the natural resources of such province shall be ex-officio members of the commission.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: What ministers in Alberta and Saskatchewan will fall under this section? As far as those two provinces are concerned we have not got control of our natural resources. We have none to administer and consequently I do not see what minister in either of these provinces would
be eligible. The hon. gentleman knows that it is the Minister of the Interior of this government who is charged with the administration of the natural resources in Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan has certainly a great deal to do with the work of development of the natural resources of that province as regards its lands, whether those lands happen to belong to the Dominion government or private individuals.
On section 4,
Of the members appointed by the Governor in Council, at least one member appointed from each province shall be a member of the faculty of a university within such province, if there be such university.


Mr. G. V. WHITE.: What particular course in a university would the member appointed require to be the head of?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Governor in Council will consult with the head of 'the university as to who would be most suitable.
On section 6,
The chairman shall preside at all meetings of the commission, take the necessary steps for carrying into effect the decisions and recommendations of the commission, direct the work of the permanent officers thereof, and generally act as the administrative head of the commission.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do you make any provision for the removal of the chairman?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Clause 2 provides that the committee shall consist of 20 members appointed by the Governor in Council, who shall hold office during pleasure.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then the only way to remove the chairman from his position as such would be to remove him entirely from the commission.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That might be said.
On section 9,
No fees or emolument of any kind whatever shall be received by the chairman or other members of the commission, but they shall be repaid their actual reasonable disbursements incurred in travelling to, returning from, and remaining at, meetings of the commission. The chairman shall be paid any similar disbursements incurred in travelling or otherwise attending to the work of the commission. Before any such payment is made a statement shall be rendered Dy the member of the commission to whom payment is to be made, which statement shall he certified by the secretary and countersigned by the chairman, and thereafter payment may be made out of any moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose of the commission.


Mr. WEIGHT.: Will the expenses of the representatives of the various provincial governments be paid by this government?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes and the members of the commission.
On section 12, temporary assistance.


Herbert Brown Ames: That gives unlimited power to name temporary employees to the extent of the grant?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, the intention is that technical investigations may be carried on by people specially qualified.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CRIMINAL CODE-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. AYLESWORTH moved the second reading of Bill (No. 148) to amend the Criminal Code.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: The subject is one of great interest and I intended going at some length into it, but at this advanced stage I shall confine myself to some very brief remarks. We have been since several years legislating for the purpose of creating new offences, intensifying punishment, providing new punishments, and facilitating the methods of detecting crime. In 1898 we had an Act to provide for the proper identification of criminals; in 1899 to amend the Criminal Code by defining certain things concerning the penitentiaries; also an Act relative to parole convicts; in 1900 an Act to amend the Criminal Code as also an Act to regulate the salaries in the penitentiaries; in 1903 another Act to amend the Criminal Code; in 1904 two Acts for the same purpose; in 1905; two Acts to amend the Criminal Code; in 1906 one Act, in 1907 three Acts, and in 1908 one Act, to amend the Criminal Code; in 1908. also an Act to amend the present Prison and Reformatories Act with reference to young delinquents under 16 years of age in Nova Scotia. That last Act is the one bright spot in all this legislation. I shall not refer in detail to these different Acts, but simply confine myself to saying that their trend and object has been to increase the number of offences consequent upon the conditions of modern life, to intensify punishments, to provide new punishments and facilitate the detection of criminals. I said the one bright spot was this Act of last session. It had foT its object to save young delinquents in Nova Scotia from contact with criminals. That has been the extent and the trend of our legislation since I entered this House. It is admitted by criminologists the world over that criminality has increased in a marvelous degree in all countries. The changed conditions of mod-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: ern life have rendered it necessary to provide penal enactments to meet those changed conditions. The question I wish to put is, are we proceeding in the right way by providing these new offences and punishments? Is there anything else that we can do to save ourselves from what I might call this disheartening rising tide of criminality all over the world. I would say to the House frankly that we are going about it in the wrong wTay, we are neglecting the true means of improvement, we are doing the same kind of work as the fabled one who rolled continually a rock toward the top of a mountain, never being able to place it, and the rock rolled continuously down against him again. Is there no more hopeful future to which it is qur duty to turn? All members will have noticed that modern people have been inspired by the spirit of Christianity or altruism, whatever you may call it, not to despise and regard as absolutely hopeless the case of the criminal, but, on the contrary, to try in some way to reclaim him, particularly if he is not in that state of criminality or has not arrived at that age when all hope of redemption is past.
Then, we have all, within the past few years particularly, been attracted all over the world by the necessity of endeavouring to stop the great increase of criminality among the young, among what they call in England and in the United States the juvenile adults, not the absolutely young delinquents, children, but those who range from 12 to 26 or 28 years of age, and who fall very often absolutely involuntarily and often with many excuses, but who are not utterly corrupt and whose redemption would be easily possible under favourable circumstances.
Coming at once to the question of remedies, there are some things which we cannot do; we cannot for instance prevent the circulation of what I would call the detrimental, not the immoral but the absolutely detrimental literature which according to the findings of learned penologists and criminologists are the cause of a great many of the gravest offences which are committed to-day. Many of these works have been written bv men of genius, crimes have been traced to these works, but I conceive that it is not possible for this parliament to prevent the circulation of that detrimental literature. Then we cannot possibly legislate against the tendency of the press to-day to lay before the public indiscriminately 'the details of crime. I have here many authorities which I shall not detain the House by reading to show that many of the offences committed to-day are due, strange as it may appear to many of us, to the portraiture in newspapers, in vivid colours, of the details of crimes committed. I will take these facts to be con-

ceded by all members of this House. Moreover, it must be said that the press is an instrument of so much good in so many respects and is of such advantage generally throughout our modern world, that because of this tendency which exists and which will perhaps cure itself ultimately, it would be difficult for legislators to invade or in any way trench upon the freedom of action of the" press. I think it was Sir Edward Rad-cliffe, the proprietor of that great paper the 'Morning Herald,' who, having become aware of the detrimental results of these publications, forbade them in his newspaper, but after a while discovered that the material interests of his paper were suffering and had to rescind that order.
We cannot do anything to prevent what I may call the apotheosis of crime, the fact that when a great crime is committed the party accused of the crime becomes an object of interest to all kinds of people. According to the very best authority, authority which cannot be questioned, many other people follow the example of the criminal. I could give many examples of that kind, but I will refrain from doing so and will merely refer to Tallack, the standard authority on penological and preventive principles and to a further article which appeared some time ago in 'The Month,' the review published in London, on the same question. Is there not something we could do to diminish that criminology among juveniles? The criminal statistics for a number of years establish an increase of over 20 per cent among juvenile criminals and in the convict population of this country, amounting to some 1,400, there are over 800 under the age of thirty and quite a considerable portion of it is below the age of twenty-five.
There are two means which we might adopt and which it seems to me to be the duty of this government to adopt to stem the tide of increasing crime to which I have referred. In the first place is there not some possibility of the government, I would say even of the Minister of Justice, interesting those classes throughout the country who take a warm interest in this question, collectively in some measures of reform, some special efforts towards the preservation of our youth against this evident danger which has increased to such an extent within the past few years. In England, in 1907, a few leading public men called together a large number of citizens and established a provisional committee to look into this very subject, A large number were then gathered together, an executive committee ivas formed and the leading American public men joined the English people in that most necessary and salutary work. An executive committee was formed out of this gathering of men interested in education and in the advancement and preservation of our youth, and the result of
their labours during the short period they have been at work can be found in these) two volumes from which I wish to make quotations, but will not detain the House to do so, entitled 'Moral Instruction and Training in Schools, both in the United Kingdom and in Foreign and Colonial Countries.' We see in these volumes the results of the efforts made collectively among the educationalists and those generally interested in the preservation of our youth during that short year and a half towards that work of redemption. And, although there are no statistics to show exactly what they have done in that way, we may safely assume that their labours have had a most excellent result. Now, there are in this country a number of men of all denominations who, in view of the magnitude of the danger, would he prepared, I am sure, to take a great interest in that work. I know a great many in the city of Montreal; and I am sure there are many in all the provinces; and it seems to me that although our duties are principally legislative, it would be eminently a work to be commended and sustained if such an important functionary and dignitary as the Minister of Justice should take the initiative in such a movement in our country. There are, no doubt, a great number of agencies acting m that) direction already amongst all denominations as hon. members of this House will readily understand; but collective effort, effort of the kind which has produced such salutary results in England and the United States, would be accompanied here, I have no doubt, with similar results, and would do a great deal, in a young country such as curs, to prevent an increase of that very great danger and save our youth in large numbers from these perils which seem to have suscitated, particularly in the 'conditions of modern life.
Now, I come to another point. There have been seven prison congresses held in different countries and in which from twenty to thirty nations have participated. These congresses have done much in the way of prison reform, particularly in that they have led to a clear understanding of the necessity of separating in our penitentiaries those that are scarcely contaminated from the hardened criminals-the absolute necessity of classification and segregation. In the last congress, held in Buda Pesth, Hungary, that point was treated, and it was universally conceded that without segregation the best results cannot be hoped for. Without segregation, the penitentiary is nothing but a hotbed for the fomentation of crime and the spirit of crime amongst those who might be saved from contamination. The next of these admirable congresses is to be held on the invitation given at the time by President Roosevelt, in Washington in

1910. Thirty-six nations participated in the proceedings at Buda Pesth. I would strongly urge upon this government the necessity of participating in the congress in 1910. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) knows that this can easily be done, and that we ought to be represented there by one who takes a warm interest in these vital matters and through whom we should have the benefit of coming in contact with the ablest penologists and criminologists of the world. At present we are legislating offences, multiplying crime and sending to the penitentiary large numbers of people. But we are sending these people to the old-time jails, to those prisons from which there is no hope whatever for those who spend time within their walls. Look at the last report, of the Department of Justice. The minister's report is only short but there is not a word in it in regard to any of these great points which I have indicated

barely indicated-this evening. Look at the report of the inspector-not a word. Here we have many penitentiaries, in some of which segregation of youths would be quite possible; classification, division-some effort to save those who are possible of salvation. Not a word in the report of the inspector. Look through the reports of the wardens. Not one syllable. Nothing. No suggestion. If you consult the reports of similar officials in the United States you find them to be in reality treatises on the subject, full of the most valuable suggestions of improvement-in our reports, nothing of that kind. Read the doctors' reports.-no suggestions. I have looked through the chaplain's reports. Nothing whatever, except that two Anglican clergymen have recommended-pointed out rather -the dreadful danger that exists of contamination under our present system, the horror of that system so far as the saving of those who can be saved is concerned. It would be very interesting to quote from the report of the commission appointed in the province of Ontario, I believe, in 1881, in which the Chairman of the Board of Prisons there, in language which is stronger than I can give, and at great length, points out the absolute defect in that respect of the prisons and jails in his own province. Let me quote just a line from this great authority on criminology, Tallack, to whom I have already referred. At page 190 of his book on 'Penological and Preventive Principles,' he says:
The more often a man has been in prison the more likely he is to return thither. This is abundantly proved by experience. Statistics show that the first brief term of imprisonment, in cellular jails, is the most successful in general; inasmuch as four-fifths of the persons who have undergone a first inear-Mr. MONK.
ceration, separated from others, avoid prisons ever after; but nearly one-half of the number who have been twice imprisoned, at least in association, have to be further recommitted. Nearly three-fourths of those a fourth time, or oftener.
I mention that authority because in the reports of these congresses, there is no doubt of the necessity of segregation. In the United States they have made marvellous progress and have arrived at extraordinary results. I would refer hon. members who would like to study this important question to what has been written in the United States in regard to the experiments made in Elmira penitentiary, in the state of New York, by the absolute division and classification. Not as ours are, or as penitentiaries have been in the old time, but a place where a practical effort has been made to separate prisoners, to classify them and to reform those who are reformable. They have not absolutely exact statistics, but, extraordinary as it may appear, as many as 80 per cent have been restored to liberty after their sentences and have become good citizens. In the Massachusetts reformatory for females, under a similar system, a wonderful proportion of women convicts have been saved -and everybody knows how particularly liable to become recidivists women are. And it has been found in the United States that the segregation system, far from being more costly than the other, is actually less expensive-it is not only infinitely better, but it costs less than the other system. I venture to say that we have not, in this country, done anything during the past few years but create new offences, provide new punishments, facilitate procedure, but not one single step have we taken for an improved system of penitentiaries and gaols, not one single step such as have been taken in other countries-Great Britain, the United States, France and Belgium and many others-to preserve the youth from the contaminating influences of modern life. No man better than the present Minister of Justice, certainly no man better than my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, could act in the direction 1 have indicated and which has afforded such excellent results in England. In regard to the other point-reform in our penitentiary system-I think it imposes itself upon us. It is necessary for us to follow the many suggestions in that direction pointed out by modern penologists. I have taken the opportunity to occupy a few minutes upon this subject, and to express the hope that without delay we will attend to these important matters. It is important to conserve our natural resources, and we must make an effort to prevent what is happening at the present moment. Forty per cent of our convict population

are alien immigrants who have come into this country. We have sixty per cent Canadian-born and forty per cent foreign-born. But I think above all things that we should endeavour to adopt preventive and eurative measures, and I hope the government will take some note of the remarks that I have made in that regard.


Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Solicitor General).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). We all deplore the increase of criminality in our country and we are all trying to do our best to suppress it. My hon. friend has mentioned the press as being an inducement to criminality, but he does not indicate or suggest any restriction we could make to prevent that. On the contrary he thinks that the press does such good service to the country that it ought not to be molested. Another reason my hon. friend alleges is the fact that criminals are mixed up in our penitentiaries. That is a matter that would be more relevant to the Penitentiary Act than to the Criminal Code. If we have multiplied the number of offences and have tried to make the punishments heavier it has been in the endeavour to check the progress of criminality in our country. If I understand the principle of the Criminal Code it is :'Thou shalt not 'and if you do you have to take your punishment.' My hon. friend has made some suggestions which do not seem to me to be relevant to the legislation which we now have under consideration. The idea of having the best classes of society or prominent men in various cities form themselves into a committee or association to try and teach young men to avoid surroundings which will induce them to fall into bad habits and commit crime is one that I heartily agree with. I think that every honest man in this country ought to take it upon himself to try to do something to suppress and prevent criminality. But, that is hardly a subject that we can introduce into an amendment to the Criminal Code. It is hardly a thing that we can legislate upon. It is more a matter of home education or of civic effort than of federal legislation because it would be difficult to put on the statute book a provision which would bring about a condition that we all desire. As far as the good will of the different classes of people in this country is concerned, my hon. friend does not doubt that he is actuated by such a feeling as far as the government is concerned. With regard to the division or segregation of criminals my hon. friend knows as well as I do that criminals committing minor offences are outside of our control. They are confined in the provincial jails if their sentences are under two years. All of these smaller offences are outside of the control of the Minister or Department of Justice.
It has been the object of the officers of the department, as my hon. friend will find if he reads the regulations of the various penitentiaries, to classify criminals.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no classification. They are all together.


Jacques Bureau: There is nothing in the Penitentiary Act, but it has been the aim of the inspectors to try and separate them in the penitentiaries. They are graded, so much so that they are denoted as first, second, or third grade by the stars they wear on the collars of their coats. As far as the younger criminals are concerned, last year we passed an Act respecting juvenile delinquents. The preamble shows the purpose of the Act:
Whereas it is inexpedient that youthful offenders should be classed or dealt with as ordinary criminals, the welfare of the community demanding that they should on the contrary be guarded against association with crime and criminals, and should be subjected to such wise care, treatment and control as will tend to check their evil tendencies and to strengthen their better instincts; therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, enacts as follows:-
This law is to go into force by proclamation.
This Act shall go into force only when and as proclamations declaring it in force in any province, city, town or other portion of a province are issued and published in the ' Canada Gazette.'
A demand has to be maue Dy the province, city or town which wishes to apply it. It will be a year on the 20th July since this Act was sanctioned and so far in the whole Dominion there has only been one application to put the Act in force and that has been made by the city of Winnipeg. Of course, the Minister of Justice, the Department of Justice and the whole government are always open to receive any suggestions which would tend to improve the morals of the people, but I think my hon. friend has indicated a lot of sores without providing a remedy. As far as the classification of criminals is concerned it would not properly come under the Crininal Code. It would more properly come under the Penitentiaries Act if the necessity for its amendment should become apparent. Some of the hon. gentleman's suggestions are good and we are willing to give all the assistance we can to carry them out. For my part I would be willing to go to my people, or to go to the people in Montreal and ask them to start an association and to work either on a Sunday or any other day in the week to induce young men not to sin.

. Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 207,


Robert Laird Borden: I have had it represented to me that the conditions in regard to the distribution in this country of immoral and indecent literature and pictures are absolutely astonishing. I do not think the provisions of the law can be made too stringent in this respect. It has been suggested to me that the proposal in this Bill is not possibly as effective as it might be made. There will be, I believe, a great deal of difficulty in proving that persons having such immoral or indecent literature or pictures in their possession have it so in their possession for sale under the wording of the section. Would it not be desirable to impose upon any person having in his possession such articles, a proper penalty, or, should a provision not be added to the effect that possession was prima facie possession for the purpose of sale? In the absence of personal knowledge of the difficulty of making proof I have not been able to give very careful consideration to the matter, but I would like to know what is the view of the government.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This section, as in the printed Bill, has received the best consideration of which I am capable, and has as well received careful consideration from other members. It has been the subject of much correspondence with gentlemen who are interested in the question. It was proposed to me by a delegation of clergymen who came to Ottawa in connection with this feature of the Criminal Code and some other amendments which they desired to have introduced. After the Bill was introduced in its present form the circumstance that the proposed amendment did not reach the case of a persora-who simply had in his possession an immoral or indecent picture' was pointedly called to my attention, and it was pressed upon me that the words ' for distribution, sale or circulation ' ought to be omitted.
I received a considerable number of letters on that subject, some from the Rev. Dr. Chown and other gentlemen who are particularly interested in the question, and I think who belong to the same department or committee of the church of which the reverend gentleman is a member. The result of that correspondence. I am pleased to be able to say, is that he finally. Dr. Chown,	at all	events,has expressed himself as satisfied with the wording of the	present	clause.
The view I took, and which I presented to him for his consideration was, that an offence of this nature, having in one's possession a prohibited thing, was very analogous to the offence under the liquor Mr. BUREAU.
1 license law of having intoxicating liquors in one's possession for sale. Prosecutions for that offence are not infrequent. It becomes of course a pure question of fact for the judge or magistrate to determine the intention with which the intoxicating liquor was in possession of the person accused, and as a general thing there has not been any practical difficulty experienced in coming to a conclusion as to the intent. The quantity of the commodity which the accused person may have in his possession is in itself some indication of whether it was intended for home consumption or for use abroad. Precisely the same considerations would apply in case of the offence struck at by this section. It is not as serious a thing at any rate, that a man should be corrupting his own morals as that he should be corrupting the morals of somebody else, and if a man, for any reason, wants to carry about in his pockets an immoral or an indecent picture for his own private consumption, sc to speak, I do not know that anybody is hurt except himself. I should hesitate very much before being willing to make that an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. If he has even one indecent picture in his possession for the purpose of circulating it, or if he has a quantity for the purpose of distributing them, let him be punished, but so long as he does not in fact ' sell, circulate or distribute,' and does not have the article in his possession with that intent, I should not go the length of making that man punishable by a substantial term of imprisonment. Might I suggest one other consideration: I think it is certainly not an unknown thing, possibly not an uncommon thing for boys at school, half grown young men in the teens, to get possessed by some hook or crook of a picture that they would not like to have found in their pockets. Would the committee think that a lad *who might have been foolish enough to carry about a picture of that sort should be liable to be sent to the penitentiary or made the subject of a criminal charge? If we go the length of making punishable the having in possession for this improper purpose of 'selling, distributing or circulating' we go, I think, as far as we can fairly be asked to go. I have been happily able,' 1 think, to satisfy the reverend gentlemen who were particularly interested in this matter, that this wording would go far enough, if, as Dr. Chown adds, parliament would give a constable the right to arrest a person on suspicion and search his clothing. I did not feel free to go that length, and I thought that this section as drawn was as far as we could properiy go.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not suggesting that the person in whose possession an obscene book or picture is found should neces-

sarily be sent to the penitentiary, but if we are to apply the argument of the Minister of Justice to the two preceding sections I suppose it might be said that if a man carries a slug-shot, or dagger, or bowie knife simply for his own personal delecta-tation, he is not doing any harm to the community and therefore it is improper to interfere with him by means of the criminal law. But if you look at those sections, you will find that the purpose for which he is to use them does not seem to be called in question at all. The niere fact that he has on his person a bowie knife, dagger or dirk or any offensive weapon of that character subjects him to the criminal law. While it is absolutely necessary to have regard to the safety of the person, still there are other considerations. The danger of poisoning the minds of an entire community, for instance of a school, which the Minister of Justice has used as an illustration, is equally deserving of consideration. For example, this measure leaves it absolutely open to some degenerate in a school to have in his possession and exhibit to other boys indecent literature or pictures, and he is subject to no criminal charge. I would not suppose that such an act could be classed as distribution or circulation. He would keep it in his own possession, but would show it to other boys ,and exercise a most demoralizing influence and yet be in no respect amenable to the criminal law, as we are now about to enact it. For that reason I am not convinced that this goes far enough. However, if the government has come to a final conclusion, it is not worth while my arguing the question further.


William Wright: Has the government power, under the criminal code, to destroy the immoral pictures and the plates for their reproduction?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am not able to answer that inquiry categorically. I am not aware of any power to destroy, but a person who is arrested upon a charge of this character and searched would be very certain to have the contraband article impounded. I am personally aware of some instances in which that course was taken and the exhibits forwarded to the Department of Justice, where they now repose.


William Wright: The government might well take power to seize the plates for- the reproduction of such pictures and photographs.


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) has an amendment of which he spoke to the Minister of Justice with reference to kidnapping. It is to substitute twenty-five years for seven years imprisonment in section 297 of the criminal code. [DOT]	i


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The hon. member for Grenville mentioned this on the first reading of the Bill and has since discussed it with me. I have no objection to the amendment proposed. With regard to amendments generally, I am aware that several hon. members desire to propose amendments to other sections of the code than are dealt with by this Bill. Such amendments might be considered after the jnjinted Bill has been gone through and before the committee rises, and any changes can then be inserted in their proper places in the Bill.
On .section 313:
By repealing it and substituting the following section:-
313.	Every one is guilty of an indiotablie-offence and liable to ten years' imprisonment who, against her will, takes away or detains any woman of any age and whether married or not with intent to marry or carnally know such woman or to cause her to be married Or carnally known by any other person.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: No doubt this is the proper place in which to get in my amendment if at all. On the 4th of February, I gave notice of a Bill to amend section 92 of the Criminal Code and that Bill received its second reading. As it is not likely to be reached, I would ask the minister now to take charge of it. It provides for punishment of any man who assaults and ill-treats his wife or any other female and thereby causes her actual bodily harm.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This would be included in my suggestion regarding amendments generally.
On section 314:
314.	By repealing subsection 1 thereof and substituting therefor the following section:-
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to fourteen years' imprisonment, who, with intent to marry or carnally know any woman, or with intent to cause any woman to be married or carnally known by any other person, such woman having any interest, legal or equitable, present or future, absolute, conditional or contingent, in any real or personal estate, or .being a presumptive heiress or co-heiress, or presumptive next of kin, to any one having such an interest,-
(a)	from motives of lucre takes away or detains such woman against her will, whatever the age of such woman,
(b)	fraudulently allures, takes away or detains such woman out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother or other person having the lawful care or charge of her, such woman being under the age of twenty-one years.


Robert Laird Borden: Any difference made in the punishment?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The punishment under the present section 313 is a possible fourteen years imprisonment for the abduc-

tion of a woman who is not possessed of property. Under section 314 the same imprisonment is imposed for the abduction of a woman, who is described in the side note as an heiress. The change proposed is to leave the punishment a possible fourteen years in the latter case, but make ten years the maximum in the former.
On section 424:
424. By repealing it and substituting the following subsection:-
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who,-
(a)	being the holder of any lease or license issued under the provisions of any Act relating to gold or silver mining, or by any^ person owning land supposed to contain any gold or silver, by fraudulent device or contrivance defrauds or attempts to defraud His Majesty, or any person, of any gold, silver or money payable or reserved by such lease, or, with such intent as aforesaid, conceals or makes a false statement as to the amount of gold or silver procured by him; or,
(b)	not being the owner or agent of the owner of mining claims then being worked, and not being thereunto authorized in writing by the proper officer in that behalf named in any Act relating to mines in force in the province in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, sells or purchases, except to or from such owner or authorized person, any rook, ore, mineral, stone, quartz or other substance containing gold or silver or any! unsmelted, or unaltered, or unmanufactured, or partly smelted, partiv treated, or partly manufactured gold or silver; or
i(c) purchases any rook, ore, mineral, stone, quartz or other substance containing gold or silver, or any unsmelted, or untreated, or unmanufactured, or partly smelted, partly treated, or partly manufactured gold or silver, except from such owner or authorized person, and does not, at the same time, execute in triplicate an instrument in writing, stating the place and time of purchase, and the quantity, quality and value of gold or silver so purchased, and the name or names of the person or persons from whom the same was purchased, and file the same with the clerk of the county or district court of the county or district in which the purchase was made within ten days, or with the officer with whom in the said county or district bills of sale or mortgage of personal property are filed or deposited.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The effect of this proposed amendment is solely to widen the definition or description of the article which is spoken of in the section and to vary, as the italics show, the language as to the place of filing the instrument. In subsection (b) the present requirement oi the law is that the authority in writing should come from the proper officer in that behalf named in any Act relating to mines in force in any province of Canada, so that the effect would be, reading it literally, that the authority for a transaction in the province of Ontario might come from Mr. AYLESWORTH.
an officer in the province of British Columbia, or vice versa. To correct that, the wording in italics at line 35 of subsection (b) has been adopted. It is to be the proper officer in that behalf mentioned in a statute of the province in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. In the present enactment the article is .described as any quartz containing gold or any partiallv smelted gold or silver. The practical difficulty which it is hoped by the present legislation to reach has been with regard to the very rich deposits of silver ore at Cobalt and Gowganda, where the silver is so very nearly pure that it becomes a valuable article as it is taken from the mine and where there have been several instances of very extensive thefts. The present language would scarcely cover such a case and accordingly the words printed in italics intended to cover all possible quartz deposits of gold or silver or gold or silver in a partially manufactured state, have been adopted. Those I think are the only changes effected by this section as we propose to amend it.
As to the filing of the instrument in triplicate, the present law is that the filing must take place within 20 days. I am reducing that to 10 days, and the filing must be with the proper officer. Who the proper officer is is not defined in the law, and I am proposing to define that by a description of the clerk of the court or the officer with whom bills of sale for that district would be filed. The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) has spoken to me with reference to the applicability of this legislation to the Yukon. I believe it is still to some extent customary in that territory to use gold dust as currency. It was not intended to interfere with that and although the language of this subsection is limited to ore or quartz containing gold or silver, it possibly would be better in order to avoid misunderstanding that a special exemption should be made in the case of the Yukon. I therefore move that a subclause be inserted reading:
The two next preceding subsections (b) and (o) shall not extend or apply to the Yukon Territory.


Mr. GERVAIS.: With reference to the amendment to section 508a, dealing with the unlawful printing, selling or possession of plates for printing pirated copies of musical composition, I would ask the minister who prompted this legislation for the protection of musical compositions which have been registered in Ottawa? As a matter of fact, under the Berne convention, musical compositions and other publications which have not been registered

in Ottawa are entitled to the same amount of protection, according to the latest jurisprudence, as those which have been registered here. I do not know why we should make a distinction between musical competitions registered in Ottawa and those that are not so registered, because, under the Berne convention, both are entitled to the same protection. Why should we impose such legislation which' seems very stringent and hard upon the people?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This section is substantially a reprint of the Imperial Act of 1906 relating to the same subject. It has been pressed upon my consideration, especially by a solicitor in Toronto who has had necessity on behalf of some clients to bring actions to restrain the dealing in pirated copies of musical compositions. He found, as he says, very great practical difficulty in establishing the rights of his clients for want in this country of legislation such as was passed three years ago in England on this subject and as the purpose and character of the legislation seemed to commend itself, I inserted it in the Bill after conference with the Minister of Agriculture, and after submitting the proposed legislation to his *act legislation which the Minister of Agriculture as administering the Copyright Act urged upon me as well.


Mr. GEE  VAIS@: I think that the remedies which we provide by the Copyright Act are quite sufficient and I do not know why we should create a new crime at the instigation of one Toronto lawyer. We have been creating too many crimes at the instigation of interested parties. It will be seen that the Copyright Act provides sufficient remedies by the right of injunction, forfeiture, fine, &c. It would be a hardship to imprison a man because he has in his possession a musical composition which is a pirated copy but which he may have purchased from a neighbour. We should wait before creating a new crime. We have 500 or 600 crimes or misdemeanours in the Criminal Code and there is no excuse for creating a new one. We should wait until that Toronto lawyer gets a couple more of cases of the same character before passing this legislation.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The effect of the legislation can scarely be other than beneficial. No one can have any sympathy with the pirate of a musical composition any more than with any other pirate and the difficulty that is met with practically in endeavouring to stop this sort of illicit tra.de is_ that the man who engages in it is ordinarily, if not always, quite execution-proof. The recovery of damages is valueless to the owner who has been injured.
Obtaining an injunction is very expensive. No doubt the owner could, ordinarily, if he is able to secure evidence, obtain his injunction to restrain the musical pirate from dealing in the compositions which he has no right to sell. But sometimes it is hardly possible to do that, because these things are circulated through the post office, and in that way a very brisk trade has, I am told, been going on at different times in this kind of article. It is much more easy, of course, to get the advantage of the theft of another man's brains in the case of a musical composition than in the case of a book. In the case of a musical composition, copies are struck off at small expense, they can readily be sent about the country and a large profit obtained before there is any possibility of putting a stop to it. It has been thought necessary, as I have pointed out, to make it the subject of a special independent Act in the imperial parliament. A copy of that statute is in my hands, and I should be glad to send it to my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais). I thought this legislation would be entirely free from objection, and undoubtedly beneficial. But, certainly, if any hon. member thinks it objectionable in character, or desires that it should stand for further consideration, more especially as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is not in his place-I am entirely willing that that course snould be taken.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: As a matter of fact, I think it is hardly fair to important interests in our great country that the Minister of Agriculture should be put in charge of the supervision of, the Copyright Act. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has the administration of the Patent Act, the Copyright Act, and similar laws. But, as a matter of fact, that is not a great guarantee, because I think our patent system needs great reform, and I think our patent office should not he an annex of the Department of Agriculture, but should be a department by itself and have as an annex a patents search office. But as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher') is not here, I do not think I had better go on. And, as the Minister of Justice is ready to postpone the further consideration of the matter, I will not say anything more to-night.


Haughton Lennox: I desire to read a proposed amendment with the object that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), in the meantime and before the Bill comes up again, can take it into consideration. I do not profess to know very much about this matter myself, but I have had correspondence with parties interested in dramatic productions, and they point out that in Canada persons who obtain the right to reproduce valuable dramatic performances are having their interests invaded, and, as the Minister of Justice has just said, in

many cases bv persons who are not substantial financially. The proposition is that the law be made much more severe than it is as regards the pirating of dramatic works* if as a matter _ of fact* there is any provision of the Criminal Code that now covers it. I am informed that the royalties on some of these dramatic productions amount to as much as $500 or $600 a performance. So, where they are stolen and reproduced in a cheap way, it is said that not only the author but the public is defrauded by having a cheap imitation foisted upon them where they are led to expect a performance of great merit. An amendment proposed to be added to this section has been forwarded to me. I will read it in order that the minister may, as I hope he will, read it in the meantime, and consider whether he thinks it advisable to adopt it. Like every other hon. member, I have heard said on many occasions that our Copyright laws are very weak and require strengthening in many directions. And this amendment indicates one of the ways in which, perhaps, this could be done. It is proposed to insert immediately after section 508a the following:
Every person who, after the registration of any dramatic work, publicly performs, exhibits or represents, or who in any manner causes or aids or abets the public performance or representation in whole or in part of such dramatic work without the consent or the proprietor (unless he proves that he acted innocently), is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and not exceeding $500, or thirty days' imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court, and on the second or subsequent conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for six months.


William Wright: This section provides for the destruction of plates for the printing of a pirated muscial composition. It seems to me that the minister ought to make provision also for the destruction of plates for the printing of immoral pictures or anything of that kind.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Section 508 stands.
On section 544a, time of confinement of cattle on railways exended.


Mr AYLESWORTH.: I wish to move the addition of a few words to this clause. The clause provides, as hon. members will see, that the time of the confinement of cattle on railway journeys may be extended on the written request of the owner, to thirty-six hours-ithe law is now tweinty-eight hours. I wish to add the words:
where such cattle are carried on oars flitted with the necessary appliances and are, during such time, fed and watered without being unloaded."


Haughton Lennox: The proposticn is to extend the time to thirty-six hours provided the cattle are carried on cars which have facilities for fading and watering, and if the cattle are fed and watered on the journey.
On section 750, procedure on appeals; notice of appeal; recognizances, &c.


James William Maddin: I- would like to know what object the minister can have in altering the law in regard to recognizances required to perfect an appeal. As the law originally stood in the Code of 1892 a person gave his notice and then proceeded as it is proposed that he will have to proceed under this amendment. In 1905 an amendment came into operation providing that in addition to giving notice within^ ten days after the conviction, an additional notice setting forth the grounds of appeal, shall be given five days before the appeal shall be heard. The reason I have for bringing this to the attention of the Minister of Justice and the committee is that there were dozens of appeals knocked out or lost because of the change in the law requiring five days notice before going to the court of appeal setting forth the grounds upon which the appeal was asked. That has been going on since 1905, and I submit that it is not a bad regulation to require that a person give the grounds of his appeal. It is' now proposed to alter that notice. Under this amendment there is only one notice to be given instead of two, and it must set forth the grounds of appeal within ten days after conviction. This is altering the procedure and is calculated to make confusion in the different counties in Nova Scotia to which this refers. I cannot see any good reason for this parliament every two or three sessions altering the law in regard to appeals in Nova Scotia.
With regard to the question of recognizances, the law as it originally stood, required that an accused person should remain in custody or give recognizances. That was in case of a conviction adjudging imprisonment without the alternative of a fine, or where a money penalty, _ with imprisonment in the alternative or in default of payment, was imposed, then the accused person, upon giving a recognizance, instead of remaining in custody could deposit a sum of money in the discretion of the justice with a further sum for costs. That was repealed and as the law stands where an appeal is from a conviction adjudging imprisonment without the payment of a fine the accused person gives a recognizance but, if it is an appeal from a money penalty, a recognizance is not necessary. As the law stands the person appealing from a money penalty is in the same position as a person appealing in a civil case; he does not require to put up bonds to have the benefit of an appeal ex-

cept where the judge imprisons without the option of a fine. It is now proposed to restore the law to what it was in 1892 with some slight difference, and I submit that this altering of the law regarding appeals session after session is calculated to lead to great confusion. A member of the bar in Nova Scotia, to my knowledge, failed in five appeals in liquor cases in the county of Pictou as a result to an amendment to section 750 of the present code.
Section stands.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: If the representation of my hon. friend (Mr. Maddin) should prevail, there should be no misunderstanding of the absolute necessity of passing subsection 'A.'


James William Maddin: I agree to that.
On section 761,


James William Maddin: Under sections 1015 and 1016 of the Code which provide for appeals from the verdict of a superior court, or from the findings of a county court judge's criminal court, or proceedings before a magistrate in summary trials of indictable offences, I ask the Minister of Justice to consider the advisability of extending this amendment to sections 762 so as to cover appeals as well as stated cases. I drew this matter to the attention of the Deputy Minister of Justice early in the session and he drafted what seemed to cover that weakness of the law. I had a case in the province of Nova Scotia which was tried before His Lordship Mr. Justice Fraser, and he told me he would grant a Crown case reserved but subsequently and before he stated the case he was appointed Lieutenant Governor of the province, and as the law stands he could not state the case. 1 moved the Court of Appeal of the province to state the case, and they held they could not do so except on the refusal of the judge, and as he had not refused they had not jurisdiction. The jury rendered a verdict against the prisoner in that case of guilty of murder in self defence, and I had to appeal to the Minister of Justice, who pardoned the man, but he had been three or four years in the penitentiary on account of the weakness of the Code as it existed then. I would move that the section 762 be extended to appeals as well as to stated cases.


Jacques Bureau: I understand this amendment was submitted to the hon. gentleman and that there is a letter from him saying it is perfectly satisfactory.


James William Maddin: The section submitted to me by the Deputy Minister of Justice covers appeals and this does not.
On section 777,


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: What good reason is there why the right to a speedy trial should 203


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
be taken from the accused by this amendment? When a man declares his option to be tried by a judge without a jury, I do not see why he should be deprived of'that right. Two years ago I introduced a Bill under which in the case of defamatory libel the accused could be tried without a jury if he so declared, and I do not see why we' are now taking a retrograde step in that respect.
Mr. AYLESWORTH The reason for the change is obvious. There may be cases which the Attorney General of the province would believe should not be tried otherwise than by a jury, and this section simply confers upon the Attorney General under such circumstances the right to prevent any other form of trial.
Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: As I understand it the benefit of a jury trial is granted to the accused and not to the Crown, and if the defendant is ready to accept a speedy trial instead of a jury trial he should be free to do so. If it is permissible to the Attorney General to force a jury trial upon the accused, that would mean in the twenty-one districts of the province of Quebec, that you would have jury trials which would cost thousands of dollars, because as we well know almost any jury trial will necessitate an expense of at least $500. Why should the Attorney General of a province he allowed to force a jury trial when it is the indefeasible privilege of the accused to elect to be tried either by a jury, or by summary trial, or to have a speedy trial, as is now provided in the Code. I do not see why the Attorney General of the province, for political or other reasons, should be allowed 'to force a poor man to go to the expense of a jury trial. Why not let the accused be free to declare his option for any of the three forms of trial which are allowed by the Cede?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The attitude of my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) irresistably suggests to my mind the ancient story of the man who was told he would get justice and who replied that that was the very thing he was frightened of._ The object of the proposed amendment is plain. A magistrate may be unduly friendly to the accused and the accused may desire to be tried by that magistrate, especially in a case where the punishment would be more than five years, and it is to prevent such a thing that the discretion is vested in the Attorney General of the province.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 188) respecting the Prudential Life Insurance Company of Canada, and to

[Stage Direction]
change its name to 'The Security Life Insurance Company of Canada.'-Mr. Me-Graney.
Bill (No. 189) to incorporate the Commerce Insurance Company.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill (No. 190) respecting the Fidelity Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. McCraney.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Haughton Lennox: What business to-morrow?


Mr. FIELDING.: On motion to go into Committee of Supply the hon. members for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Hughes), for Queen's, P.E.I. (Mr. Warburton), and for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), have signified their intentions to make some remarks.


Haughton Lennox: What Supply?


William Stevens Fielding: Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.10 a.m. Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 13, 1909.