REPORTS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Transcontinental Railway Commission.-Mr. Graham.
Report of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.-Mr. Graham.

Hon. G. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: May I ask the Minister of Railways if the report of the commission appointed to look into the wages of employees on the Intercolonial has been presented to the House; I have seen it referred to in the papers.


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways).: I have no recollection of a commission being appointed for that purpose.


George Eulas Foster: I remember reading copious extracts from the report of some commission; the minister ought to know if he appointed one. There was a report that the employees were too numerous and that if they were fewer the money thus saved could be devoted to raising the wages of other employees who are necessary.


George Perry Graham: That was the finding of the board under the Lemieux Act with reference to the claims of freight clerks.


George Eulas Foster: Then the Minister of Labour might bring down the report to the House.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: It is contained in the report of the Department of Labour presented on the first day of the session.



THE RESTAURANT COMMITTEE.

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the second report of the joint restaurant committee be adopted and that the following be the members of the House of Commons on the permanent joint restaurant committee, namely, Messrs. Sutherland, Barker, Monk and Harris.	,


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: That had better stand until to-morrow.



PRIVATE BILLS.


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

Mr. Mc-Craney.
Bill (No. 30) respecting the subsidy from the Ontario Government to Lake Superior Branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific.-Mr. Turriff.

Robert Laird Borden: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to a question of privilege. I observe in the Toronto ' Globe ' two recent editorials with regard to a telegram which I sent to ' The Colonist ' on the 24th October last. The portion of the editorials to which I de sire to call attention is-this:
Mr. Borden has supplied the public with the information that in a private statement to Mr. Templeman he repudiated the garbled despatch. He admits therefore that he was, immediately after its use, well aware of its Existence. Why then did he not make his disclaimer public? The change in the text of the message was sufficiently great to make the Act of the garbler one of virtual forgery,



and yet Mr. Borden has allowed three months to pass without, so far as the public know, taking a single step to put himself right in the matter.
I stated in the House, when the matter was referred to before, and I again state, that it was not until after I had returned from the south in the month of December that I became aware that any change had been made in the telegram. I also stated, and I again state, that I then immediately called upon the management of the paper foran explanation. I had no reason to believe until after the middle of December that any change had been made in the telegram. I then wrote immediately and received a certain report with regard to it from the management, in which it is stated most distinctly that no person connected with the management had been responsible for it, and bringing to my attention certain matters which I will not now detail to the House until I receive from the management of the newspaper certain further reports which they have promised, because they have made investigation and are still making further investigation into the matter. So far as the newspaper is concerned, I have not the slightest control over it, editorially or otherwise, and I am no more responsible for the change in the telegram than I am for the mis-statements in the editorial columns of the 'Globe' with regard to it. I only regret that gentlemen in British Columbia who say they suspected I had not sent a telegram in these terms, did not, during the course of the by-election, bring the matter to my attention by telegram when I would of course have put it right at once.



LEVEL RAILWAY CROSSINGS.

Mr.   H.@: LENNOX (South Simcoe. I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to a statement in the press that a letter was sent by him this week to the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners and that the latter had replied. In view of the importance of the subject and the deep interest of the public in it, I would ask the hon. minister if he would bring down a copy of his letter and of the reply and lay them on the table of the House.


George Perry Graham: Under the circumstances, the matter has become largely pub-lip, but it was not intended at all that the correspondence should be published. I would prefer not to be asked to bring it down until I have thoroughly gone into the matter. The question is still in abeyance, and I may have some proposals to make later in the matter, and therefore think it advisable not to bring down this correspondence just yet.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Mr. LENNOX.: I am quite willing to accept the minister's opinion as to what is best to do, but the matter has been referred to in a great many papers. However, I am quite willing to take the view of the hon. gentleman in that regard. An extract of the letter was published in the papers.


George Perry Graham: It was not intended that it should.



INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS TREATY.

Robert Laird Borden: I would ask the right hon. First Minister whether or not he has any further information to give to the House as to when we may expect the production of the treaty recently signed with the United States relating to the waterways. Also whether any convention or treaty has been signed touching the adjudication by the Hague Tribunal of matters relating to the Fisheries, and, if so, whether that will also be laid before the House at an early date, and whether the convention has the assent and approval of the Imperial authorities and the Colony of Newfoundland.


Mr.   H.@: With reference to the waterways treaty, His Excellency the Governor-General communicated yesterday or the day before with the Colonial Office, and through it with the Foreign Office, for the purpose of having the treaty sent us at the earliest possible moment consistent with the rules of the service. With regard to the second treaty, it has been agreed to by Newfoundland and Great Britain that the question of the Newfoundland fisheries and all the matters in dispute should be referred to the Hague Tribunal. In a treaty of this kind, as the hon. gentleman knows, the most important feature is the settlement of the questions to be referred. The matter has been discussed by the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State at Washington and is now under the consideration of the Newfoundland colony.



CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following resolution :-
Resolved, that it is expedient that the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the head of a department, based upon a report of the deputy head, may grant to any officer, clerk or employee under the deputy heads in the inside service as defined by the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, who was in the public service at the time of the coming into force of that Act, an increase of salary of $150 a year, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained ; that in the case of any officer, clerk or employee who has received an increase of salary upon organization and classification under the said Act, such

increase shall be offset against the increase which such person might otherwise receive under any Act to be founded on this resolution; that no increase under any Act to be founded on this resolution to any officer, clerk or employee shall exceed the difference between his present salary and the maximum salary of the subdivision in which he has been placed upon organization and classification under the said Act of 1908; that all increases provided for hereunder shall take effect from the first day of September, 1908; that all sums of money voted by parliament for the financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, and applicable to the payment of salaries or increase of salaries of persons m the inside service shall be applicable to the payment of increases of salary granted under the Act to be founded in this resolution, so far as such sums are not required for the specific purposes for which they were granted; and during the said financial year there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada such moneys required for the payment of increases of salary hereunder as have not been voted by parliament-Mr. Fisher.
He said: This resolution is the complement of the action of last session when the government introduced an amendment to the Civil Service Act, which amendment was founded on the report of the Civil Service Commission in 1908. That report largely confirmed and somewhat amplified the report of a previous Civil Service Commission in 1892. Speaking of the general terms, the reports of the two commissions coincide in a marked degree. The government of the day had no hesitation in believing that the judgment of two such important bodies, appointed some years apart and composed largely of different individuals, one appointed by a Conservative government and the other appointed by a Liberal government, deserved every consideration and action upon it. The government which appointed the commission of 1892, and which remained in power for some four years afterwards, did not see its way clear or was not able to act upon the report of that commission. We thought, however, that we were not only justified but called upon to act upon the report of the commission of 1907. Speaking in general terms and as shortly as possible, I may say that these reports, the last one at all events, embodied five principal recommendations : (1) that the entry into the Civil Service should in future be through a competitive examination instead of, as had been the case up to that time, through a qualifying examination; (2) that the service should be reorganized and classified on a somewhat different basis, the classification dealing rather with the duties than the personnel of the offices; (3) that an independent and nonpolitical body of the Civil Service Commissioners should be appointed who would have charge of the competitive examinations and generally of the administration of the Civil Service under the government;
(4) that the salaries of the Civil Service should be increased in consequence of the largely increased cost of living during the many years in which the salaries generally had not been greatly increased; (5) that a system of superannuation should be worked out and adopted for the benefit of those retiring from the service. The Bill of last session covered three of these recommendations. We introduced the system of competitive examinations for entering into the service; we established a non-partisan and independent commission under whose authority those examinations should be held, and who would have other powers in connection with the administration and development of the service under the government; and we adopted a scheme for a reorganization of the departments on the basis of the duties of the offices rather than their personnel. We left over the question of a special increase of salaries due to the increased cost of living, and we left aside for the moment the question of superannuation. The resolution which I now have the honour to propose to the House covers the fourth of these recommendations; and let me say a word or two in regard to the reason for carrying out this recommendation of the Civil Service Commission of 1907. That commission had before them an elaborate calculation of the cost of living, which showed that it had increased in a very great degree during the last few years, and also showed clearly and conclusively that the salaries of civil servants had not been increased proportionately, while men in private employments in Canada and men otherwise earning a living for themselves had an increase of revenue perhaps commensurate with or fully equal to the increased cost of living. I may point out that since then the Association of the Civil Service have submitted to the government another memorandum in confirmation of what the Civil Service Commission said in that respect, and I am informed by persons who live in Ottawa that even this year, when there has been somewhat of a check in the general progress of industry and commerce in the country, the actual cost of the necessities of life has not come down in accordance with that check of general business. I would also point out that the change in the scale of salaries of civil servants has been very slight ever since the original fixing of those salaries in 1857. I have under my hand a statement which shows that those who entered the service at that time entered it at $500 a year, just as they did two years ago. That was in the fourth class, where they were expected to remain only two years, when they went into the third class as a matter of course and received a salary ranging from $600 to $800 a year. In the second class the salaries ranged from $900 to $1,100 a year, and in
[Stage Direction]
the first class from $1,200 to $1,400 a year. This was in 1857, 51 years ago. I need not point out that the cost of living has immeasurably increased since that time, that the work and responsibilities imposed upon the Civil Service of Canada have greatly uicreased, and that their relationship to and standing in the community has become so enlarged as to require that they shall have greater consideration in this year of grace 1909 than they had when Canada was a small, inconsiderable and cheap country in 1857. Some increases were made in 1903 by the present government. The third-class clerks were left at the same salary, but they largely took' the work and the position of the former temporary clerks who entered at $400 and went up to $600 a year. The third-class clerks were made to go from $500 to $700, a slight increase for those who were doing the same kind of work. The junior second-class clerks, who in 1902 and before that had from $600 to $1,000 were raised to from $800 to $1,100. The second-class clerks, who before that had been from $1,100 to $1,400 were raised to from $1,200 to $1,500. The first-class clerks, who before that had been from $1,400 to $1,800, were raised to from $1,500 to $1,900.
The Bill of last session, by its reorganization of the service, and its new classification, added to the salaries of the various divisions, and I will now go over these divisions and the salaries attached to them. The Bill of last session divided the service into three general classes, under the deputy heads, and each of these classes was further divided into two subdivisions. Beginning at the bottom and working upwards : The clerks under subdivision B of the third division get from $500 to $800. These correspond, as nearly as possible, to the third class clerks of the old classification, whose salaries were from $500 to $700. The third-division, subdivision A of the new classification, corresponding to the junior second-class clerks of the old classification, had their salaries fixed at from $900 to $1,200, instead of $800 to $1,100 as formerly. In the second division, subdivision B which corresponded to the senior second-class clerks, the salaries were to be from $800 to $1,600. Under the old classification, these salaries were from $1,200 to $1,500. I would like to explain that the low commencement in that division is due to the fact that those from the outside passing the examination of the specially high character required for that division may be put straight into that division instead of going through the other divisions, and they have to go in at a lower rate proportionately than would otherwise be expected. Subdivision A of the second division which corresponded to the first-class clerk of the former classification, are given salaries of from $1,600 to $2,100. The first-class clerks of the old classification had salaries of from $1,500 to $1,900.
Mr. FISHER.: Subdivision B of the first division have salaries of from $2,100 to $2,800. Under the old classification, the chief clerks corresponding as nearly as may be to this class, had salaries of from $1,900 to $2,500. Then, we established a new subdivision, subdivision A of the first division, consisting of the higher officials, such as assistant deputy heads, chief clerks in charge of branches and other more important officers, who, under the old classification, ranged generally from $2,400 to $4,000 and who, in the new subdivision, range from $2,800 to $4,000. Last session, when this was done we had applications from the Civil Service for further consideration in the way of salary increases. We believed that this change of the classification and general raising of the limit of the classes as to salary would effect a very considerable advantage immediately to the members of the Civil Service. We believed that, in consequence of the increase of the maximums of the classes, we would give a pecuniary advantage, although not immediate, to those who thereby would be able to rise to a higher salary eventually than, under the old classification, they could attain to. We could not tell at that time, until the classification was worked out, just to what extent this would affect the civil service generally here in Ottawa. I confess that, personally, I believed it would accomplish more than it seems to have done. I was confident that a very large number of clerks would get immediate relief. I believed that the future relief by the raising of the increases to a higher maximum would be a pecuniary advantage to them which would satisfy them, although I understood and realized that that would not give them the relief in consequence of the present and pressing increase of the cost of living. It was not, however, until the classification of the different departments -was worked out that we had details and knowledge which could prove to us-and did prove to us-that the immediate benefit to the Civil Service here in Ottawa, which we hoped and expected would come to them by this Act of last year, would not accrue. Having discovered this, and having had the representations of the Civil Service and the report of the commission, urging a general increase, we decided that we must take the matter up and deal with it now at the earliest occasion possible when we had the information at our disposal, and grant the relief to the Civil Service which the commission recommended and which their services to the country and their condition in regard to the cost of living seemed to completely justify.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister state at what time that was come to ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Since the facts of the reorganizations were before us so that we could see the condition of affairs.


George Eulas Foster: And at what period could that come to be the fact ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Within the last month, the reorganization orders in council were only passed within a week or two. We had them before us and had the information in detail, not in all respects complete, but sufficient to show us that what we had expected was not going to come about. We waited, however, until the detail was amply before us, confirming us in an impression which had been coming home to us by the knowledge of the working of the classification by each minister in his own department, and which had come home to the Civil Service themselves and which they had represented to us as the basis for the further insistence and demand that this further relief should be given. I am reminded of what is perfectly obvious-that the principle of the relief was adopted last session. The measure of it we hoped would be greater under the Bill which we introduced and passed last session. When we found that the measure of it was not sufficient to meet the demands and necessities of the case, it was our duty, having adopted that principle, to carry that principle to its legitimate conclusion and to introduce this resolution which I am satisfied meets the whole necessities of the case.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister state when that principle was avowed last session ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was avowed when the report of the commissioners was endorsed, in the debate which occurred last session declaring that relief was required. And in my explanations of the details of the measure last session, I pointed out that the measure which we were then proposing would, I believed, to a very large extent, meet the necessities of the case. My hon. friend can refer to the report of the discussion in ' Hansard,5 and he will find that stated there in no equivocal terms.
Let me say a word or two with regard to the recommendations of the commission. I find that their recommendation is in general terms, and as follows :
Your commissioners are of opinion that, somehow or other, the immediate question of salaries should be dealt with. They caamot recommend general inereaises, but they would suggest to your Excellency in Council the advisability of at least taking votes for granting increases to deserving officials, and that for eastern Canada, both in the inside and outside service, such increase might be at the rate of 15 per cent for officials whose salaries are under $1,500, and 12-J per cent for salaries above that rate; and for the western provinces, where, no doubt, a greater need prevails, these scales should be 25 and 20 per cent to the same proportion of incomes and all provisional allowances should cease.
Your commissioners suggest that such increases should only be granted on rigid examination, but as time goes on, if the suggestions of your commissioners are carried into effect, the special increases should be abolished and a scale of salaries laid down suitable to each department and office in the public service.
The Bill of last session provided for laying down a scale of salaries suited to each department and office of the public service, but it did not provide for immediate relief in consequence of increased cost of living. We believed that the arrangement of salaries and reorganization of the service would biing such a measure of relief to so large a number of individuals in the service that it would be sufficient to meet that demand. But we have found since we had our classification completed that that expectation was not borne out, and we now propose to remedy that defect.


Mr. LALOR.: Does this only apply to the inside service, or to the outside service as well?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill of last session applied only to the inside service, and this Bill, being the complement of that one, applies at the present time to the inside service alone, the inside service as defined in the Act of last session. Now, I wish to explain why the_ government has departed from that portion of the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission regarding a percentage increase.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I would ask the minister what he calls the inside service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Act of last session defines it. Let me say first that the salaries of the classes and of the officers generally in the service are almost all round figures of hundreds, and hundred and fifties, and so on. If we took the proposition of the Civil Service Commission and gave increases of 121 and 15 per cent on the various salaries we found there would be a great many odd figures in the salaries of the officers. Anybody can see how inconvenient that would be in the estimates, and in working out the monthly pay in the accountants office and in the Auditor General's office. We therefore dismissed the idea of absolutely ^adhering to a percentage basis in every detail. Then the question came up as to what groups of salaries we could deal with in round figures, and we found that 121 per cent for the higher officer13 and 15 per cent for the lower, adopting the percentages recommended would work out in groups ranging several hundred dollars of difference in the salaries. Giving $100 increase to all those between $500 and $800, and $150 to all those between $800 and $1,200, and so on, we found there would be a result which we did not think was in harmony with the views of the Civil Service Commission, and which we did not think so equitable as the decision which we have arrived at as final. In working out

groups or schedules of salaries with the approximate percentage of increase, we found also that lower officials would get very much lower increases, and the higher ones, especially those with very high salaries, very much greater increases. We had representations from the civil servants them-'selves, we had formed our. own ideas; and from the fact that the Civil Service Commission recommended a higher percentage fo,r those lower down in the service than they did for those higher in the service, we came to the conclusion that it was the lower officers in the service that needed help m greater degree than the higher officers. I have had made up for me tables of various kinds. I have studied various plans, and after considering the question with careful attention, and on the recommendations embodied in a memorial which was sent by the Civil Service Association proposing different alternatives, one of which we accepted, we have adopted the principle of giving a flat increase to everybody in the service.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: To every, person in the service. I do not think the resolution provides for those at the maximum of their class. -


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will point out the exception in a moment. The general principle is a flat rate of increase to everybody in the service, and after careful consideration and after counting the cost, we decided that $150 would be a fair treatment. I am glad to say that the delegation of the Civil Service Association which interviewed the Prime Minister and myself, afterward's agreed to that; and I am glad to say that since that agreement they have placed the matter before a special meeting of the Givil Service Association, which passed a resolution thanking them and thanking the government for the decision which has .been taken. My hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) asks about some details. If he will notice the resolution he will see that there are exceptions. First, in the case of an officer who has received an increased salary upon classification and organization, that increase shall be offset against the increase provided here. As I said to begin with, this Act i's the complement or continuation and fulfilment of what was designed in the Act of last session. By the classification and reorganization -certain increases did accrue. Those men had, therefore, under the action we took last session, received their increa'ses, and it would not be right for them to receive an additional increase. If their increase is $150 or more they will receive no increase under this Act- if their increase is less than $150, it will'be subtracted from the sum of $150 which otherwise they would get under this \ct. There is another exception. By the Act of last session we deliberately laid down the principle, with the unanimous concurrence of parliament, that certain classes of Mr. FISHER
work were worth certain salaries, that men in certain subdivisions doing the work which pertained to those subdivisions, should get so much a year, going on to the maximum. In such a proposition as this, if wei made no exception to the rule, there would be a considerable number of people who, being close to the maximum of the subdivision in which their work is placed by the reorganization, would be raised above the maximum of that subdivision. One of two things would result: Either we would have to promote them into a higher class, disarranging the reorganization, and give them a standing in the department which their work did not justify; or we would have to give them the whole of the increase, and they would be paid a sum higher than that which the Act of last session decided was a just and fair payment for the class of work they were doing. We therefore made the second exception, which is that no increase under this Act shall go beyond the maximum of the class in which the individual is.
Now, let me say a word or two as to what results from that. I will have to recall the memory of the House to the fact that last session we raised, in a general way, the maximum of the classes generally by $100 and, in some cases, by $200. Anybody who came into a particular class, with very rare exceptions, when the Act of last session came into force on the 1st of September, came in $100 below the maximum of his class. He is there still. He was there on the 1st of September. This Act will come into force and be applied as from the 1st of September last. Therefore, there are very few cases in which the individual will not get at least $100. There are a few and there even a few-a very few-only 35 in the whole service out of over 2,700-who will get no increase at all under this Act and who, under the reorganization of last session, got no increase. The number who will get less than $150 is inconsiderable, speaking from memory, something under 300. All the rest will get $150 or more.


Haughton Lennox: Will these 35 that the minister mentioned be absolutely without any remedy at all, or is there going to be any provision for them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no provision for them.


Haughton Lennox: The fewer the greater the hardship.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are already in the enjoyment of the highest salaries paid for the class of work which they are doing in the departments.


Haughton Lennox: Do I understand there is no grievance in these cases ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, I will not say that some of these individuals will not feel a

grievance but they are at the maximum of their classes. Parliament has decided that that maximum is the salary which ought to be paid for work of that class. If there are among them clerks who will justify promotion to another class they will then be able to reap the advantage of that promotion, but they have had the advantage already of being paid the utmost that the class in which they are is declared to be fairly paid, and therefore I do not think that they have a very serious grievance in not getting anything to-day. When you come to find, as is the case here, that of 2,700 odd of those employed in the city of Ottawa there are only 35 who are in that category, it will be admitted that the details of this Act have been worked' out in such a way as to give an exceptionally large measure of remedy to the Civil Service.
I think that these explanations pretty completely cover the reasons for the introduction of this Act. They will render the Act quite comprehensible to members of parliament. I have felt that I was bound to explain somewhat the Act of last session, partly because, as I said at the beginning, this Act is complementary to that Act and partly from the fact that there are a large number of members in the House who were not present when the Act was passed and when it was discussed in all the fulness of its details. Therefore, I have thought it well to take the two together as I have done. At this stage of the debate I do not think it is necessary for me to go into further details. The result is such as to cover fully, entirely and, I think I may say,' in an extraordinary degree, the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission. There is one more figure that I would like to give to the House. It is in regard to the percentage of increase. I spoke a few minutes ago of the fact that not a large amount of remedy was given by the classification.	The actual amount was $36,238
added to the salaries in Ottawa. Under this Act $347,145 will be added and the total under both Acts will be $383,383. The average percentage rate of the whole increase is 13-12-very close to the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, worked out without any idea when we actually went into the details of just how it would come out. This is, to my mind, in an extraordinary degree, a complete carrying out of the recommendations of the commission. The average rate of the special increase is 11-88 per cent, and under the classification and this special increase together it is 13 12 per cent. The number receiving the special increase under this Act is 2,605, the number who received the increase under the classification alone, which, I confess, was a great surprise to me, when I found it out, was only 59. So that the classification which we had hoped and expected would give a
very large number an increase and a very considerable amount in dollars and cents added to their salaries only gave an increase to 59 and only added $36,238. Now, we are going to give everybody in the service, except 35, some measure of increase and the whole average of increase is 13-12 per cent.
I would just add that the Act of last session came into force on the 1st of September. This Act being a complement to that Act, we believe it is only fair and just that the Act should take effect as from the first September last, it being altogether in this fiscal year, and we therefore think it proper that the Act should take effect on the salaries and that we should start payment from the 1st of September. I would just add, in addition to the details that I have given, that there is a clause at the end similar to the clause at the end of the Civil Service Act of last session and similar to the clause at the end of the! Civil Service Act of 1903, providing the necessary machinery to carry out the provisions of this Act. Later on I will have much more detail to give when the House goes into committee on the Bill, and if required I will only be too glad to answer all questions when we go into Committee of the Whole.


John Graham Haggart: When you talk of organization according to the duties of the different departments, what we used to call the theoretical organization, who prepares that

the commission or the departments themselves ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will have to give you an explanation of that point. Section 6 of the Act of last session defined how a clerk under the classification in the old service was to come under the new Act. It seems to be rather mechanical in its operation. When we came to discuss classification and reorganization-and I may take my hon. friend into my confidence and tell him that we had to do that after the assiduous task of carrying the elections in the country and the prior work of preparing for them- when we came then to discuss the matter the consequence was that my colleagues and myself had not a very great opportunity of going into the theoretical organizations of our departments. However the Act defines that we should make a reorganization. The Department of Justice informed us that clerks with fixed salaries must come, without any deviation whatever, into the subdivision which their salary entitled them to. The classifications therefore which have already been adopted and passed under section 8 are largely the mechanical transfer of the old service into the new classification. In some of the departments we have made changes; I myself have made some changes in the reorganization. I would be sorry to think that the reorganization was final and conclusive. I do not think that with the short time at our disposal, and in view of the duties which have

deyolved upon us during the last few months, we have been able to really thoroughly consider and discuss and come to final conclusions upon the proper organization of our departments. As I said to a Civil Service delegate not long ago, I think that work will have to be done more completely and more thoroughly in the near future, and possibly from time to time as events and circumstances and knowledge arise. That, however, is the classification which we passed not very long ago, and in that classification the clerks in the old service are transferred into the new classification under the operation of the new Act, partly mechanically, partly automatically, and partly in consideration of the duties discharged and the theory of the organization of the department.


George Eulas Foster: I do not quite understand what the minister means by that; can he give us some particular instances?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will have to think that out. I have not charged my mind with particular instances.


George Eulas Foster: You say partly mechanically and partly automatically.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I mean that some of the ministers have been able to proceed at once. For instance, I believe that the Minister of Inland Revenue, when the Mines Branch staff was brought into the inside service found there were some officials whose duties and qualifications from the technical and scientific standpoint would require them to be put in a higher classification than their salaries in the outside service would allow, and the Department of Justice declared that they should be put into that subdivision in the new classification which their salaries would indicate. The Minister of Inland Revenue thinks they ought to be in a higher subdivision in consequence of their duties and their qualification and we will have to make a change so as to provide an opening for them in the higher division. I am not sure whether the Minister of Inland Revenue has done that in the classification or not, but he spoke to me about it. That is one instance I can give to my hon. friend on the spur of the moment.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps the minister would bring down the orders in council which would show the House exactly what departments have been reorganized and to what extent there was reorganization.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly; the orders in council will be laid on the table. I may say that I do not think that any of the departments look upon their organization under these orders in council as complete.


Robert Laird Borden: In the debate of last session we pointed out to the minister that there seemed to be some in-Mr. FISHER.
consistency between sections 5, and 6, and 8, and that it was not very clear how the ministers could proceed to harmonize the provisions of these sections. Before this resolution can be properly discussed it is very necessary that we should understand the reorganization of the various departments and that we should have these orders in council laid before us so that we may properly consider what has been done. I would suggest also that we should have the Act of last year in pamphlet form. My hon. friend from North Toronto has made application for a copy in that form and he has been unable to procure it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have a copy here in pamphlet form and I thought there were hundreds of them.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the increase to the Civil Service is concerned I do not know of any good reason why it should be confined to the inside service alone and why the outside service should not be included as well. The Civil Service Commission pointed out that the salaries of some civil servants in different parts of the country were so low that not only hardship but even cruelty was involved, and during the debate on the Bill last year I strongly urged upon the government that this should be taken into consideration. 1 would like to tell the minister that every argument he has adduced here this afternoon in favour of this increase to the inside service is equally an argument for the consideration of the outside service. Section 3 of the Act of last year defines the inside service to be:-
3. The Civil Service shall be divided into two divisions, namely, the inside service, which shall consist of that part of the public service in or under the several departments of the executive government of Canada and in the offices of the Auditor General, the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the Governor General's secretary, employed at the city of Ottawa, or at the Experimental farm station or the Dominion Astronomical Observatory near Ottawa, but not including the officers, clerks and employees employed at Ottawa in the second or outside departmental division as defined by paragraph (b) of section 4 of the Civil Service Aot, or in any office of a purely local character; and
The outside service, which shall consist of tbe rest of the public service.
The statute of course makes a clear distinction between the two branches of the service, but the increased cost of living does not make any discrimination between them, and the remarks of the Civil Service Commission of 1907 with respect to the increased cost of living have general application to the whole of Canada and not to the city of Ottawa alone. Therefore, when the government are proposing what may be regarded as a very proper measure of justice to the Civil Service at Ottawa they are apparently leaving out of consideration altogether

the numerous officials in the outside service throughout the country who are receiving no increase of salary and who have no consideration in the terms of the resolution which the hon. gentleman has placed before us now. I think we ought to have a pretty full and pretty frank statement of the reasons which induced the gov ernment to deal with only one branch of the service and to leave absolutely without any consideration or regard this other branch. Does not the hon. gentleman know that the terms of the Civil Service Commission of 1907 apply to these outside officials ? Does he not know that the report of Mr. Justice Cassels, laid on the table of this House within a week, refers to officers of the outside service, who administer funds sometimes to the extent of $1,000,000, and who, in the opinion of Mr. Justice Cassels, have been without sufficient consideration, considering the importance of their duties, for many years past ? Why should all these be put out of consideration, and why has my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture said not one word to-day indicating the reasons why the same considerations which have induced him to bring this -motion before the House should not have induced him also to pay attention to the legitimate claims of those who are embraced within the outside service ?
Then, there is another matter upon which I think we ought to have some information. I think the Minister of Agriculture or the Prime Minister ought to lay before the House the terms of a famous circular which was distributed among the members of the Civil Service at Ottawa during the last election campaign, bearing the imprimatur of my hon. friend the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin) and endorsed in a very emphatic way by the right hon. the Prime Minister himself. It is refreshing indeed to hear that right hon. gentleman laying before this House the idea that my suggestion of an inquiry into the claims of the province of British Columbia was a direct bribe to the people of that province, when we have his own signature to this circular distributed among the civil servants of Ottawa when he was a candidate asking for their votes at a general election. That circular is ten thousand times worse than the worst possible construction which could be put upon my pledge to the people of British Columbia in 1904. I think the right hon. gentleman is the last man in this country to talk about bribes to constituencies or to any one else. His whole record, since he has been the leader of this government, ought to induce him to refrain from uttering one word on that subject, either ip parliament or on the public platform of this country. The circular was undoubtedly issued, and my right hon. friend can produce a copy of it. His letter appeared in the public press, and
why should we not have that laid before us, so that we can see whether the promises then made are being implemented by the resolution before the House ? I am surprised under the circumstances that the Minister of Agriculture should not have laid it before the House before we are called upon to discuss the resolution. No doubt my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture would be thoroughly ashamed of it, so that he may perhaps be excused upon that ground. We are, however, undoubtedly entitled to the orders in council setting out the reorganization of the service, so that we may know whether the reorganization has been mechanical, or whether in any cases it has been discretionary, and if so upon what principles that discretion has been discretionary, and if so upon what principles that discretion has been exercised. I will not deal with the subject further at this stage. In committee we shall have an opportunity for a full discussion, and I would like to know from my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture when it would be practicable for him to lay on the table of the House the information to which I have referred.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no doubt that I can give it to the House before the next government day, that is, next Tuesday.


Mr. GEO. H. COWAN (Vancouver).: Mr. Speaker, I could heartily agree with the resolution of the hon. Minister of Agriculture were it based on a principle, the application of which would be as wide as the causes which occasioned it. I understand that this increase is to be given to the inside service because the cost of living has increased in the district in which the members of this inside service reside. Now, I can tell the hon. minister that the cost of living has increased in a much greater ratio in other parts of Canada; and, as the hon. leader of the opposition has said, if you are basing the increase on a principle, let that principle apply wherever the causes of increase are in existence. In British Columbia, I am prepared to show, the increase in the cost of living in the last four years has been 47 per cent; I am prepared to show that in detail; and, as a result of that great increase in the cost of living, the wages and salaries of other trades and professions in British Columbia have increased, not to the extent of 47 per cent, but to a very great extent indeed. In that province, however, where we have only members of the outside civil service, there has been no increase in salaries to meet this extra cost of living. Not only has the cost of food and other necessaries of life increased, but the taxes of British Columbia have been greatly increased. I do not know whether this House is aware of the reasons why the taxes of British Col-

umbia have gone up by leaps and bounds. I do not know whether the minister is aware that British Columbia is obliged, in order to make revenue meet expenditure, to impose a real property tax of 1 per cent, a wild land tax of 5 per cent, a personal property tax of X per cent and an income tax of from 14 to 4 per cent. Rentals and taxes in British Columbia have gone up, to be absolutely accurate, the one 60 per cent and the other 45 per cent in the last four years. Yet that portion of the Civil Service resident in British Columbia is entirely ignored by this resolution. It is so not only in British Columbia ; it is so everywhere outside of the confines of this city of Ottawa. I had to come here to leam that the cost of living had increased in this city, but that the moment you get beyond the limits of this city the conditions as to the cost of living remain as they were in 1857. I had to hear this resolution of the hon. Minister of Agriculture before I could realize that fact. In British Columbia it is not a fact, and if the hon. minister wishes to apply a principle and not merely to implement a pledge given in an election campaign, it will be his duty to apply that principle wherever the cost of living in Canada has so increased that it demands, for the support and maintenance of civil servants and their families and households, an increased salary.


Mr.   H.@: I do not find fault at all with my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) for the vehemence of his observation nor with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition for the warmth of his argument. I think I can successfully answer both. First of all let me say that this resolution is introduced to carry out a principle which is very easily understood the moment you reflect upon it. Last year we undertook to reform the Civil Service, which comprises two branches, the outside and the inside. We undertook last session to reform the inside, but took the power to also, at a later date, operate a similar reform in the outside service, I may say to those hon. gentlemen, who were not here last session, that it was then shown that, as a matter of history, wherever Civil Service reform has been operated, whether in Great Britain, the United States or elsewhere, it was introduced and made effective by gradual stages. No government has ever yet undertaken, so far as I know, such a task as to reform at once both the outside and the inside service. In the United States and Great Britain they proceeded by stages, and we are doing the same thing. We have undertaken to reform the inside service, reserving the power to do the same with the outside, which we intend doing as soon as possible after we have got through with the inside departments. As my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has explained, the present Mr. COWAN. *
measure applies to the increases of salaries and in this we are carrying out the suggestion of the Civil Service Commission in their report. My. hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has quoted the very paragraph of the report upon which we base our present action, but it can bear repetition :
Your commissioners are of opinion that somehow or other the immediate question of salary should be dealt with. They cannot recommend general increase, but they would suggest your Excellency in Council the advisability of at least taking votes for granting increases to deserving officials, and that for eastern Canada, both in the inside and outside service, such increase might be at the rate of 15 -per cent for officials whose salaries are under $1,500 and 12J per cent for salaries above that rate: as for the western provinces, where no doubt a greater need prevails these scales should be 25 per cent and 20 per cent to the same proportion of incomes and all provisional allowances should cease. Your commissioners suggest that such increases should only be granted on rigid examination, but as time goes on, if the suggestions of your commissioners are carried into effect, these special increases should be abolished and a scale of salaries laid down suitable to each department and office in the public service.


Mr. SPROULE.: Does that apply to the outside service ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Yes, to the inside and the outside. I would say to my hon. friend that London, Rome or Paris was not built in a day. Last year he knows we undertook to deal with the inside service and at the same time took power to deal with the outside service when we had completed the job in the first instance. One of the consequences of a reform in the inside service was the increase of salaries. The suggestion made by the commissioners was that this increase should vary from 121 to 15 per cent ; but after having discussed the matter with the Civil Service Association and after having given it the best consideration we could, we came to the conclusion that we would meet the suggestion of the commissioners, if we gave a general and flat increase of $150. The principle which we ask the House to carry out is to give the increase of 15 per cent recommended by the commission, and we proposed that by giving a flat increase of $150 to all the members of the service. We are providing that if any official has received an increment of $150 in his salary, he shall not get the increase because he has received it already. That is a principle very simple and easy to understand, and I think it will appeal to members of the House. This Bill makes provision also that the increase shall date from the first of September. Why did we do that ? We did it because the Bill of last year came into force on the first of September, and this is intended to be a complement of the legislation then adopted.

My hon. friend (Mr. Borden), in rather hot language, has said that this was a bribe which I offered the city oi Ottawa for the Civil Service vote. I have only this to say to my hon. friend. If the matter had come up for the first time, when my young colleague from this city made the suggestion in one of his addresses, there might be something in the charge of my hon. friend. When my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) was in Ottawa supporting his candidate, he charged the government with having acted cruelly-that was the .very expression he used- towards the service in not having increased their salaries long ago, and if then I had given the first intimation that the government proposed increasing their salaries, there might be something in what he says. But what were the conditions ? During last session when we had under discussion the Civil Service Bill, or at all events the report of the commissioners, I expressed the very same idea. That was reported in the press of this city, and never did I hear that report challenged. This is what appeared in the Citizen of the 18th of April last :
Sir Wilfrid Laurier has been waited upon by a deputation representing the Civil Service Association, headed by the president, Mr. Kingston. The delegates submitted to the Prime Minister the necessity of giving effect this session to the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission in the matter of increase of salaries. The commissioners suggested for eastern Canada, both dm the inside and the outside service, increases at the rate of 15 per cent for officials whose salaries are under $1,500, and 121 per cent for salaries above that rate. The reply of the Prime Minister is said to have been encouraging. It is understood that the government had already decided to grant the increases, and that the necessary resolutions are in course of preparation for presentation to parliament at an early date.
This was published in this city while parliament was in session. The Bill was introduced shortly after and never was any objection taken to the statement I there made that we were favourable to the increase suggested by the commission. And if we had last year introduced the resolutions which were then in course of preparation, I understand, from the language of my hon. friend opposite, that he would not have objected because it was due to the Civil Service that their salaries should be increased. If we had introduced those resolutions last session, we would then have met with the approval of my hon. friend. We stated that it should be done right away. The Civil Service Commissioners had said in their report that it should be done and that no time should be lost. But the resolutions were not introduced, and why not? Everybody knows the reason; we had not time to do it. The Civil Service Bill was introduced as soon as we had received the report of the Civil Service Commissioners. But it was not until the 8th of July that the Civil Service Bill passed its third reading. And parliament prorogued on the 20th of July. After the Civil Service Bill had passed, everybody knows, parliament had	no	time	to	take up theresolution we have now introduced. But we were committed; we had pledged ourselves to it; our friends of the opposition, if I remember well, were pressing us to do it,	and	so	was	the press ofthe country. Was it extraordinary that we should	say,	in	the	course of the
elections, that we would introduce this resolution, that we would increase these salaries, and that the increase should date from September 1, the date when the Act came into force? It was contemplated at tbfc time the Bill was introduced, and the only fault found with us by my hon. friend opposite was that we had not introduced this legislation before. But the reason was obvious-we bad not the time to do it last year. Anybody can see the wisdom and reasonableness of the course we said we would take, that this legislation should date from the time the Civil Service Bill came into force, the 1st of September.
My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) says that this was a bribe to the electors of Ottawa. It took him a long time to make that discovery. It is very strange, if this was such an outrageous proceeding as he now says, that he did not discover it during the elections. He and his friends were upbraiding us and accusing us of bribery and all sorts of wrong-doing; why, then, did he not mention this among the many sins which he attributed to us? I can understand it well. My hon. friend thought it would not be safe to make such a statement at that time,-it was safer to wait until after the elections were over. And now, in a fit of virtue, he says that this was a very extravagant and corrupt proposition to make to the civil servants of Ottawa.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the date when it was made?


Wilfrid Laurier: About the 20th of October.


George Eulas Foster: And when were the elections?


Wilfrid Laurier: On the 26th of October. If my hon. friend has forgotten the date, I have not forgotten it. But I do not see that the date has anything to do with the question, for I will do my hon. friend the justice to say that in five days he could have done a great deal of mischief had he so desired. But I know not only vftat he could do, but what he could refrain from doing. I know that he could await the opportune moment for bringing this matter before the country. That is the explanation, and I think it will be accepted as fair and the proposition as reasonable and perfectly legitimate. It will be seen

that we have done the very thing that should have been done under the circumstances.
So far as the outside service is concerned, it must come under this system of reform, of course. But we are doing one thing at a time; we are completing the reform of the inside service, and when that is done we will apply ourselves to the reform of the outside service also. But let me say to my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), and also to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), that it is possible to give a large measure of relief to the outside service without legislation of this kind. We can do it in the estimates by providing for it year by year. My hon friend the Minister #of Customs (Mr. Paterson) has already done it, having given the officials in his department increases two years ago. I do not remember the figures, but they were substantial increases. And this applies to British Columbia as well as to other parts of the country. I think that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) has done the same. But, though we have, to a certain extent, improved the condition of the outside service, we equally recognize that the measure is not final, but that the question will have to be taken up at the earliest possible moment.


George Eulas Foster: I listened with interest to the explanation of the resolution made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). I may say at once that, so far as concerns the principle of giving this measure of relief to the civil servants that were affected by the new Act, there has been no disagreement in this House for a considerable period. I think the government was pretty well forced last year to bring in a Bill for the amelioration of the Civil Service and organizing it upon new lines. They were forced to this by public opinion outside, and the effect which was given to that public opinion by the opposition in this House. My hon. friend will remember that, early in last session, I introduced a resolution in this House affirming; the feasibility and advis ability of having the Civil Service of Canada put on a basis of merit and examination as regards both entrance and promotion. He will remember also that, at that time, the government thought it its duty-certainly it pursued the course-to vote down that resolution. The members of the government voted that way themselves, and their followers obediently followed them, as is usual, and solemnly declared that the principle of applying to the Civil Service examinations for entrance and promotion was not a proper principle or an advisable one to follow But, though they voted down that principle, and the proposed action, at a later period of Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the session they brought in a measure of Civil Service reform embodied in the Act which was passed. The Prime Minister has just now declared that they had not time to bring in this resolution last year. He gave the date-I do not recollect now what it was, but it was toward the close of the session-when the Civil Service Act was passed. But he was careful not to give the date when that Bill was first submitted to the House, nor did he explain why so long. a time was allowed to elapse between the introduction of that Bill and the time it was pressed forward to completion.
Well, he says, they were not prepared at that time. No they were not prepared, they had not time to give to this legislation. What is this legislation ? What does it require ? Not a great deal of thought, not a great deal of analysis. They are simply passing a piece of legislation which says, we will add $150 to every employee, with the exception of 35. Now it does not seem to me that it takes much thought to bring down a measure like that before the House, or much time to pass it through the House. If it were a complex matter of grading salaries according to merit, and of giving a proper increase on the ground of merit, and that therefore you had to go through the record of 2,700 employees at Ottawa and make proper revisions and proper grading, then the hon. gentleman's plea would have something in it. They had not time to do it ! But this is an absolute rule-of-thumb application. No matter whether the man has been in the service one day before the 1st of September or ten years before the 1st of September, the man who is only one day in gets the flat increase, and the man who has been in ten years gets nothing more than that same flat increase.
Had not time! and that is the reason it was not brought in last year. My right hon. friend and the minister who introduced the Bill say they bring it down in order to carry out the recommendation of the commission They do! What is the report of the commission P The report of the commission is absolutely opposed to the flat rate business, and I think the report of the commission is much to be preferred to the slap-dash method which has been adopted by the minister who introduced the Bill. What do they say:
Your commissioners cannot recommend general increases; but they would suggest to Your Excellency in Council the advisability of at least taking votes or granting increases to deserving officers, and that for eastern Canada, both in the outside and inside services, such increases might be at the rate of-
And so on. So the Civil Service Commission, men who had gone into the question, men who had devoted time to it, men who were considered able and adepts, after having spent a year in the examination, gave their conclusion, and it recommended an in-

3J4
crease to the outside and inside services, an increase, not on the horizontal principle, but an increase to deserving officials. After your commission have gone into the question and made an examination, does the First Minister say that he has followed, even a long way off, the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission ? He has absolutely- negatived the recommendation [DOT]of the Civil Service Commission, and he has done it without investigation, simply to be able, in a trice, to pass a horizontal addition of $150 flat rate to every individual in the service, no matter whether he was put in a day before the 1st of September, or was put in and did good service for 10 years before. So I think that inconsistency is absolutely shown. These gentlemen are not looking at the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, they are not anxious to carry it out. They slap the Civil Service Commissioners in the face, and say, away with your recommendation! We do not intend to give this increase according to merit and desert, which is the principal of this Bill, if it has any principle-[DOT] we do not intend to take the trouble to look into that, we intend to give every man in the service, high or low, deserving or undeserving, competent or incompetent, the eleven-year-man or the one-day man, a flat increase of $150; and thereby, says the First Minister, he shows an absorbing desire to carry out the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission which he appointed. I say this method is one which is' not only unscientific, but absolutely unjust from start to finish ; and the ministers adopt this method because they either do not want to_ take the trouble themselves of making a discerning examination, or hand it over to their Civil Service Commissioners who, in conjunction with the deputies of each department, might be very well competent to do it, they do not intend to adopt either of those plans, but they adopt this method of an easy, ready, flat increase of $150 for each one.
Well, my right hon. friend excused himself from the gentle admonition given to him by the leader of the opposition, and contended that if he had probably transgressed the spirit of the laws governing elections in this country, at least he had proved himself a much lesser transgressor than had my hon friend who was charged early in the session by the Prime Minister of attempting to bribe the province of British Columbia by declaring himself to be in favour of a just arbitrament of any grievances that might be shown to exist in that province, in certain lines. My right hon. friend not only introduced this legislation last year from a very well conceived idea that it might be useful to him in the course of the elections, but deftly and very ingeniously he used it to the utmost advantage, and in doing so
made an exhibition of a Prime Minister of Canada in an election in the city of Ottawa m the Dominion of Canada, such as I am bound to say will not find a parallel in the history of any prime minister of any constitutionally governed country. Now my right hon. friend is fond of saying: I am a Liberal of the old English school, I take John Bright and William Gladstone as my exemplars. Does the right hon. gentleman, in the wildest flight of his imagination, suppose such a thing as John Bright, if he had been Prime Minister of Great Britain, or Mr. Gladstone, who was Prime Minister, or Lord Rosebery, or Mr. Asquith, or any other British premier, going to the city of London, to a constituency in which he himself was standing, and making an absolute promise such as he made to this constituency, which was interpreted in no other way, and could be interpreted in no other way, than a deliberate bribe to a very large and deserving class of the population ? How smoothly the right hon. gentleman tried to get out of that. Why, he says, the opposition last winter in parliament were willing that these increases should be given. I myself, he says, somewhere in Ottawa, said that I was favourable to an increase. What is the difference, he says, between the position of the opposition and my position carried out during the elections. There is every difference, and nobody knows it better than the right hon. gentleman himself. If he had put that increase through last year, your Civil Service would have been placed on the level of independent men, with their rights defined by statute, that is where they would have been.
Left as it was,-and for that very purpose, one may I believe,-many of them were in dire want, many of them were pressed by the necessities of every day household economy, many of them were pressed by maturing bills which went beyond the income that they had given to them. They had come two years ago and a year ago and put their plea and their case before the government, they had had their plea and their case practically approved and yet they had been denied their increases. The Minister of Finance of the government of last year made it plain that he could not vote for it because it involved too great a strain upon the finances. That was the state of things. Then, why, he asks, did not my hon. friend raise the hue and cry before the elections were over. Why did not my right hon. friend make his bribe in time to let the country know what he had done and raise the hue and cry ? This letter is dated the 19th day of October. When it was published I do not know, but certainly not before the 19th. It would take some days to get it out and circulate it. You will not be wrong if you say that the right hon. gentleman calculated it so that

it should come at the very crucial moment, e a few hours before the election, do its work and be heard of outside as little as possible.
Ia that clean politics? The poor devil who 1 does not know to-day where he will get enough to put him through to-morrow and ' who succumbs to the dollar bill that is of- i fered to him as the price of a day's labour < if he will go and vote for a man must be visited with pains and penalties, he must i be reprobated as a man guilty of taking a bribe. This gentleman, the leader of the government, the Liberal of the old English school, goes and offers $347,000 a few days before the election to the electors to vote for him. Yet, he sneers at purity. Why should he not? He has earned the right to do so. He could not pass this simple debate through without sneering at the virtue of the hon. gentleman who leads this party. He has established his right to sneer at every political and public virtue in this country.	_
Now it may be well just to see what this circular is, to see whether it is simply a suggestion, to see whether it is simply just an idea that it might be reasonable to do something. The hon. the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin) makes the following statement. But, before we go to that let me say another thing which I had almost forgotten. There was a special reason why a bribe of $347,000, as figured out by the minister who brought down the Bill to-day, should be held out within a few hours of the vote in the city of Ottawa. What was the special reason? The ri"ht hon. gentleman had last session and the session before declared that everything was right in the timber limit and land leases and under the mellowing influence of argument and logic like that, one of the chief recipients of the bounty in the prac-ticallv unpaid franchises from this country was, by his party, nominated to contest the city of Ottawa. They nominated him and he passed into the contest.


An hon. MEMBER.: What has that to do with this?


George Eulas Foster: God I am a purist; he has earned the right to say so.


Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa).: Mr. Speaker; in rising to discuss the resolution which has been so fully and completely presented by the Minister of Agriculture I do not wish to occupy the time of the House at any great length. But there have been certain statements made here which I shall discuss just as soon as I have expressed my feeling in regard to the resolution. This resolution, as has been stated, is to implement the Civil Service Act passed last session. That Act was passed during the last few weeks of the session and it is universally admitted that it was a great step in advance towards Civil Service reform. It was expected that the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service appointed two years ago would be fully given effect to by that Act. While the resolution to-day simply deals with the question of salaries, the Act of last session dealt with salaries to this extent, that it increased considerably the minimum and the maximum of each class. An arrangement was also provided for, so that the re-defining of the duties of each class should be attended to, in the first place, by the deputy minister, and, after the first reclassification and re-definition of duties, by the Civil Service Commission.
Now, a great deal has been said of the statements which I made to the electors of this city, and a great deal has been attempted to be made of a letter which the right hon. leader of the government wrote to me. I fail to see anything wrong in what I stated to the people of this city. I fail to see one statement that was made by me that can properly be claimed to have been in any way a bribe. I stated that 1 believed that the recommendations of a Royal Commission, which had been placed before parliament, and which had to all intents and purposes received the sanction of parliament, should be carried out as soon as possible; and I said that I would do all that lay in my power-and I am proud to repeat that statement now-to carry out a measure of reform in the Civil Service, which I believe to be not only in the interests of the citizens of Ottawa, but in the interests of the people of this country. In regard to statements made before the electors of this city, I might refer my hon. friend, the member for North Toronto, to a statement that was published in the Ottawa ' Citizen,' the senior Conservative organ in this city, on the 23rd of October, from our opponents, Mr. Birkett and Dr. Chabot, as follows :
If given the trust by the electors of Ottawa, we will use our utmost endeavours to see that the recommendations made by the Civil Service Commissioners to parliament last session shall be carried out, and at once, and we have the assurance of our leader that this will be done.


George Eulas Foster: That may not have been a bribe, because it was too much of a bluff. It was well known that the electors of this city would honour themselves in electing the right hon. leader of the government, the leading citizen of this country, and the leading citizen of the capital. I made no promises during that election. I made statements to the people of what I would do, and I will endeavour in the future, as I have done in the past, to live up to' what I said. I do not think that the hon. member for North Toronto has proved anything by reading from that circular, and I am satisfied that the citizens of this city know that no promises were made to them except that what was fair and right, in the interest of the city, should be done.	_
In regard to the question of a flat increase as against the percentage of increase which was recommended by the Royal Commission, I see very little difference except in this respect, which is to me a very important one. Any one who examines the report of the commissioners on the subject of a percentage increase will see that their remarks are based wholly on the increased cost of living, which must necessarily affect the smaller salaried men of the Civil Service to a greater extent than those of the higher classes. Therefore I am more in favour of the flat increase than I am of the percentage proposition. The $150 increase will be more of a godsend to those receiving lower salaries than any percentage of increase would be to the men receiving higher salaries.	'
I trust, Sir, that this resolution will soon become law, because the men who are doing the work of the country in the Civil Service cannot too soon be put upon a fair basis of recompense. I am sure that the new members of this House will soon learn, from their intercourse with them, that the Civil Service of Canada is second to none-that the members of the service are obliging, intelligent, and only too ready to assist in any way the government of this country; and anything that the parliament of Canada can do to improve the Civil Service is not only of benefit to the Civil Service itself, but in the interest of the good government of this country.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright).: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a word on the resolution. I was in some doubt as to just how far the government would go in this matter; but after hearing the right hon. the Prime Minister, I feel convinced that the government will take up at a very early day the question of the outside service, and at the same time include in their consideration a very large class of men who do not exactly come within the scope of the Civil Service Act; I refer to the large number of mechanics and labouring men, who are engaged by the government to do day labour. I heartily sympathize with this in-

-crease which is given to the inside service; I believe they are well deserving of it; and I think the time has come when those who ure working for the government should not be the worst paid men in this country. It seems unfortunate that men who are devoting their time and talents to the service of this country should be underpaid, as I feel that they are. I heartily sympathize with this resolution, and I trust that before very long something will be done for the outside service and for other classes of people who are working for the government.
Mr. JOHN BARR (Dufferin.) I wish to -enter my protest against this Bill. No doubt it will be a surprise to the Civil Service throughout the Dominion, and I venture to say that the promise given by the First Minister to give the outside service relief at some future date will not by any means satisfy them. No doubt there is reason why those living in Ottawa should receive additional compensation, but there is no reason wrhy those living outside Ottawa are not entitled to similar treatment. It cannot be proved that living in Ottawa is more expensive than in any other city of the same size even in the province of Ontario, and when we go to the far west we find conditions existing there which considerably enhance the cost of living. It seems to me a most extraordinary argument that while we shall give an increase of salary to those residing in Ottawa, we will not do so to those living outside, and the reason given us is that the government has not had time to take their case into consideration. Notwithstanding the fact that this Civil Service Bill was brought down over a year ago, the government has not had time to consider the outside branches. But they have had time to consider the claims of the inside service in Ottawa, and no doubt that is due to the fact that in their case the political exigencies were much greater, because in Ottawa there are some 2,700 employees who have the right to vote and it was necessary to secure their vote in order to elect the government candidates. That, I believe, is the only true reason why they have been given greater consideration than those outside. Take, for instance, the customs officials throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. Many of them live in towns where the cost of living is much greater than in Ottawa. I submit that in this respect there is no difference between Ottawa and Toronto, and in many of the outside cities and localities the government officials have to work longer hours than those in Ottawa. The outside Civil Service officials have, in many cases, more work and greater responsibility than the inside. yet_ thev are not given the consideration which they were entitled to expect. That consideration was promised by the First Minister to the Civil Service as a whole 11
without distinction; and both the inside and the outside should receive the increases promised. It is well known that we have civil servants who work probably as hard as any other class, but it is equally well known that we have in the service many officials who are simply kept here because of political pull. It is in the best interests of the country that all should be treated on a par without regard to politics but solely to merit. The country demands a better service, and the man who does good service should receive better consideration than the one who does not, yet the reverse is often the case. If the recommendation of the commission in this respect had been carried out, we would have a better service. I do not believe that we would have the graft which has been going on for the past few years. 1 again enter my protest against the outside service being treated differently from those who live in Ottawa. I protest against this procrastination in giving justice to our officials who are not resident in the Capital. This measure ought to include all classes of civil servants, and hon. gentlemen opposite will find that the country will not endorse their unfair treatment of one class of public officials as compared with the other.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are told by the government that there is some principle in this Bill. I would like to know what it is. It only applies to those officials who are fortunate enough to reside in this city and who consequently had something to say in determining the results of an election in which the right hon. the First Minister was a candidate. These people are to get consideration whereas those residing elsewhere are not to be considered at all. If it be a principle that we are only to take one city at a time and work a reform in that city, I wonder how long it will take the government to go through every locality in the Dominion and make a complete civil service reform. The junior member for Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin) has said that there is a principle in this Bill which is embodied in that introduced last session. What was the principle in the Bill of last session? It was to take the Civil Service out of politics. Bringing my judgment to bear on the statement of the junior member for Ottawa and that of the First Minister, in his reply to the letter from that hon. gentleman, I would say that the principle adopted is to put the service under political influence instead of taking it away from that influence, especially when their votes are apt to turn the scale. But all civil servants should get the advantages of the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, even though they hannen to live in a locality where these votes were not specially needed. Was that taking it out of politics? I think it was putting it into politics. If there is a



grosser example of bringing the Canadian Civil Service into politics, I do not know where it is to be found.
In the statement of the junior member for Ottawa to the Civil Service, it is pointed out that they do not have to wait nor be under any uncertainty as to parliament voting the money, because it is to be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund. Who had the authority to make that promise 5 The hon. gentleman was then only an aspirant for parliament, and had neither the authority to make that promise nor the power to carry it out. It was given an appearance of authority by the Prime Minister that such a resolution as we have here would be passed. Had it not been supported by the high authority of the Prime Minister, it would have been of no value. But this is a binding promise, and means something. I have not before me the Act^ for the punishment of bribery at elections but it clearly provides that the person making certain promises comes under the penalty of the law. If a more flagrant violation of that Act occurred in the last election than that committed by the Prime Minister and his colleague in the city of Ottawa, I do not know of it.
The junior member for Ottawa declared that he would do his utmost to have the recommendations of the commission carried out in toto. But those recommendations did not apply to the civil servants in Ottawa alone. It is quite proper, I presume that the civil servants in Ottawa should get this increase, we raise no objection to it. But why does no proposition appear in this resolution to implement the promise that was made so far as the Civil Service outside of Ottawa are concerned ? Not only does the junior member for Ottawa not carry out the pledge given in his circular, but he has not even said a -word with regard to it.
Another feature is this: The government last session introduced a Bill which was duly enacted into law. The Minister ot Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) tells us that the increases under that Act, when figured out would give an increase in the public expenditure of about $59,000. That is my recollection of the figure, and if I am wrong I hope he will correct me. But the same hon. gentleman tells us that to carry out the promises made under the Bill to be founded on this resolution will -involve an increase of $343,000 of expenditure. And, just as this increase is greater, it was a more potent lever to get votes for the persons requiring them at the time, the Prime Minister and the junior member for Ottawa.
Another thing that seems very strange to me is this: The resolution before us provides that these sums may be paid out of any unexpended moneys for the Civil Service voted last year. In other words, money voted by parliament for one purpose is di-Mr. SPROTJLE.
verted to another purpose. Every dollar voted last year was voted for some specified service. But now we are told that any moneys voted for the Civil Service and unexpended can be paid, under this Bill, to the civil servants in Ottawa. If this is to be done, it is hardly to be wondered at that the government, the year before last, took the money voted for one purpose and applied it for another. Money that was voted for an exposition in a foreign country was taken to pay the travelling expenses of a minister. Even that minister himself practically admitted to this House that he did not regard this as exactly right, though he was not prepared to admit that it was altogether wrong. The government has no right to take money voted last year for a special purpose and use it fqr the purpose of paying the Civil Service at Ottawa an amount beyond what was voted to them in the estimates. Such a procedure is only introducing the thin end of the wedge of a practice which may be very embarrassing for the government in the future. They are not trying to live up to the spirit and letter of the votes of parliament. When it goes before the Auditor General, I would like to have his opinion whether it would be in strict compliance with the vote that was given last year to use it as it is proposed to use it by this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on the resolution.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would suggest that as this resolution differs little from the Bill which will be founded upon it, we should pass the resolution and permit the Bill to be introduced, the details of which can be discussed better when the Bill itself comes before the committee-if the leader of the opposition agrees to that.


Robert Laird Borden: I would prefer not to do that. Any discussion that takes place upon this resolution in committee will not be repeated when the Bill is introduced, therefore I do not think any time will be lost. If my hon. friend finds it convenient to have the information brought down on Tuesday, we may go on with the Bill then.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite ready to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend. I think I will be able to bring down those things which have been asked for, on Tuesday. I have given instructions to have them preared; and no doubt other information will [DOT]
e asked for from time to time. I propose therefore that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.



FEBRUARY 1, 1909 HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 1, 1909.