FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 212) to amend the Water Carriage of Goods Act.-Mr. Lemieux.
Bill (No. 209) respecting grain.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 210) to amend the Water Car-iage of Goods Act as regards the delivery of wood.-Mr. Sinclair.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 213) to amend the Bank Act. He said: The object of this Bill is to extend the charters of the banks for one year. Before this parliament shall reassemble after adjournment the banks under the existing law would be without charters. It is proposed to extend the charters for one year so that instead of their lapsing on the 1st of July, 1911, they will not lapse until 1st of July, 1912, before which time it is hoped we will have a general revision of the Bank Act. In the schedule will be found the names of a number of banks which are, going out of business either by absorption or by suspension, but it is necessary to include them, not in expectation that they will continue business, but that they may have all necessary powers for winding up their affairs.
Mr. FOSTER.: This Bill is nothing else than simply to extend the charters.


Mr. FIELDING.: Absolutely nothing else.


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

William Stevens Fielding: That from Monday, the 15th of May instant, and until the end of the session, the House shall meet on that day and on every subsequent sitting day at eleven o'clock' in the morning; and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall be also an intermission every day, including Wednesday, from one to three o'clock p.m.


George Eulas Foster: The resolution seems to mean that Monday next will not be included.


William Stevens Fielding: It was intended to apply to Monday next.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: As I understand this resolution, it applies not only to the date of adjournment, but to the sessions of the House after we meet in July.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: That would be the effect of it, but of course when the House reassembles in July the question can be further considered.


John Dowsley Reid: The understanding with the Prime Minister was that in order to facilitate business we should meet next Monday morning and continue sittings in the morwing until the date of adjournment. But, the Minister of Finance is including in this resolution the remainder of the session after we reassemble.


William Stevens Fielding: That particular point was not discussed between the Prime Minister, who drew the resolution, and myself, but it certainly would have that effect.


George Eulas Foster: It goes too far.


William Stevens Fielding: Does it? When we reassemble the House can then say what it wants to do. The difficulty, just now is as to the exact date of adjournment, because some gentlemen have suggested an earlier day than the 23rd of May.


George Eulas Foster: The resolution can read that we will sit in the mornings until the date of adjournment.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: If it is made to extend to the 23rd inst., it would cover everything even if we did adjourn on the 19th.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps that would be the better way.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Why should we not meet in the mornings until the end of the session? Committees are now through with their work, and when we come back in July we don't want to stay here until Christmas. I speak, not as a party man, but as a member of this House, and I know that my constituents expect me to come here in the morning and attend to the business of the country, so that, if possible, there may be an end to this session. I say it is our duty to sit here in the morning, and I strongly urge that the resolution should remain as it is.


George Eulas Foster: There axe different posts of duty, and when we come back after the adjournment, we will have duties to perform in committee as well as in session of the House, both of which are important. I certainly think we ought not to tie our-sblves at this time for that indefinite period. I think it would meet every emergency if this resolution went until the time of our final adjournment in May. Then, when we come back, we can decide as a House of Commons what we will do. I am afraid that the government will then be just about as powerful, with its majority, as it is now, and can carry, if it wishes, a measure which at that time may seem suitable in

order to help the government with the business.


William Stevens Fielding: If it is found necessary to revive the motion when we reassemble that can be done. For the present I accept the suggestion that it be made effective until the 23rd instant. If we should adjourn earlier, it will be noneffective.
Motion as amended, agreed to. BARRINGTON PASSAGE BAIT FREEZER.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to give some information to my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson), who asked about a return with preference to a bait freezer at Barrington Passage, and about the cancellation of a fishery lease to Mr. Markey. I communicated with the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who received the following letter from Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, under date of April 4:
I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the 21st ultimo, No. M8, and in reply beg to state that as the question of the recovery of the $509 advanced by your department for the construction of a bait freezer at Barrington Passage, Nova Scotia, is now under consideration with a view to the taking of legal proceedings if it is thought that such proceedings would be successful, I do not think that any of the papers relating to the matter should be returned to the House of Commons. I am also of opinion that the cancellation of the fishery lease to Mr. Mar-key, being now under advisement, none of the papers relating to that matter should be returned to the House of Commons.
That explains the delay in the return isought by the hon. gentleman.



MANITOBA CENSUS ENUMERATORS.

Mr. STAPLES.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if the enumerators for the taking of the census in the province of Manitoba have been appointed.


Mr. FISHER.: I think they all are; if not, with very few exceptions.


William D. Staples: By whom were they recommended?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They were recommended by men in whom I have confidence.


William D. Staples: I do not think that is an answer to my question.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I cannot allow a debate on the orders of the day.


William D. Staples: I have a further question to ask. Had the Liberal organizer in the province of Manitoba anything to do with the appointment or recommending of the enumerators for that province?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a question which I decline to answer.


William D. Staples: Has the Liberal organizer of the province of Manitoba anything to do with the schooling of the enumerators before they begin their work?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.



NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY.: Mr. Speaker, I promised my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to make a statement to the House in reference to an article which he quoted yesterday from a newspaper relating to applications which the newspaper intimates are being made for the diversion of further water from the Niagara river. In the article from which my hon. friend quoted I find the following:
The situation is peculiar. The waterways treaty with Canada, signed January 11, 1909, while apparently limiting the amount of water which might be taken from the falls, has, on the contrary, increased this diversion. The power development companies have taken advantage of the outside limitations of the treaty and to-day are demanding what will come to 68 per cent more water than is now being drawn into the tunnels for the purpose of turning the giant turbine engines.
I may say to my hon. friend, as I have no doubt he is aware, from a consideration of what has passed during recent years, that previous to certain legislation which was enacted by the United States Congress, and previous to the framing of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, the question of allowing certain diversions of water from the Niagara river was assumed, I think by common assent, to rest with the province of Ontario and the state of New York respectively. At the present time, under the amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I think that any diversion of the waters of the Niagara river could only be allowed by the Department of Public Works of this government, because it is now provided that no person or company can erect any work in a navigable water without the consent of the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Public Works. That was not the case under the old law, and the province of Ontario assumed to grant authority to divert the waters of the Niagara river, and quite a number of companies did receive authority from the government and the legislature of Ontario to make such diversions.	The
state of New York also gave authority to companies to divert the waters upon the United States side, and power companies were formed there as well as upon the Canadian side, and did divert a considerable quantity of water. In the year 1906

Congress acted in the matter, and passed a statute which provided that no diversion on the water of the Niagara river, on the American side should take place except with the consent of the Congress of the United States, or the Secretary of War of the United States under its control. That Act was passed in 1906. It was to be in force for three years after its passage. Later on, I think in the year 1909, a joint resolution was passed by the House of Representatives, and the Senate, extending that statute for a further term of two years pending what was then in contemplation, the coming to an agreement between the two governments, and the framing of a treaty with reference to this matter. The extension provided for by that joint resolution will expire by limitation on the 29th day of next month. The joint resolution to which the newspaper from which my hon. friend quoted refers, is now pending before the Congress, having been introduced by Senator Burton. That resolution is as follows:
Joint resolution extending the operation of the Act for the control and regulation of the waters of Niagara river, for the preservation of Niagara Falls, and for other purposes.
Whereas, the provisions of the Act entitled 'An Act for the control and regulation of the waters of Niagara river, for the preservation of Niagara Falls and for other purposes/ approved June 29, ,1906, and extended by joint resolution (public resolution numbered fifty-six) for a period of two years, approved March 3, 1909, will expire by limitation June 29, 1901; and
Whereas, the extended date provided therein for the termination of the operation of said Act was so extended that there might be consummated a more permanent settlement of the question involved by a treaty with Great Britain and by further legislation appropriate to the situation; and, whereas, article 5 of a treaty between the United 'States and Great Britain, proclaimed May 13, 1910, provides a maximum limit within which the United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the state of New York of the waters of the Niagara river above the Falls of Niagara for power purposes;
Therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that the provisions of the aforesaid Act be, and they are hereby, extended from June 29, 1911, being the date of the expiration of the operation of said Act, to remain in full force and virtue during the life of said treaty, save in so far as any proportion thereof may be found inapplicable or already complied with.
I may say that under the statute of 1906, the Secretary of War was permitted to authorize a diversion to existing com-panys to the extent of 15,000 cubic feet per second, and also to grant temporary permits for water in addition. It is important, in view of the quotation from the article in question, to bear in mind that that Act Mr. PUGSLEY.
does not place any limitation on the right to divert water for sanitary and domestic purposes, but expressly authorizes that right and take it out of the other provision with respect to the diversion of water for power purposes.
After a careful consideration of the International Waterways Treaty, after examination by engineers, and seeing their report, it was decided that, having reference to the interests involved, and the industries which had been established upon the United States and Canadian sides respectively, it would be reasonable to permit a diversion on the part of the United States to 20,000 cubic feet per second, and to permit diversion on the Canadian side to the extent of 36,000 cubic feet per second, so that the right-if it may be so called-to divert water on the Canadian side is almost twice as great as on the American side-
36.000	cubic feet per second to 20,000 cubic feet. That limitation is contained in article 5 of the Boundaries Treaty between Great Britain and the United States. I will just read the third clause from article 5 of this treaty:
So long as this treaty shall remain in force, no diversion of the waters of the Niagara river above the falls from the natural course and stream thereof shall be permitted except for the purpose and to the extent hereinafter provided.
The United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the State of New York of the waters of the said river above the Falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of 20,000 cubic feet of water per second.
The United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the province of Ontario, may authorize and permit the diversion within the province of Ontario of the waters of said river above the Falls of Niagara for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of 36,000 cubic feet per second.
Under the treaty the United States have the right to authorize a diversion up to
20.000	cubic feet per second, and the Canadian authorities have the right to authorize a diversion to the extent of 36 -000 cubic feet per second, but to what extent the United States will allow the diversion on their side-whether to the full extent of the 20,000 cubic feet per second or not-is a matter entirely within their control, and with which we have nothing to do.
The resolution introduced by Senator Burton into Congress is for the purpose of limiting the power of the State of New York to grant a diversion up to the full quantity provided by the treaty.


George Eulas Foster: That does not include what may be diverted for sanitary or domestic purposes?


William Pugsley: No, that was excepted in the statute passed by Congress in 1906, and which the joint resolution by Senator Burton, is intended to extend.
I notice that in the article quoted by my hon. friend the statement is made that the treaty has increased the diversion. That is not the case. The treaty gives no power to make a diversion, but simiply limits the right to allow .a diversion. If the treaty had not been passed, the state of New York might have done just as the province of Ontario has been doing-authorize a diversion to any extent. That is the right claimed and exercised by the province of Ontario. But what this treaty does is to limit the right of Canada on the one side and the United States, or the state of New York, on the other, to allow a diversion beyond 36,000 cubic feet per second by Canada, and 20,000 cubic feet per second by the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood from the minister that at one time the diversion on the United States side was limited to 15,000 cubic feet per second. If I am correct in that, it would seem that the treaty has increased the maximum amount what might be diverted, because that amount is now 20,000 cubic feet per second.


William Pugsley: I said that in 1906, the
limitation apparently, as I read the statute, for permanent diversion which would be allowed by the Secretary of War was abo.ut
15,000	cubic feet per second, but in addition he could grant temporary permits. That only extended over three years. Afterwards when the engineers made their examination and decided on what they would recommend, it was found necessary, in order not to destroy existing industries on the Canadian side, to allow Canada a larger diversion, which was fixed at 36,000 cubic feet per second, and to allow the United States a diversion of 20,000 cubic feet per second.
This article states that the power companies are taking 68 per cent more water than is at present being drawn into the tunnels. I cannot believe that that is true because the difference between what was authorized by the statute of 1906, and the treaty, adding the temporary permits, could not exceed more than 25 per cent at the outside.


Mr. HAGGART.: Might I ask whether the jurisdiction over the user of the water is entirely in the hands of the Dominion and the United States, independent of the province of Ontario and the state of New York?


William Pugsley: I am not sure as to that. I think that would he a very nice question. The state of New York has claimed the right to authorize the diversion. Ontario has claimed the same right on the ground that it is the owner of the soil or the riparian owner. The state of New York claims the right, I presume, because it is a question of property which comes within the definition of state rights. However, by the statute of 1906, Congress claimed their right to intervene, under the treaty the right to divert is expressly limited, and under the American constitution a treaty becomes the supreme law superseding any statute of any state. Under the constitution, the treaty becomes the supreme law of the country and supersedes any statute of the state of New York.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: It would not in our country, it would not supersede the rights of Ontario.


William Pugsley: I am speaking now of the state of New York. So far as our country is concerned, of course that point is immaterial. In reference to the point raised by my hon. friend, I am inclined to think that under our present law, as the Niagara river is, for the most part, a navigable river, no works could now be placed in the river for the diversion of water without the consent of this government. I may be wrong in that, but I think that would be the effect of the statute.
With regard to the right which was given by the treaty to divert water for sanitary or domestic purposes, as I have said, that right was recognized by the United States Congress in the statute of 1906, to which I have referred, it is recognized in the treaty and I think it is a right which each .country would claim. That is always claimed with respect to boundary waters, .but it is absurd for this newspaper to make the statement that these power companies could divert a large quantity of water under the pretense that it was for domestic or sanitary purposes. The water -which would be diverted for these purposes would be infinitesimal as compared with the full flow of the Niagara river. They could not and they would not be permitted under the .treaty to use water for creating power which was ostensibly diverted for sanitary and domestic purposes. That matter would be under the control of the Joint Commissioners to he a/ppointed under the Boundary Waters Treaty.


John Graham Haggart: Would that include the supplying of cities with water?


William Pugsley: Possibly it would, and water for sewage purposes, but that was recognized in the Act of Congress and the treaty makes no change in regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: This is not a newspaper article, it is a statement issued by the American Civic Association. The statement does make the claim that the
8S95

treaty increased the maximum diversion. The allusion is no doubt to the fact that formerly the United States fixed the maximum at 15,000 culbic feet per second, and the treaty increased the diversion to 20,000 cubic feet per second. There is an increase in that regard subject, of course, to the qualification mentioned by the minister, by which it appears that the Secretary of War of the United States had power to grant temporary or special permits increasing the diversion beyond 15,000 cubic feet, per second. I have not examined the statutes and regulations to which the minister has alluded, so I cannot speak with regard to that and accept his statement. However, I do think that this government has a duty to perform in the matter. In the first place, it has the duty of seeing that the diversion on the United States side is not greater than that permitted by the treaty.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Secondly, this government has the duty of seeing that the provision which declares that water may be diverted beyond 20,000 cubic feet per second for sanitary or domestic purposes is not abused. I do not say that there is any intention of abusing it, but there is certainly a suggestion in this statement which has been issued by the American Civic Association that some idea of that kind is to the fore at the present time. The statement may be an absolutely inaccurate one. Whether it is inaccurate or not, the government should have it in mind and see that no pretense of that kind is made use of by these corporations of the United States which are interested in securing a supply of this water, that no pretense founded on that provision is allowed to have any such effect as would be contrary to the true intent and meaning of this treaty.


Mr. TURRIFF.: When does the minister expect to take up Bill (No. 36) in connection with the appointing of the Joint Commission under the Waterways Treaty?


William Pugsley: On Tuesday, if it is possible to reach it, I will take it up.



COPYRIGHT ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 184) respecting Copyrights-Mr. Fisher-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1, short title,
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I gave a fairly full explanation of the Bill on the resolution, and since that time the Bill itself and a memorandum on its provisions have been very largely distributed in the country. Every one who had written about this Bill, and every member of the House has been sent a copy of the Bill and a memorandum Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
of its provisions. The consequence has been that I have had some replies, and I am gratified to find that on the whole, ratheT universally, the Bill is approved by those who have taken an interest in this very important question. A good many questions have been addressed to the department indicating some misapprehension on the part of the writers. I think that those misapprehensions have been removed by our replies, and I rather gather that with the removal of these misapprehensions the writers are pretty well satisfied with the Bill. There are, however, two points on which there is some little divergence of opinion. One provision of the Bill is that only British subjects resident in Canada or bona fide residents in Canada shall have the right to copyright in Canada. Under the present law foreigners can obtain the right to copyright in Canada, by Teason of the fact that the British Copyright Act is in force here. Under the Canadian Copyright Act, a foreigner cannot obtain a copyright in Canada, but by reason of the fact that the British Copyright Act has been in force in Canada, foreigners obtaining British copyright, could then obtain Canadian copyright, or have copyright protection in Canada by virtue of their copyright in Great Britain. That condition of affairs is about to disappear by the Bill introduced in the British parliament and by this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the general rule in the various civilized countries in that respect?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is one reason, but not the only reason. I have gone so far as to say that in joining the union I think Canada ought to make a stipulation that the privilege of copyright in Canada shall only go to the citizens or subjects of a country which is in the union. In Great Britain and some other countries a foreigner who is of a country that is not within the union, cannot obtain a copyright under the law of Great Britain. If we join the union, practically it gives the privilege in Canada to the citizens or subjects of every country in the world, provided they take a copyright in one of those countries of the union. It is not confined to citizens or subjects of the union countries. I consider that that is a mistake on the part of the union. There is, under those circumstances, practically no inducement to go outside the union, because the citizen or subject of that country, by obtaining copyright in a union country, can get all the advantages of the union. I would, therefore, propose joining the union with a reservation, that the privileges of copyright in Canada shall be extended to the countries of the union so far as their own citizens or subjects are concerned; but if they choose to give to a citizen or subject of a country outside the union, copyright in their country, that will 281
not give to the individual a copyright in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Does the United States belong to the union?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, and that is the trouble. If the ^United States belonged to the union, and if we had the privilege in the United States which the union gives to all other countries, the difficulty would b<; solved.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems then that Great Britain admits the copyright of all foreigners. Great Britain belongs to the union,_ and a foreigner taking out a copyright in Great Britain, therefore, can take out a copyright in Canada. We joined the union unreservedly. Then the next question is this:	Would it be permitted us to
join the union with the reservation which the minister suggests?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is just what we cannot say. We now belong to the union, and as long as we continue in the union we cannot help ourselves. But under this Bill we have the right to withdraw from the union. We joined the union by the voluntary act of the Canadian government some 16 or 17 years ago, and in doing that we got the privileges of the union and gave the privileges of the union. We gave the privileges of the union then, to a large extent, because one country against which we might desire to defend ourselves had all the privileges of the union in Canada through the British Copyright Act. Now under the new British Copyright Act they will not have that privilege, and we have the power within ourselves of giving or not giving that privilege. I think it would be a wise policy for us to say that we will not give privileges where the other people do not give us privileges. I think that is a reasonable position to take. I took that position in the conference in London last spring, and I do not think I am divulging any 'secret when I say that the conference admitted the principle and accepted that proposition. But England is so committed to the union, and so desirous of remaining in the union, that I am not prepared to say that England will join the union with the same reservation. I believe the conference was disposed to advise that, but I cannot say what will be done. I think that Canada ought only to join the union with a reservation, and if the union refuses to accept that reservation I would be disposed to stay out of it. I would do that with great regret, but at the same time I think it is necessary, and I am free to admit that it is necessary because the United States is not in the union. If the United States were in the union, and we got the privileges in the United States which we would get if they were in the union, then I would not hesi-



tate, but as long as an American citizen can get all the privileges and advantages in the union countries without the United States joining the union, or giving the same privileges in the United States. I do not feel disposed to join and give these privileges in Canada which they refuse us in the United States.


John Graham Haggart: What position would you be in if you withdrew from the union?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We would be in an isolated position, very much like the United States is, but we would have the control and management of our own copyright in Canada.


John Graham Haggart: You would have to make a separate arrangement with each country?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: With each country. This Bill contemplates what I eall_ reciprocal arrangements within the empire. I would advocate very strongly that as soon as this Bill passes we immediately give to British copyright holders in Great Britain the full privileges of Canadian copyright, on the understanding that Great Britain shall give ns the full privileges of British copyright. I would also propose that we should give the same privileges to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland. I am satisfied that -these different self-governing parts of the empire would treat us in the same way that we would be disposed to treat them. When it comes to foreign countries, supposing we were outside of the union, I would like to deal with them on a reasonable basis of mutual advantage. It may be in one way with one country, and in another way with another country, but I would like to do it on the basis that we get something for what we give. I cannot tell what our success in that respect would be, but I have hopes that to-day the Canadian market for literature, music, dramatic works and things of that kind, is becoming of sufficient importance to induce other countries to desire to have copyright privileges in Canada; in fact, I know that that is the case with many, and I have reason to believe that if we were withdrawing from the international union immediate steps would be taken by a number of countries to obtain the privileges of the union in Canada. I hope the reservation that I have indicated will be accepted by the union, but I cannot be sure of that.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether any investigation will be made as to the copyrights that will be granted to different periodicals or books that will be printed in Canada? I merely ask that because I know that at the present time there are magazines and books Mr. FISHER.
coming into our country that should not be coming in.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not quite know what the hon. gentleman is referring to. If he would specify perhaps I could give him a little more information.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understand the minister is preparing a law to grant copyrights to people who wish to come in and dispose of their books in Canada. Am I correct in that position?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am proposing a Bill which governs the whole question of copyright in Canada, and part of that Bill proposes to give the Governor in Council power to make arrangements with foreign countries on terms of mutual advantage. That would be done by order in council, and each order in council would specify just what .the privileges were, and what extent they were granted to each particular country.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the order in council specify the names of the books that will be allowed to be brought in?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. The order in council would have to be in general terms, not specifying books at all. I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to in that respect, but I could give him more information if he would let me know what he has in mind.
On section 2,


George Eulas Foster: Are these the same interpretation clauses as in the British Act?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, verbatim. Most, if not all, are definitions arrived at by agreement in the union.
On section 3,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I beg to move:
That subclauses 2 and 3 of clause 3 be stricken out and the following three subclauses be substituted therefor:
2.	Every copy of a literary work published in Canada other than maps, musical, scientific and artistic charts and plans, shall be printed or made in Canada.
3.	Every copy of a work published in Canada shall bear notice of copyright.
(a)	If the work is a book or other printed publication on the title page or on the page immediately following; or,
(b)	If the work is a literary (other than a book or other printed publication) or a musical work, engraving, photograph or cinematograph, on the face thereof; or, .
(o) If the work is a volume of maps, charts, plans, tables, music, engravings or photographs, on the title page or first page thereof, in the words, ' Copyright/ Canada. 19- by A. B.'
1. Every painting, drawing or work of sculpture published in Canada shall hear the signature of the author which shall be notice of copyright.
The resolution as printed would mean that every musical work, drama, map or

anything^ of that kind would have to be printed in Canada as well as a literary work. It has been represented that there are obvious difficulties in that, and we propose that in the case of these articles which are sometimes very difficult to print, sometimes only a single copy would be wanted, the printing may be done outside of Canada. For instance, a sculptor who made a statue would get copyright, but we would not require him to produce the statue in Canada. Frequently a Canadian artist goes abroad to study and he might copyright his_ painting in Canada without being obliged to paint it in Canada.
On section' 5-term of copyright.


George Eulas Foster: What is the usual term?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the term that has been adopted by the International union. It has been accepted by England, and is contained in the Bill of Mr. Buxton.


George Eulas Foster: What was* the former period?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In Canada, 28 years, with a renewal for 14 years, making 42 years. In England it was alternative-during the life of the author and 7 years, or 42 years, whichever was the longer period. The English committee which investigated this question of copyright under the presidency of Lord Gorrell, went into the matter very thoroughly, and made an elaborate report recommending this term.


George Eulas Foster: It is very long. It might be a hundred years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and I must say that at first sight I was rather opposed to it; but the argument of the committee in their report, and the discussions that took place, convinced me that on the whole it was a fair proposition. Considerable exception was taken to it at first, but I see that it has been accepted by the imperial parliament, without any modification.


George Eulas Foster: What is the longest life of your patent?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Our patent is only for 18 years. I might state very briefly the reasons for this term of copyright. It is to give fair and reasonable reward for really intellectual work. The contention is that a work that is not of great value will practically pass out of any advantages of copyright long before this period 'expires, and the existence of such copyright is no detriment to the public. In the case of a work of great value, which is generally produced when a man is mature or in advanced years, it is thought that his descendants ought to have a right to some advantage.
On section 6-license to republish or perform work in public granted by minister upon petition.
281*


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is a provision which some authors in England have rather objected to in the English Act.


George Eulas Foster: But the English Act qualifies it by making it after the death of the author.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That has been done in England, and I must say that I do not quite see why the public should be deprived until the death of the author. In this country we are a little more liable to hurt if there were not this provision than they are in England, because it is quite possible that the author might not think it worth his while to publish a work for the small market in Canada, and this would give the public the right to secure the enjoyment of the work, of which we give copyright protection, and I think the public would have a right to it. In England they thought it was sufficient to do it after the death of the author, but I see no particular reason why we should wait for that. In the Act now in existence in Canada, in section 23, there is this provision, and I think it well to .maintain it and continue it for the future.	.	.
On section 7, ownership of copyright, &c.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the same as the British Act with the exception of the last clause, clause 6. In the British Act there is no provision for the machinery of assignment. We have a provision requiring that the assignee shall fulfil the conditions of the law the same as the original owner of the copyright.
On section 13, penalties for dealing with pirated copies.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This corresponds practically with clause 11 of the English Act. The penalties are similar to those imposed in the Bill which this House passed two years ago, but which did not become law because not passed by the Senate. It was an amendment to the Criminal Code, and the criminal penalties are introduced into this Bill at the special request of a large number of people interested in copyright.
On section 16, importation of copyright works.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is different from the English Act, and involves printing of the work in this country. In England, there is no such condition, they do not object to a work being printed abroad, provided it is published in England, and publication in England means simply sale. A foreigner may print his work in his own country, and if he sells half a dozen copies in England that gives him copyright. That is not the case in Canada, and consequently we prohibit importation.

On section 33,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I ought to explain that "this section, although it gives full rights as to-day existing, if an individual having such copyright at present does not fulfil the *conditions of the new Act, he will not reap the advantage of the longer period of the copyright. He would have the length of the copyright he had under the old Act.^ But if an author chose to fulfil the conditions of the new Act, he would then have the copyright for life and it would extend for the 50 years after the author is dead.
On section 35,


George Eulas Foster: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I think the hon. gentleman is quite right. An arrangement of this kind would mean a great deal to certain basses in the community, and I think the representatives of the people ought to have the final say. I did not intend to take this Bill out of committee to-day, and if my hon. friend would allow the clause to pass, before the final disposition of the Bill, I will draft a clause and add it.


Robert Laird Borden: There are some provisions in the English Act which seem to be omitted. I suppose this has been done after consideration.


Mr FISHER.: There are a number of clauses in the British Act which apply to their conditions in various ways, and wnicn do not apply to our conditions at all; but there is no principle involved in the Bntisn
i t i 1	1	* _	~n 4	4 **, rtl 11 rl A rl 1 T1 t il I Q


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 35 stands for further consideration.
On section 36: evidence of foreign copyright.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is simply a provision with regard to evidence that a person has a copyright in a foreign country when an international arrangement is made.
On section 37: certified copies as evidence.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the same as section 32 in our present Act.
On section 38:	validity of documents.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the same as section 33 in the present Act.
On section 39: registration fees.


George Eulas Foster: Are there any changes in the fees?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, they are under clause 24 in the present Act, and they are the same.


George Eulas Foster: The fees are simply nominal?..


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, practically nominal.


George Eulas Foster: Do the fees that come in go any distance in meeting the expenses?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, there is not a great deal of expense in the administration of the Act. Beyond the civil government salaries there is nothing.


George Eulas Foster: Why should not copyright provide for its own expenses?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I suppose that there has been a desire not to tax the production of intellectual work. I would not like to advise raising the fees.


George Eulas Foster: That is hardly treating them with very great respect, it seems to me.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think they are quite willing to endure it. -
On section 43: orders in council; publication; laid before paarliament.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that section 44 need be changed if the second schedule is changed to show that these are Acts of the imperial parliament. I will see that the change is made in the schedule before the Bill goes out of committee.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The second schedule stands for further consideration.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I feel very much gratified that the Bill is receiving such cordial ac- . ceptance and support.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know whether that would be sufficient-I hardly think it would be-to meet my hon. friend's suggestion.


George Eulas Foster: This had better stand as well.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Section 43 stands for further consideration.
On section 45: repeal.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These are the copyright laws of Canada.
On section 46:	commencement of Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This Act is brought into force by proclamation because it cannot come into force until the British Act is put into force. The government in Great Britain do not contemplate bringing the Act into force for some time; I think they propose a year from the first of July. Of course, we cannot really bring this Act into force until the British Act goes into operation.
On the first schedule.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This gives an explanation of the existing right.
On the second schedule.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The second schedule contains a list of the British statutes which now apply to Canada and which, under the British Act, power is conferred upon this parliament to repeal in so far as they apply 'to Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: It should be made plain, I think, in section 44, that the Acts repealed are Acts of another parliament. The reference in section 44 is to enactments set forth in the schedule, but there is nothing to indicate in the schedule that they are the Acts of any particular parliament.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I see that it is not specified, but of course on the face of the schedule it is shown that they are imperial Acts. I think it would be better to put in that they are Acts of the imperial parliament.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall section 44 be reconsidered?


George Eulas Foster: With such a large attendance in the House!


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Still, those who are here have taken the trouble to understand a rather complex question. I trust that the Act will receive the same acceptance in the country that it seems to have received here. I have hopes that it will, because of the communications I have had. I will keep the Bill in committee in case any other members of the House wish to say anything on the matter, or in case any further representations are made with regard to it.
Progress reported.



POST OFFICE ACT AA1ENDAIENT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act by providing (a) for annual increases to the salaries of the superintendents of city post offices until a maximum salary of $2,500 is reached; and (b) for raising the-minimum and maximum salaries of railway mail clerks to $500 and $1,400, respectively;, and making the yearly increases for all railway mail clerks $100 instead of $50 until a salary of $£00 has been reached.
Rodolphe Lemieux: This is but one of the resolutions with respect to increases of salaries to Post Office employees, and if the House will permit me to explain the two resolutions now it will better give an idea of what we purpose doing for the post office employees.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no objection to that.


George Eulas Foster: I am sorry the discussion comes up in so thin a House, but perhaps my sorrow brings joy to the Postmaster General.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It may facilitate progress.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have brought in the resolutions at -the earnest request of both sides, and I think they will meet with general public favour. The immediate increase that will be involved under the proposed Bill will be about as follows:

To inspectors	$5,100
To assistant inspectors	 6,100
To superintendents of the railway
mail service	 3,800
To railway mail	clerks	 6,350
To clerks in city post offices,
offices of the superintendents of the railway mail service and post office inspectors' offices! 30,500
Total	$51,850


George Eulas Foster: That covers both resolutions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. I may explain that we have post offices which are under the Civil Service Act, others which are called city staff offices, and then we have the rural offices. The offices under the Civil Service Act are those in which the postmasters and staff are appointed by the Governor in Council, and whose salaries are paid out of the parliamentary appropriations. The proposals now before us in the first resolution apply to such offices. In the city staff offices the postmasters and staff are appointed by the Postmaster General; they do not.come under the Civil Service Act, and the salaries are paid out of the revenue of each particular office. Formerly, the postmaster was paid a lump sum, and he provided for the salaries of the clerks appointed, but it was found some years ago that the postmasters were paying their employees on the sweating system, and we intervened, with the result that certain city staff offices where the revenue had attained a considerable amount, and the postmasters were paying low salaries to their clerks and pocketing larger salaries than city postmasters, were taken over by the Postmaster General so that the clerks might be more generously treated. We gave to the postmaster a salary and we ourselves paid the salaries of the clerks; these salaries, up to $900, being the same as paid to clerks under the Civil Service Act. These city staff post offices are not important enough to be classified with the Civil Service post offices.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that these salaries are fixed by the department, and not by the Governor in Council?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and paid out of the revenue of that particular office.


George Eulas Foster: And the revenue turned in from such offices is the total revenue, less the salaries paid out?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Quite so.


George Eulas Foster: Is it not time that system were changed? We ought to have the total revenues and the total expenditures of the post office on the same basis as the other departments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: I agree with my hon. friend. I have discussed that point with the heads of the department, and later on during the session I may amend the Post Office Act in that direction.


George Eulas Foster: That is very desirable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In certain places where the revenue amounts to so much and wnere the population is so much, we have introduced a free delivery system, and we might make the same distinction in this case, and not leave to the whim of the postal authorities the payment of these postmasters out of the revenue of the particular post office.


Air. TAYLOR (Leeds).: I understand that cities of a certain size, I think 12,900 population, are entitled to free mail delivery.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The rule is 12,000, but in these days of intercommunication, I always shade it for cities between 10,000 and 12,000; that is, for letter-carriers' delivery.


George Taylor: Does that apply to towns as well as cities?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.


George Taylor: I see an announcement in a Brockville paper that Brockville is t-o have free mail delivery in the near future.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the population?
Air. TAYLOR (Leeds); About 9,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not heard of that myself.


George Taylor: Why should Brockville be favoured as against other towns of 10,000 or 12,000?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no discrimination whatever. I give letter carriers' delivery where any reasonable application is made. I will take that case up and inquire into it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Do the increases apply to all the employees of the post'offices that are referred to in this resolution?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will tell my hon. friend at once to what offices the increases apply, and by elimination my hon. friend will find that an answer to his question. The city or staff offices are as follows. Charlottetown, Halifax, St. John, Fredericton, Quebec, Sherbrooke, Alontreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Peterborough, Toronto, Hamilton, Brantford, London, Windsor, Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Victoria. The semistaff offices are:	Sydney, Aloncton, Trois
Rivieres, St. Hyacinthe, Cornwall, Brockville, Belleville, Picton, Lindsay, Station ' D,' Toronto, St. Catharines, Chatham, Sarnia, Guelph, Berlin, Owen

Sound, Port Arthur, Fort William, Portage la Prairie, Moosejaw, New Westminster, Nanaimo, Whitehorse, Dawson. I will give a comparative statement of the present scale and the proposed scale, for the outside service in the city post offices. Stampers and sorters at present receive from $500 to $600 a year, by annua) increases of $50. This class is abolished. In the present class of fourth-class clerks, the salaries at present are from $500 to $700, by annual increases of $100. This class also is abolished Third-class clerks are at present divided into two grades, junior third and senior third. In the junior third class the salary at present is from $700 to $800 by annual increases of $50. Correspondingly, under the new scale .there will be grade B, with salaries varying from $500 to $800 by annual increases of $100. In the senior third class the salaries at present range from $800 to $900 by annual increases of $50. Correspondingly under the proposed scale there will be a grade A of third class, with salaries ranging from $800 to $1,000 by annual increases of $50. In the class of junior second-class clerks, there is at present a junior second, with salaries ranging from $900 to $1,000 by annual increases of $50. Under the proposed scale there will be a corresponding grade B, with salaries varying from $1,000 to $1,200 by annual increases of $50. In the senior second class at present the salaries range from $1,000 to $1,200 by annual increases of $50. Correspondingly, in grade A of the second class it is proposed that the salaries shall vary from $1,200 to $1,400 by annual increases of $50. For first-class clerks the present scale is from $1,200 to $1,500, as the Postmaster General may determine. Under the proposed scale there will be a grade B, with salaries ranging from $1,400 to $1,600 by yearly increases of $50, and a grade A, with salaries ranging from $1,600 to $1,800 by yearly increases of $50. At present we have no chief clerks, but we propose to create a limited class of chief clerks to be appointed only as the revenue of the offices will permit, with salaries ranging from $1,800 to $2,100 by yearly increases of $50. Formerly many employees have received increases in their salaries by the good-will of their superior officers or the Postmaster General. I have framed this Bill so that in future they will be dealt with exactly as are the employees under the Civil Service Act. It will not be by the whim or the fancy of their superior officers or by political influences or by the whim of the Postmaster General that they will get the yearly increase. They will be entitled to it provided they pass the qualifying examination, and the promotion examination. Hon. gentlemen will see that all along there is an increase of $200 to the
salary paid at present until the maximum is reached.
Our superintendent of city post offices receive to-day $1,800. In future they will receive $1,800, with an annual increase of $100 until they reach $2,500. In the case of Post Office Inspectors, Super-intendants of Railway Mail Service and Money Order and Exchange Offices, the present scale for fourth-class clerks is from $500 to $700 by annual increase of $100. This class has been abolished'. We have now third class comprising the junior third, who receive $700, with an annual increase of $50 up to $800, and the senior third with salaries from $800 to $900 by yearly increases of $50. Corresponding with the present scale, there will be Grade B with salaries of from $500 to $800 by increases of $100 per year. The committee will note that the large yearly increases apply only to the lower grades. We must help the man who starts until he reaches a decent salary. When he reaches $800 he gets a yearly increase of $50, but until then his annual increase is $100. There will be a Grade A in the third class in which the salaries will be from $800 to $1,000 by yearly increase of $50. There will also be a second class. To-day there is a junior second which gets $900 to $1,000 by annual increases of $50, and a senior second which is paid from . $1,000 to $1,200, with an annual increase of $50. Corresponding to the present scale, there will be a Grade B with salaries of $1,000 to $1,200 by annual increase of $50 and Grade A, with $1,200 to $1,400, annual increase, $50. The first-class of that division, namely, the Post Office Inspectors, Superintendents of Railway Mail Service, and Money Order and Exchange Office, receive to-day $1,200 to $1,500. They will now receive, under the present scale, in Grade B, $1,400 to $1,600, by yearly increases of $50, and in Grade A, $1,600 to $1,800 with yearly increases of $50. There are no chief clerks in that branch, and they are not necessary, because there are only from six to twelve clerks employed in that special branch of the Post Office Department.
Now, I come to the railway mail clerks. Their present scale is $400 on appointment and $500 after six months with increases of $50 a year until they reach $1,200 plus their mileage. Under the proposed scale the railway mail clerks will receive on appointment $500, and go by annual increases of $100 to $800 per year. After that they will receive an annual increase of $50 until they reach their maximum $1,400. So that my hon. friends will see that the government is helping more liberally the man who starts. Instead of giving him an annual increase of $50, he gets an annual increase of $100 until he reaches $800, and he gets $500 immediately on his appointment, instead
son

of -waiting six months as at present. Then he receives $100 per year increase instead of $50, until he reaches $800, after which he receives an annual increase of $50 until he reaches $1,400, plus his mileage. That means that in many cases the railway clerks will receive salaries not far from $2,000 per year. Those who have a good run, say from Montreal to Toronto, or Ottawa to Toronto, will probably get more than $2,000 if you add their mileage.


Mr. DANIEL.: How many years will it take to reach their maximum?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend can compute that himself. A man is appointed at $500. He will reach $800 by annual increases of $100, and after that he will get an annual increase of $50 until he reaches $1,400. I am taking, not a radical, but a liberal step, in those increases. .When I examine the very small increases in salaries that have been heretofore paid railway mail clerks, and clerks generally in the Civil Service, I find that I am quite liberal. My hon. friend must not lose sight of the fact that there are thousands of young men employed in banks and business offices, and insurance companies, who hardly get what the civil servant gets when he first enters our employ. I know many young men in banks who do not receive $600 a year. I know of some banks, very wealthy institutions, in which the young clerks start with salaries between $400 and $500 per year, whereas a railway mail clerk is appointed at $500.


John Waterhouse Daniel: At what age?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are taken at the age of 20 or 21, and we can have them at 18 or 19. The younger they come the better for the service, and the better for themselves. $500 with a yearly increase of $100 until $800 is reached is not a bad salary for a young man. After all the man who does not want to fight his own way in the world and is satisfied to take an appointment in the railway mail service must be satisfied with that salary. He will reach $800 at an early age by yearly increases of $100. Then he will reach the sum of $1,400 by annual increases of $50, and you must add to that his mileage. Of course the mileage varies. We give to the old hands the best runs, and that is quite reasonable; but a man who is willing to do his duty, who is sober, who shows some intelligence and regard for his duties, will soon reach the maximum, and soon have a good run.
The present scale is quite a forward step and should receive the approbation of the House. It is very easy to take sides with clerks in the outside civil service. I am myself the son of an old civil servant who has been nearly 50 years in the service, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the Mr. LEMIEUX
clerks, inside or outside, but, after all, we must not exaggerate things, we must not forget that there are in the country many institutions of the highest standing where salaries lower than the scale proposed by my hon. colleague the Minister of Customs and myself are paid the employees. After all there is a certain stability in a government, salary paid to a civil servant, and that is quite an item of difference in salaries paid as between a government and an ordinary institution. Therefore, under those circumstances, with the substantial increases that I gave this year, I think there should be general satisfaction. It is, of course, impossible to please every one, but I think I have dealt fairly with the outside service. The letter carriers have been exceedingly pleased with the substantial increase I gave them two years ago after a conference with both sides of the House. This year they knew this Bill would come before me. I met a deputation in Montreal the other day and they said to me:	Mr. Lemieux we might also ask an increase, since you are giving a general increase, but we are satisfied with what you did for us two years ago. It is now the turn of the other clerks, and we shall not embarrass the department by our demands at this time. They did not say they would never come to me in the future, but this year they were satisfied not to make any further demand.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister explain why he grants increases of $100 a year to the new men from $500 to $800 while the men longer in the service who receive between $800 and $1,200 do not appear to have had any^ increase, and the men over $1,200 have 'had an additional increase of only $50 a year? What is the reason, beyond offering an inducement to them to come into the service?


Rodolphe Lemieux: -The men who have been in the service for a great many years have already reached their maximum, $1,200, and it will take only three or four years for them to reach the new maximum of $1,400, the railway mail clerks, for instance, and the principle is the same with the other clerks. But does not my hon. friend believe with me that it is well to help the young man who goes into the service, to give him an inducement, so to speak, to become a good and efficient clerk. He receives $500. He cannot marry on that salary, he cannot found a home, but if he received $600 a year after, and $800 in three years' time, he could think of that very important event in his life. Therefore, we must help the man who is just beginning. But when he has reached $800 a mail clerk receives a larger mileage and in that way a greater remuneration.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What would the increase in mileage amount to?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We give them longer hours or hours of service which command a larger salary. A man on night duty is paid more than a man on day' duty.


Mr. LALOR.: Does the $500 man have to pass a civil service examination?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He has to pass qualifying examination. We have many difficulties in finding young men ready to pass the examination, say for mail clerks. To many' the position is no attraction because it requires a certain amount of study, and in other cases young men have forgotten their school work, and they come into the service as labourers. They work for a certain period of time, five or six months, and then, having studied, and having learned their business, they can pass the examination. Then they are entered as regular mail clerks. I propose to insert a -section in the Bill by which I will be authorized for the future to take young men, who have not passed these preliminary examinations, for a period of one year, but no longer; that is to partly overcome the difficulty of getting young men.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the Superannuation Act apply to railway mail clerks?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It applies to old clerks. Of course there is a movement on foot to reopen the question of superannuation. Speaking for myself only, I would view with sympathy a return to the old state of things. I believe that a man who devotes his life to the service of His Majesty's government should be provided for in his old age, and that superannuation should exist. Not very long ago a deputation met the Minister of Finance and laid before him the question of a return to the superannuation system. The question will be considered in due time by the government.


Mr. RUSSELL.: I think this is the proper time to say something on the mileage question, as it is liable to be misunderstood by some of the members. I do not think that mileage should be considered in determining the salary at all. The majority of the clerks get a very small amount for mileage. There are a few runs, such as Montreal and other long runs, where they get $400 or $500 a year. But in order to do that, they have to work so much harder, and so many more hours, that in reality I think they save the department probably the use of another man. The country is saved somewhat in the salary of other extra men, because in order to make a large amount of mileage he has to work long hours and work hard. During the winter I had occasion to look into the average mileage. I took the run
from Toronto to London and back, and that run pays a mileage of about $250 per year. That is what I would call an average run. When you consider that a man on that run has to pay his hotel and other expenses, and consider the time he is away from home, and the long hours he has to put in before he reaches his home again, I do not think that the question of mileage should be taken into consideration in determining the salary he is to get. I think it is no more than what he should get, in view of the inconvenience he suffers from being away from home, and the danger he runs. The scale of wage is no more than he would receive if he were working in a city post office, in some cases it is hardly as much. I think, even on the longer runs where they do get a little larger amount of mileage, we should not consider that against the man in determining his wages.
Another thing I want to speak about is this $500 class. I reallv think that the Postmaster General might raise that to $600. It has been a good many years since the present scale was framed, probably thirty years, when they got $400 on entry. Now there is no question that if $400 was considered an adequate salary at that time, $600 ought to be the least amount they should get to-day. Surely there must be a reason for raising the salaries and granting the increase that is proposed at the present time, .or it would not be done; and I think the reason is sufficient to enable the men to benefit to a little greater extent than the Bill proposes. I am perfectly satisfied with the $200 increase. It averages up to about $200 increase all along the line. But what I contend is, that where a man has got to the top of his class, and has been here, we will say, for a few years, or has got near the top of his class, when the new order comes into effect increasing the scale by $200, he should then occupy the same position in the new class that he occupied in the old class; then he would receive the benefit of that $200 increase. Suppose he has two or three examinations to pass to get to the top of his class, I think he should be placed in the position in the new class which would bring him to the top of his class. I think in interpreting the arrangement in that way, justice would be done to these clerks, whereas in the other way I think there would be an injustice. This increase no doubt was due two years ago. The Postmaster General promised at that time that he would look into it, and do something for the mail clerks, and other postal clerks. Last session he was too busy to take it up. I think under the circumstances, if he could see his way clear to place these clerks in the same position under the new order of things, under the new classification, it

would be right and just; I do not think there would be anything wrong in doing that, and the men then would receive what they are entitled to. Take a $50 increase, and take a man that is, we will say, near the top of his class under the old regulation, he has got to go along and work for four years to get the $200 increase for the last two or three years he has had to wait. If this increase were taken into consideration it would place him near the top. I hope the Postmaster General will . view favourably the suggestions I have made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have taken into consideration all the hon. gentleman has said; but I think that until the outside service in the larger post offices is brought under the Civil Service Act, we must be content with this. When they come under the Civil Service Act they will have a fair claim to ask what the Civil Service now obtains, that is to say, a flat increase. I have framed this Bill, I say it frankly, with a view to bringing the larger post offices, at some day not far distant, under the Civil Service Act. I think it is time we should take that step. The Bill is outlined, in respect to salaries, exactly in the same way as regards the various classes mentioned in the Civil Service Act.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: There is one feature of this Bill that I do not understand very well, and I wish to call the attention of the Postmaster General to it. Take the Tun from Goderich to Buffalo. The mail clerks upon that service are not permitted to remain in Buffalo over night, [DOT]but must return to Goderich again in order to establish that their residence is in [DOT]Goderich. I know cases where mail clerks who have been in the service of the government for many years, are compelled to comply with that requirement, at great inconvenience to themselves. Where the train service ends practically in Buffalo, they are compelled to return to [DOT]Goderich in order to fulfil the requirement of residing in Goderich. Even though their family lives in Buffalo they have to return to Canada at night and remain in Canada, instead of remaining over night at Buffalo. It is a source of considerable inconvenience to them, and I think the regulation in that respect is rather harsh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will look into this case. That matter has been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Stewart). If there is any hardship I will see that it is discontinued. If the committee will say 'carried,' and if my hon. friend has anv further remarks to make, we will have a Bill based upon this * Mr. RUSSELL.
resolution, and he will then have an opportunity of discussing the question.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I just wanted to call the minister's attention to it.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the New Ontario and Quebec Railway Company.-Mr. Gordon (Nipis-sing). .
Mr. LANCASTER.: I have offered an amendment to this Bill, and in discussing the matter with the hon. member in charge, who is not now present, he seems disposed to accept the amendment, but he said he would let me know later, but he did not. This is a very contentious matter, and as we will have to divide on the third reading anyway, I think it should be held over until Monday, when the whole day will be given to private Bills.


Mr. GRAHAM.: I have no reason to suppose this is not a bona fide scheme, but if it is constructed as outlined on the map it is certainly an inter provincial road. Were the hon. member in charge of the Bill present, I would ask him to state if he believes it is a bona fide scheme, and that the entire line is to be constructed, and if he made such a statement I would raise no objection to the Bill in that respect. There is, however, an objection to the name of the proposed railway. One of the great railway corporations of Canada has financed a railway in Ontario under the name of the Ontario and Quebec railway, and the name assumed by this railway would lead to confusion. The legal gentleman in charge of the Bill has suggested that the name be changed to the New Ontario and Abitibi railway, but the promoter of the Bill not being present, we had better not go on with it now.
Progress reported.



GRAIN GROWERS' GRAIN COMPANY, LIMITED.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 171) to incorporate the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited.
Section 14, subsection (b),
John Dowsley Reid: Why should a Grain Growers' Association want such extensive powers to provide electricity and all kinds of things that are mentioned in this clause.


Mr. RUTAN.: The clause as amended is the standard clause used in all such Bills. The company had already these powers by letters patent from the province of Manitoba.


John Dowsley Reid: They did not have these powers under the Manitoba Act.


William Windfield Rutan: Yes, and much wider powers.


William Pugsley: My friend is under the impression that this company would take over the Manitoba charter.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Pugsley: They do not. All they take over is the property and franchise. The charter will lapse, and they ask a new charter from this parliament to enable them to acquire these assets.


John Dowsley Reid: It is quite evident to me that this Bill is to take over the Manitoba company, and get a Dominion charter with wider powers. ATe they dealing in electricity at present?


William Windfield Rutan: I am not aware that they are, but they have the power to.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the hon. member in charge of this Bill tell me what business this Grain Growers' Association, now in existence under the the Manitoba charter, are in at present, and what they are doing?


William Windfield Rutan: So far they have been dealing in grain and the products of the farm. They have 'been in business some five years. They want power to increase their business, to enter into other lines, and to extend it outside of the province of Manitoba, and, therefore, they come here for a charter. It is necessary for them to have the same rights and powers as other companies if they are to engage in manufacturing or other industries.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question. I did not ask for an explanation of why they were coming to this parliament. What I asked was this. The Grain Growers' Association, I understand, is an incorporated company at the present time in the province of Manitoba, with certain powers under a charier obtained from the legislature of Manitoba. Will the hon. member tell me the capital of that company? Does it own any real estate? Has it any timber limits? Does it own any lands? Does it own any water-powers? Does it purchase grain and re-sell it? Where is its head office?


William Windfield Rutan: Its head office is in the city of Winnipeg. It has been buying and selling grain very largely for a number of years. If the hon. gentleman looks at the
records of the grain business in Winnipeg, Port Arthur and Fort William, he will find that last year this company handled nearly half the grain in the country.	[DOT]


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do they take delivery of that grain and re-sell it, or do they merely act as middlemen?


William Windfield Rutan: They do both.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much did they actually have delivered to them, and hold and sell again?


William Windfield Rutan: I cannot answer that question. I cannot say what the capital stock is. I did not expect that these questions would come up. The powers the company has under its Manitoba charter were stated the other evening.


Mr. KNOWLES.: There is not the slightest doubt that this company is a very large purchaser and seller of grain; it is always in the market, and is probably the largest dealer in grain in the country. With regard to giving the company the right to deal in electric or other power


John Dowsley Reid: Will the hon. gentleman please answer the few questions I asked: what is the capital stock, how much is paid in, and does the company own any water-power, timber limits or lands?


William Erskine Knowles: I do not know that it owns any property, but I know that it is a very wealthy company. I do not live near enough to the head olfice to know what property the company owns. I know that it is a very large dealer in grain, and I have never yet heard its honesty or financial competency in the slightest way questioned. With regard to the question why it should be given such legislation as that in' the clause referring to electric power, I think we will agree that it is in the interest of the public and of the great industry of agriculture in the western country that reliable and reputable men should be allowed to enter largely into general dealings with^ regard to grain, having their flour mills, elevators and things of that nature. We know that these things cannot be carried on without considerable power, whether waterpower, steam-power or electric-power; and, as in the case of any concern that uses water or other power, they are not always able to estimate the exact amount they want to use, and, therefore, it would be in the interest of the public to make provision in this Bill by which they would be in a position to dispose of any surplus power which they may not have occasion to use, always remembering that it is under the control and the' close supervision of the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as I am concerned, I wish to do everything in the

interest of the farmers, whether in Ontario or the west; but to my mind this Bill proposes to give to this company power by which a few men might injure many farmers by getting them to subscribe for stock and put their money in, and then not using it for the purposes for 'which it was .put in. We have had many instances of that kind, and the very name of this association is likely to draw many farmers into it. There has been a company formed in Manitoba, I understand, called by the same name as this.


William Erskine Knowles: Everybody knows the difference between the association and the company.


John Dowsley Reid: This is a company, but I understand that it is taking over the Grain Growers' Association.


William Erskine Knowles: No, no.


William Windfield Rutan: I might inform the hon. member for Grenville that the name in this Bill is exactly the same as the name under which the company is working in the province of Manitoba.


John Dowsley Reid: It is practically the Manitoba Company being taken over by this company. I would like to know the capital of the Manitoba Company, how much money has been invested in it, whether it owns property of any kind, and what are its assets.


William Windfield Rutan: It owns land in Winnipeg at present. This Bill was amended in the Private Bills Committee to enable the company to put up a ' building and rent the surplus floor space for other purposes and thus utilize its property. Whether it has property outside of Winnipeg I am unable to say. I will find out in a few minutes what the capital of the company is.


Mr. NESBITT.: This company is only asking what several other companies have got from this House. It might go to the wall like any other corporation which we might charter, but there is no more danger in its case than in any other. This company is asking for wider privileges than an ordinary company, but not any wider than we have given other companies we have chartered here-two or three this year. So that it would be unwise to refuse this company the privileges we have granted others especially as we have taken the trouble of surrounding these privileges with all the safeguards possible under the Bill as amended. I was opposed to the Bill as it stood in the first place, but since it has been amended I think it is perfectly safe to_ grant this charter, and it would be unwise to refuse it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I cannot agree that there is no more danger with all these Mr. REID (Grenville)
powers than if some of them were struck out. It seems to me that innocent farmers will be induced to invest in this company under the impression that it will only deal with the products of the farm, whereas nine-tenths of the powers given the company have nothing whatever to do with farming in the ordinary sense of the word or the handling of farm products. It is an omnibus company with power to deal in every sort of manufacturing and other business, which its title does not indicate, and consequently is in that way. apt to mislead the ordinary farmer, who knows nothing about stock manipulating or stock jobbing operations.


William Windfield Rutan: For the information of the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) I have obtained the figures he asked for. The old company have about $1,000,000 capital and $400,000 paid up. As to the fears expressed by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) it seems to me that the farmers in our Northwest know pretty well what they are investing in, and I cannot see why they should not have the same rights as men in any other line of business. I do not believe there is a farmer in the west who does not know all about the Grain Growers' Grain Company, and what benefit it has been to him the last four or five years in the way of marketing his crop and getting the best value for him out of it. Several times in Winnipeg I had occasion to be in the Grain Exchange and heard elevator and commission men enlarge very strongly on the power this company seemed to be wielding throughout the country. They appeared to look upon it as a competitor. Tiie men on the exchange spoke of the patronage the Grain Growers' Grain Company were receiving, and they thought that company was a serious competitor. That is exactly what we want. We do not want any line of elevator people or grain men to have a monopoly of the grain business, and the people have as much right to form a company and help to make competition and get the value out of their products as lawyers, doctors, or merchants have to form associations to protect themselves. This company is only asking for powers which any one may obtain by letters patent, and which we, as a parliament, have no right to keep from them. I see no reason why the Bill should not pass.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: There is no disposition on this side of the House to block the passing of this Bill, and any remarks that have been made are with a view to safeguarding the public. If we adopted the name of the Grain Growers' Trading Company. then the title would show that they were grain growers, and that they were

trading, and no one would be misled by solicitors for stock or in any other way.


John Dowsley Reid: I wish it distinctly understood that anything which I think is in the farmers' interest I will support. I do not wish to do,anything against the wishes or interests of the farmers of the west or of any part of this country. The present name, however, I feel is misleading to the farmers, and it may mislead the farmers in the county I represent. Gentlemen whose names I see in this Bill are organizing grangers meetings all through Ontario, and it may be that at the same time they are soliciting stock for this company. In the west the Manitoba government could look after the interests of the people, and the objects of the company are better understood there, but now you are coming to the Dominion, and placing yourself in a position to solicit stock in Ontario.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They could any way.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but the farmers would not be so likely to go into the Manitoba Company as they would be with a Dominion company. I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of the Minister of Public Works that the name be changed, and the company be called the Grain Growers' Trading Company.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is in error. I stated that the only difficulty I had with regard to the Bill was by reason of the name. Afterwards the hon. member in charge of the Bill declined to make a change in the name, and I.said I did not see that any other name could he suggested which would not be free from objection if it were to indicate that the company was a company organized and managed by grain growers, and I understand that that was essential to them. Upon that I withdrew my objection to the name, and any suggestion as to change being made in the name.


John Dowsley Reid: They are forming grain growers associations throughout Ontario.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: I rise to a point of order. Has not the name been settled in the first section?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Yes, the name has been settled under section 1, but as I understand the argument of the horn member is that he will not have much objection to this particular clause if they do not insist on the title. I think his argument is applicable.


William D. Staples: A lot of time seems to be taken up discussing the name of this company. It has been suggested that a company has been in operation in Manitoba for a number of years under the name of
the Grain Growers' Grain Company. They are as jealous of that name as any other company operating in any province, which may come here for extended legislation as this company do. They may have vested interests in Manitoba, and while my colleagues appear to be very careful about the protection of the various farmers in other parts of the Dominion, that is their privilege and possibly their duty; but I do not think there is any possible danger in giving this grain company the name they have had, and under which they have operated for n number of years in Manitoba.
I cannot see any serious objection. But I do not think there is anything to be gained by simply holding up this particular legislation. No doubt the government have decided to give them that name. So far as I am concerned, coming from the province of Manitoba, a farmer myself, and having shipped some grain through the Grain Growers' Company, I do not see any serious objection to extending their legislation throughout the Dominion of Canada. I think other companies have been granted such privileges in Bills that 'have gone through this House. The other night we saw different companies given legislation by letters patent, and this company could have got this charter by letters patent, and thus saved the House some time, but they are getting it through a different channel. So far as I am concerned, I have no objection to the Bill going through.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: There is notice of a proposed amendment, in subsection (j) of section 14, to read as follows:
That subsection (j) be struck out, and tke following be inserted instead thereof:
Advance money to customers of the company notwithstanding the provisions of section 167 of the Company's Act, provided that in no case shall a sum exceeding $10,000 be advanced to a director of the company.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is subsection ('b) intended to give the company power to sell, and distribute electricity within a municipality?


William Windfield Rutan: Subject to a by-law of the municipality.


George Perry Graham: This Bill was referred to by the Railway Committee to put in those protective clauses that were put in in Committee of the Whole. But the standard clauses of the Railway Committee controlling the sale of electricity are now in the amended Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: There still remains this objection, that this company under this section, is practically doing a beneficially insurance business. It seems to me we are going a long way in allowing the

Grain Growers' Company, apparently a farmers'- grain growing company, to go into the life insurance business.


William Pugsley: The amendment as printed only allows for superannuation or annuities to officers and servants of the association. They cannot go outside of them. It is limited to officers and servants of the company, the same as banks and railway companies have obtained authority from parliament to grant superannuation.
On section 14, subsection (e),


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There should be some provision surely that anything they do under their railway authority should be under the same supervision as that which any other railway is subjected. If a railway company is carrying its freight part of the journey by water it is under the supervision of the Railway Commission.


William Pugsley: This company cannot build a railway for general transportation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But this company can do part of what a railway company does, and what that railway company does is under the Railway Commission. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works has forgotten it, but the other night I read the section of the Railway Act applicable to that point.


William Pugsley: I looked at that afterwards, and I found that my hon. friend was right.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Railway Act provides that when a railway company is carrying goods by water its rates are under the supervision of the Railway Commission.


Mr. PUGSLEY  .@: But you have to build your railway first as a part of the system.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: True, but we are allowing the Grain Growers' Company to carry goods by water with no authority over them whatever while they are dealing in the same kind of transportation as other railway companies which are subject to the supervision of the Railway Commission.


William Pugsley: What control have we over the Midland line running steamers from Port Arthur and Fort William to Sarnia, and right down the St. Lawrence, or what control have we over the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company? The Board of Railway Commissioners has no control over their rates.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



PAVEMENT IN FRONT OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, WINNIPEG.

William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take the earliest opportunity of correcting Mr. LANCASTER.
an error, and I do it as a question of privilege.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It will have to be with the consent of the House.


William Pugsley: I informed the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) yesterday that orders had been given for the payment of an amount to the city of Winnipeg for pavements. I find that I was mistaken. I had recommended the matter to council and authority was obtained for the payments, hut they had to be provided for by parliament. My hon. friend will find an amount in the supplementary estimates, and I have no doubt he will he glad to help me in getting these estimates through as quickly as possible.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee upon resolution to amend the Post Office Act.-Mr. Lemieux.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the nature of the examination provided for junior clerks upon entering the railway mail service?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not before me the subject matter upon which the candidates are examined, but it is in the nature of the ordinary examination which civil sei'vants must pass. There is a selection of subjects such as grammar, arithmetic, geography and literature. In Quebec the aspirants have the option of using both lan- -guages in the examination. The examinations are not very severe, but still we find it difficult to get the number of men which the service requires. The service is extending so much, with the opening of new routes, especially in the west, where the country is grid-ironed with new railway lines, that we have sometimes to take men who have not passed the examination. But, as I stated before six o'clock, I am making provision for the future in order to be within the law. Not to have to be resourceful in order to evade the law, and at the same time give the public the service required, I have a clause in the Bill which will be based upon this resolution, which will give the Postmaster General authority to employ men who have not yet passed their examination, but who may pass it within a year. Six months after having passed the preliminary examination, clerks, [DOT]not only in the railway mail service but in the service generally, are subject to a promotion examination. They are examined on their special duties. A railway mail clerk would be subject to examination on his route, and on the map of the various railway lines connecting with the line upon which he travels. That is the gist of the examination which they pass.


Alexander Haggart: I am glad to observe that the prospective changes embodied in this resolution are in the right direction, and we are only too pleased to give the minister credit for them. My remarks will apply to the Post Office Act, and what I have to say will be with reference to the service west of the lakes. I will first refer to the letter carriers in the city of Winnipeg, and what I say with reference to the letter carriers, perhaps may apply also to other branches of the service. There, these humble servants of the post office are on meagre salaries. Their work is increasing every year, and under any circumstances, supposing you employ extra hands, still the increase in the business means more work for those who happen to be in the service.
We must remember, too, more especially in the city of Winnipeg and all through the west, rents are very much higher and are increasing every year; living is higher, fuel is more expensive. Many of these are married men; they live up practically to the full amount of their wage; there is very little prospect of promotion, and although we may say that there arq those living in Winnipeg who would take their jobs for the same pay, that is not a fair statement because these men have had a training, and it is only after years of experience they become familiar with their work and with the district they serve. We have another minister who is a little more thoughtful of the people of the west than the Postmaster General, for on page 96 of the estimates we find that the Minister of Inland Revenue has this entry:
Provisional allowance of not more than $125 each to the officers in Manitoba and the provinces west thereof whose salaries do not exceed $1,000 per annum.
The officials of the Inland Revenue Department do not work any harder than those poor fellows who have to trudge the streets of Winnipeg in sometimes bitter weather. If you saw them with the loads they have to carry, you would think it would not be unkind for the Postmaster General to provide them with mules.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Or automobiles.


Alexander Haggart: That would be better still. I call attention to the following statement in the report of the Civil Service Commission at page 28:
Before leaving this branch (the outside service) of their inquiries, your commissioners have to draw attention to the fact that while in the older provinces of the Dominion the struggle for existence is the lot of the average official, yet in the province of Manitoba and British Columbia, and in the Northwest provinces the struggle is intensified. With the long hard winters and the high prices charged for fuel, and also in consequence of
the increased rentals caused by the great boom which lias struck the northwest, your commissioners have had reported to them that the lot of the civil servant in that part of Canada is much more pitiable than that of the civil servant in the older provinces; and whatever .may be the result of these inquiries, your commissioners earnestly commend to the attention of the government the condition of employees in Manitoba and the northwest.
I think that language applies more to the letter carriers than to any other class of persons in that province. The Minister of Agriculture was kind enough to say on the 29th of July, 1909:
I need not point out that the cost of living has immeasurably increased since that time (1857), that the work and responsibilities imposed upon the Civil Service of Canada have greatly increased, and that their relationship to, and standing iu the community, has become so enlarged as to require that they shall have greater consideration in this year of grace 1999 than they had when Canada was a small, inconsiderable and cheap country in 1857.
I call the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that there is a great difference in the city of Winnipeg between the conditions in 1909 and in 1911, when these words were uttered. Sir William Mu-lock when Postmaster General had occasion to remark:
The duties of our railway mail clerks are onerous, responsible and hazardous, and with very rare exceptions have been performed with uniform cheerfulness, efficiency and fidelity. I feel fully warranted in saying that Canada has no more deserving and worthy officers than her railway mail clerks.
As applicable to all the civil servants in Winnipeg, not simply the letter carriers, I call attention to a letter signed by Mr. W. L. Ball, manager of the Eastern Townships Bank in Winnipeg, in which he says:
With reference to our conversation as to the cost of living here and in the east, I may say that our hank makes a special western allowance of $300 for each clerk we have in the west.
I support everything that has been proposed in favour of the mail clerks. They deserve every cent of the increase, and I believe the Postmaster General would have been justified in making the increase greater. Not only are their duties arduous, but they are thrust into a post of danger; scarcely a railway wreck but there is some poor mail clerk one of the victims, and it would be pretty hard to properly remunerate that phase of their employment. If the Postmaster General would amend this first resolution and make provision for not less than one hundred and fifty dollars a year extra living expenses for post office employees in Manitoba and the west, he will only be doing what is just and he will have



S927 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
the support not only of his own party friends, but of the members on this side of the House.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I agree that the cost of living in the west is much higher than in the east, and of course the cost of living, generally speaking, has grown greater year by year fox the last twenty years. The Post Office Department has recognized, just as has the Inland Revenue Department, the principle that a special provisional allowance should be paid to our railway mail clerks, letter carriers, and postal clerks generally in the west. Every year we take a vote in the estimates for that purpose. This provisional allowance is paid to post office employees commencing at Fort William and Port Arthur, and extending throughout Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Employees in city post offices, including letter carriers, of course, employees in the post office inspectors' office and the office of the Superintendent of Railway Mail Clerks, whose salaries are $800 a year and under, are paid $15 per month or $180 a year provisional allowance. Those officials in the west get $180 per annum provisional allowance over the salaries paid in the east. Then, the provisional allowance to employees whose salaries are over $800 and under $900 is the amount required to make up a total of $980.
The allowance to employees whose salaries range from $900 to $1,200 a year is at the rate of 10 per cent of their salary. The allowance to employees whose salaries range from $1,200 to $1,320 is the difference between the salary and $1,320. The railway mail clerks are paid at the rate of $10 a month when the salary is less than $800 a year, and on salaries ranging from $300 to $1,200 the allowance is 10 per cent on their salary. That is a special provisional allowance paid to our postal clerks, letter carriers, clerks in city post offices, railway mail clerks in the west, and clerks employed in the offices of superintendents and inspectors. So that the increase is quite a substantial one, if we consider what increases have been given since 1896. I fully admit that some years ago, generally speaking, the salaries paid in the post offices, especially to the lower grade men, were a mere pittance. The lower grades in 1896 started at a minimum of $400, and went to a maximum of $800. In 1903, in Sir William Muloclc's time, the minimum was increased to $500, and the maximum to $900, and under the proposed Act this maximum is being expanded to $1,000. Under the Act of 1896 the amount of yearly increase was only $40. This has been raised to $100. There is thus a material increase ever the old conditions. Under the old Act a man would in ten years have a possibility of earning $5,800; under the pro-Mr. BDAGGART (Winnipeg).
posed Act he can earn a total of $8,300, or an increase of $2,500, that is, 43 per cent of liis salary. The second-class clerks in 1896 had a minimum of $900, and went up to $1,200. Under the piuposed Act they will go up to $1,400, which gives them ati increase of 11 per cent, or increased earnings of $1,250 in a period of 10 years. Under the old conditions a first-class clerk started at a minimum of $1,200, and went up by annual increases determined by the Postmaster General until he obtained a maximum of $1,500. Inasmuch as it depended upon the determination of the minister, there was no certainty of the increase being given, and a large number never received it. Under the proposed Act the $1,500 will be increased to $1,800, with a statutory increase of $50 per annum, instead of being subject to the whim or caprice of higher officials or even the will of the minister. This insures regular increases up to the maximum when a man deserves them, and gives an increase of 20 per cent of the maximum, making a difference in ten years of $2,250. The minimum of this class, formerly $1,200, has been raised to $1,400.


Mr. BRADBURY.: What is the difference between the salaries allowed in the west and in the east?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The salaries themselves are not differentiated, but there is in favour of the west a provisional allowance ranging up to $180 or $200 a year. As regards the letter carriers, let me assure my hon. friend from Winnipeg that I have met several of them, and have received many com-, munications from them during the course of this session, and generally speaking they are satisfied with the increase I gave them two sessions ago. At that time they received a very poor salary. Now they receive a minimum of $2.75 a day, plus in the west the $180 a year which I nave mentioned. Besides, let us always bear in mind that much as we may sympathize with the men, and I do sincerely sympathize with them, as my hon. friend does, that they are certain of keeping their situations as long as they wish, they receive two uniforms a year from the department, including their footwear, and, in the large cities where we have tramway services, they get free transportation. This costs the government in Montreal about $8,000 a year, in Ottawa about $8,000, in Toronto about $10,000, in Winnipeg $8,000 or $9,000, and about the same rate in other cities of the west which have tramway services.


Joseph Russell: Do the railway mail clerks get any uniform or footwear?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Joseph Russell: I want to make a plea for the railway mail clerk who, under the

new schedule, enters the service at $500 whereas the postman enters at $600 or a little better, and gets his clothes and boots. I think it would be only fair to raise the minimum of the railway mail clerk to $600, so as not to ask them to start at a lower salary than the postmen. I think they are entitled to $600 a year to start with.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend must bear in mind that while the letter carriers receive a maximum of only $1,200, the railway mail clerks receive special treatment, getting a maximum of $1,400, plus their mileage. But I am ready to consider the question of clothing the railway mail *clerks. A few days ago I received from a gentleman in Winnipeg-a good Canadian by the way and his views reflect my own- a comment to the effect that the American mail cars are splendidly equipped, beautifully painted, with the talismanic words * United States Mail,' and the Star Spangled Banner and American Eagle blazoned on it, but if you look at a Canadian mail car, provided by our railway companies, to which we pay heavy subsidies, you will simply see the letters 'G.P.O.' inscribed on it, and sometimes nothing at all. You should, he said, urge our railway companies to give us postal cars equal to those supplied by the American companies, I replied that I thought his suggestion was very good, that we should give our mail cars a toilet equal to that enjoyed by the American cars, and equal to that given to the mail^ cars in every other country. I have noticed in France and Germany and England that the mail cars there are conspicuous^ by their external decorations. But coming to the employees inside, I admit that there is something in the suggestion of the hon. member for Toronto "(Mr. Russell) that perhaps our railway mail clerks should have a uniform. As regards the scale of salary, however, that is a question of policy for the government. It is not merely my own volition that I have to follow in the increases I submit to the committee, but the matter is one which pertains to the government as a whole, and we must take into consideration not only the opinion expressed by my hon. friend, but also what the public thinks about it, and what the administration of public affairs warrants. Let us not forget that besides the increases in salaries which we have given since a few years, we have also given to the public the benefit of many material decreases in postal rates. I shall not weary the House by recounting these decreases, but I think we have given the public very substantial decreases in postal rates, and we intend to follow the same progressive policy in the future. If the House will 'leave to my tender care the employees of the Post Office Department, the clerks will not regret it. They have been satisfied in the past with what in-282
creases I have obtained from parliament for them, and I think they will be in the future. Of course many would like a little more. That is only human nature. But we must stop at some point, and I think that on the whole the policy I have explained is in the right direction in so far as the resolutions I have submitted to the House are framed according to the Civil Service Act, and with the view of bringing the clerks in the large city post oflices under the Act in the near future.


George Henry Bradbury: I heartily concur in the legislation which the hon. the Postmaster General has submitted, but as regards the salaries of the officers in western Canada especially, I desire to point out that there is a greater difference between the conditions at Winnipeg and those in eastern cities than has been met by this legislation. A clerk in any occupation in the city of Winnipeg gets more salary today than he would in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto, for doing the same work, and the extra allowance provided for letter carriers in Winnipeg does not make up the difference. The Winnipeg letter carriers are among the hardest worked officials of the government. Winnipeg is a very big city, the routes are long, and the mails to be carried are very heavy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And many foreign settlements.


George Henry Bradbury: They are a very efficient class of men and worthy of the best treatment. I believe that the Postmaster General is trying to do what is right. I believe he is trying to make legislation which will apply to all parts of the Dominion as fairly as possible, but there is a great difference between the wages in western Canada and in eastern Canada. What might be a fair salary in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal, would not be considered at all adequate in Winnipeg. If you pay your letter carriers in Winnipeg only the same salary as you do in Ottawa or Montreal, I do not think you are treating them fairly and I do not think that the extra allowance will make up the difference, 10 per cent, I understand, is the basis of your extra allowance. I hold that the increased cost of living is much greater 'than ten per cent in the west over the cost in the east. These letter carriers have to be very intelligent, and the men who are doing that work in Winnipeg should command a higher salary than they are now doing. Of course, as the minister has pointed out, their position is permanent, but I do not think they come under the Civil Service Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under the Post Office Act.


George Henry Bradbury: Are they entitled to superannuation ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The older men who were appointed before the Superannuation Act was abolished are, but not the others.


George Henry Bradbury: Then there is no provision for these men after they have served as letter carriers for 15 or 20 years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


George Henry Bradbury: In view of that fact the government should at least give these men salaries equal to any they could command in the cities where they are employed, I fear this has not been done in Winnipeg. The minister knows well the increased cost of living in the west in comparison with the east, and must realize that the extra allowance to a man getting a salary less than $800 is not going to make up the difference between the salary he is getting and that which he would command in any other occupation in the city of Winnipeg. I would urge strongly that either the extra allowance or salaries be increased. Just a word about the mail clerks. I want to emphasize*what the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) and other gentlemen have said about the mail clerk service.
There are no men in the employ of the government who are entitled to greater consideration than the men who take charge of the mails on railway trains. They endanger their lives every time they enter their cars and in addition it is a most unhealthy occupation. A mail clerk on the train impairs his health more than any other government official. I have been told by porters on Pullman cars that the average usefulness of a porter is less than 18 years, I presume owing to the motion of the car and the consequent injury to his health. If that is so, the mail clerk occupies just as unhealthy a position as the porter, and anything the Postmaster General has done for the mail clerks will be appreciated by the people of Canada. I believe he could go even further than he has done, and would still receive the support of every man who knows anything about the services rendered by these mail clerks. I would urge the minister to take the western part of Canada into consideration. He realizes .that there is a great difference between the men performing these services in western Canada and all other government officials there; that they are entitled to greater pay proportionately than they receive in eastern Canada on account of the extra cost of living, and the extra work they have to do. In Winnipeg the post office officials are worked very hard, the city is growung very rapidly, and it sometimes taxes the ingenuity of the service to handle the mail matter that goes into that city. I would urge upon the minister to increase either the salaries or extra allowances of letter carriers in Winnipeg.
Mr. BRADBURY,


Mr. FRASER.: I wish to endorse what has been said. The railway mail clerks of the east should also come in for some consideration if the minister contemplates an increase in pay to the mail clerks in the west. The railway mail clerk has very arduous duties, his quarters are very cramped and poorly ventilated, and all the conditions that he has to meet with tend to make his life rather a life of hardship. With all this he has a great deal of responsibility, having complete, and absolute control over all the matter in the mail car, registered mail and all other things of the kind. Besides that he literally takes his life in his hands every time he goes on the train. The railway mail clerks should receive the first consideration, because their duties are very hard, and even the post office clerks, I think, receive a very small salary to start on, $500. $400 twenty years ago was worth more than $500 or $600 today, and as the country progresses the government should increase the remuneration of their employees if they wish to keep up the standard of their service. The mail clerks and the post office employees have responsible duties which they perform generally very well. There are very few complaints against the post office in this country. Small payment means poor service in everything. The increase which has been made from $400 to $500 seems a very small one, and the government would find many sympathizers if they could see their way clear to raise the salaries of these people who are doing the hard work in the department. I am well aware that there are many soft snaps in the department where officials are paid relatively much higher salaries. To the railway mail clerks and post office clerks, who actually do hard work, more than $500 should be paid.


Joseph Russell: I would ask the Postmaster General to try and place this salary limit a little higher. I am perfectly satisfied with the increase of $200, and I think the men will all be satisfied. It is a long time since the old scale was fixed and probably it will be a long time before this one will be changed. I think the Postmaster General should make the increase of $200 general all along the line, and should give the clerk entering the service $600 where he had $400 before, just as he has raised the $1,200 limit to $1,400. That, I think, would satisfy all concerned. I find that an increase of $50 a year amounted' 16 cents a day, or 4 per cent of a man's salary of $1,200. I consider that that increase is too small considering the increased cost of living. The poorer class of labouring men in Toronto are to-day getting 50 per cent to 75 per cent more than they got 10 or 15 years ago. This increase of 4 per cent seems to be hardly anything at

all. A man in the service who is within two or three years of the top of his class will go on getting the regular increase to which he was entitled, and then he will have to work along three or four years more to get to the top of the new class, so he would have to be of a good age before he would get to the maximum of the new class. I think what I contended for this afternoon is nothing more than fair, that the increase should be general all along the line. Where a man is near the top of his class he should hold the same position in the new class with that increase of $200. I want to ask the Postmaster General if he can hold out any hope of increasing this scale?


Rodolphe Lemieux: While there is life there is hope. I have given a resume of the policy of the government for the present year. I think the postal clerks, the mail carriers and the railway mail clerks have no fault to find with the increases I have given. Of course, as I said a moment ago, it is human nature to ask for more, but there must be a stopping point. We must advance progressively towards better salaries, we cannot expect to reach high water mark at once. All I can say is that I have taken into consideration the remarks made by the hon. gentleman, and in the future I shall certainly do my best to meet each case as it arises. Speaking about this provisional allowance for the west, although the cost of living is higher in the west, yet we must not forget that an additional sum of $15 a month, besides the salary paid to the clerk, is quite a bonus to the western clerks. Certainly they should be satisfied with that. A clerk receives $800 a year, and if he resides at Port Arthur, or Fort William, or Winnipeg, or any other point west of Lake Superior, he receives an additional sum of $180 a year. Certainly they cannot ask the Post Office Department to do more. The high cost of living is recognized, and we pay accordingly. My hon. friend says that $500 to begin with is a very small salary. Now I make an appeal to his common sense and his knowledge of business. Go to the city of Toronto, or the city of Ottawa, and you will find young men 18 or 20 years of age, unmarried, fresh from school or college, having received a fairly good education, though perhaps not a - high education, and if they knock at the door of the Bank of Montreal here in Ot-tavpa, or the Bank of Ottawa, or of any insurance company, what salary will they receive? Look at a young man in the Bink of Montreal as a clerk, with a nice dress, a high collar and nice cuffs, receiving the public with a smile behind the wicket, receiving dollars, and notes, an 1 heaps of money from the public-what salary does he receive? Sometimes only $403 I have known cases in the best banks in the coun-' 282*
try where young clerks receive only $350. They consider the position' very desirable, because they learn the business, and they come in contact with the business public. How are increases given in those banks? Are they given by the hundred, or by the two hundred? According to my knowledge they receive less than that. I know many clerks in the banks, married men, who would be glad to receive after ten or fifteen years a salary of $1,500. Now take the railway mail clerk. Of course he knows what risks he has to run on the railway trains, but he accepts those risks joyfully. We generally have more applications for the position than we can fill. After a few years, if they behave well, they receive increases in salary, and are afforded chances of promotion, and pass automatically from one class to another. The best men in the service to-day, the men who are the rock bottom of the Post Office Department, are men who came in at $500 or $400 a year. Take the case of George Ross, general post office superintendent for the whole Dominion. There is a man with twelve children, a Scotchman, with a French Canadian family.


An hon. MEMBER.: No Irish?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No Irish in him except the wit, he is a very witty man. He worked his way up in the department until he became practically indispensable in the service. There is nothing to good for George Ross, in my estimation, because he knows the business from A to Z. He started at the beginning. Take the case of Mr. Gabou-ry, assistant postmaster at Montreal. There is a young man with a classical education, and who, for family reasons, accepted at first a very modest employment in the Montreal post office. He started at the beginning, and worked his way up until he became second only to Mr. Ross. Take the case of Mr. Green, the inspector in Quebec; take the case of the postmaster in Winnipeg. The best men in the west have all come from the east, because we were creating new districts in the west. They are all men who began at the very beginning, and worked their way up intelligently, courageously, until to-day they are receiving good salaries. But the clerk who has no ambition, who has no grit in him, will remain in his class, receiving his $50 increase, and will pester the minister, pester the members, both Grit and Tory, will pester the officials of the department, to get him a higher salary. Is not that a true picture of the existing evils in the service? The man who is willing to work, and fight his own way, to fight the battle of life bravely, that man will inevitably pass into the higher grades, and is bound to succeed. That is my experience.


Joseph Russell: I am afraid I have been labouring under a delusion. I have been fighting for a class of men that the Postmaster General tells us does not exist. I was not aware until now that he was getting bank clerks to work in the railway mail service. I am surprised to hear it. There is a reason why banks employ such cheap labour. The .young fellows they employ, as a rule, come from rich families whose parents can find nothing else for them to do, and who are glad to get them into some bank where they are satisfied to work for almost nothing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Take a young man out of a high school in Ontario, who has received a very good education, and if there is no favouritism, no nepotism exercised in his favour, he will go to a bank, or an insurance company, and will be glad to take a position. They are not from rich .families, far from it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They are serving an apprenticeship.


Joseph Russell: I thought I was fighting for men who had reached the age of 21 or more, who had some responsibility in life, and who probably had families to provide for, or widowed mothers, or something like that. I did not know that the department could secure railway mail clerks enough at from $300 to $500 a year. If they take them at 18 years of age and can get all they need, 1 am afraid there will not be much room for me to argue on their behalf. But, I was under the impression that a man had to be of the age of 21 years to enter the service, that he had to pass an examination, and I thought that the department would probably require a man with some responsibility about him and with some sort of matured mind to take charge of a railway mail car. I thought that the responsibility of the position called for the engagement of men instead of boys. That is the reason I look upon the salary of $500 as being far too small. I was figuring that a responsible, intelligent man should really start at $600 and work his way up. I would ask the Postmaster General if he could find it in his heart now to amend his Bill so as to make the yearly increase, if it has to be a yearly increase, $100 instead of $50 all along the line, make it $100 up to $800, or, if he can do so, amend the Bill so as to make it $100 a year increase until they get to the top of their class, and apply it to all the men in the service who are receiving more than $800 a year up to $1,400. I think that is fair. If we cannot get the whole loaf we will have to be satisfied with a half, and I suppose we will have to be satisfied with anything we can get, but I would ask the Postmaster General if he could not see his way clear to amend the Bill so as to provide that railway mail clerks shall get $100 a Mr. LEMIEUX.
year increase until they get to the top of their class, and postal clerks as well. That $100 yearly increase should be made general. When the minister considers that $50 is only 16 cents a day I think he will realize that twice 16 cents is not very much of an increase to these men who have been waiting three years for it. There is no question that if the inside service received their increase on account of the high cost of living, these other men have had to put un with the high cost of living as well. They were then entitled to an increase, and if they had received it at that time they would now have very nearly reached the top of their class. I ask the Postmaster General in all seriousness if he will not promise to make that amendment to the Act. I think I am asking only for what is fair. I am not here to boost salaries, I have the interests of the country as much at heart as anybody else, and I think I am asking for only what is iust and fair. Will you promise it, Mr. Postmaster General, if you please?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not like to make promises that cannot be implemented.


Joseph Russell: If you give your word I guarantee it will go through.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know that my hon. friend is in earnest in his request, but the resolutions that are submitted to the House represent the policy of the government. As I have explained to the committee, these Bills will follow the lines of the Civil Service Act. We cannot change these increases. They will follow the increases in salaries in the corresponding classes of the inside service.


Joseph Russell: How about the $150 flat increase to the Civil Service?


Rodolphe Lemieux: But these officers are not yet in the Civil Service. I said this afternoon that when the outside service, as is contemplated, is brought under the Civil Service Act, I can promise my hon. friend, if not a flat increase, at least a fair consideration of a flat increase, but I cannot say more than that.


Joseph Russell: While the poor fellows who are in the outside service have the benefit of a minister such as we have at the head of the postal department, I think we should take advantage of the fact and increase the scale to what is right, because I am afraid that if they come under the Civil Service Act they will get into the hands of another minister, and they will have a poor chance for advancement. Let us try and fix this up before they come under the tender mercies of this other minister. I think that would be a fair thing to do.


Mr. BEATTIE.: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: I have travelled with them day in and day out.


Thomas Beattie: If there is any truth in the statement that the life of a Pullman conductor is only ten or twelve years, I do not see how it would be possible for a railway mail clerk to get up to the maximum of his class if that time represents his working years, and I think that he should get the small increase that has been asked for on his behalf. I also think that the car should be improved. You might have that beautiful flag that I like so well painted upon the side of the car. It would be merely an act of justice to give more salary to the railway mail clerks. The railway mail clerks are a good class of men, and I am surprised at the statement that it is difficult to get good ones. I know that the railway mail clerks running in and out of London are first-class men, and I do not know where you can get better ones. The employees in the post office are not any better although those who occupy those positions are of a superior class. It should not be difficult to get good men to fill these places. I know that when the higher positions are to be filled it is not difficult to get men. They do not take men who have been in the post office service when they desire to fill these higher positions. I hope the Postmaster General will see his way clear to give these men the consideration to which they are entitled.


Mr. CAEVELL.: It is not very often that I address this House on the question of the Civil Service; in fact, I have never made any remark upon the subject, but once in my life. In my opinion there is no class of men who are paid so well as civil servants both in the inside and outside services. They are not giving anything like the service which is being given to the banks, insurance companies and commercial establishments, and I believe I am safe in saying that on the average they are receiving fifty per cent more salary than like ability and service would command in any other walk in life in Canada. Never a month goes by in this House that I do not hear members advocating an increase of salary for somebody. Why, we are granting salaries around the city of Ottawa that I am heartily glad my constituents do not know anything about. I do not send the
blue-book containing the civil list home, because I do not want them to know anything about it. I perhaps feel a little bit sore about this question. It is some time since my hon. friends have recommended people for these positions, but when the time comes, if it ever does come in their lifetime, they will find that they will not have any difficulty in getting enough people to fill these positions at the salaries provided. The only difficulty now is to weed out from the great number of applicants the proper parties. I do not know that any minister will say that he has ever found any difficulty in finding men willing to take these positions. My experience is that they will apply for these positions, and you would think that they would be happy for the rest of their lives, but it won't be three months before they are back looking for an increase of salary. I believe we are responsible for that through giving in to them too much; there seems to be no man with stamina enough to get up and say: You are overpaid now. Railway mail clerks have been receiving perhaps less for their labour than do other classes of civil servants, but I think the minister has very well met the deficiency in the resolution before t-hei House. While my hon. friend from Toronto no doubt speaks from the very best motives possible, I think he is a little unreasonable. You will find there will be no railway mail clerk resigning because he did not get a greater increase. I repeat that the civil servants of this country are paid fifty per cent more than any other class of labour of equal ability and equal service. I think we are granting clerks as much as they are entitled to. and as much as the taxpayers of Canada can afford.


Mr. EDWARDS.: It was refreshing to hear the candid remark of the Postmaster General to the effect that if a man in the service, particularly the railway mail service, were to expect advancement he must have some grit in him. However, it was not any more refreshing than to hear the member ot Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell), advocate anything in this House in the direction of lessened expenditure. That feature of the discussion this afternoon is one of the most remarkable things that has ever occurred in this House since confederation. Now, I believe there is a very great difference between a man on a railway train acting as mail clerk, and a man in the inside service or a bank clerk. We must in all fairness consider the responsibility of the position of the mail clerk, the dangers attendant on it, the long hours of labour, and the fact that for a good part of the time he is away from his family, while the inside civil servant or the bank clerk

is enjoying the comforts of home. It seems to me that the minimum salary at which railway mail clerks commence is small. I would ask the Postmaster General if the retiring age is 65 years?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are railway mail clerks who are in good health, and who are past that age limit: Under the old superannuation system, they can be superannuated when they reach the age of sixty or sixty-five, but that only applies to a few cases now. If they are in good health, they are not forced to resign.


William Cameron Edwards: A man who has been a mail clerk for twenty years, and reaches the age of sixty-five years will not in my opinion, be in very good health. He may have been robust when he entered the service, but he will have his health pretty well shaken up by the time he reaches that age. Now, what the Post Office Department should do is, when railway mail clerks attain a certain age, put them in the inside service and let younger men get out on the road. If a man has efficiently served as railway mail clerk until he reaches the age of fifty-five, he should be given a position in the inside service where he would be able to experience the comforts of home life.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is just what
happens in the service to-day.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, if a man has pull enough to get there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not a question of pull. I would be ashamed of myself if I took stock only in the pull that employees may have. The only reproach I receive is from men with pull who are disappointed in not getting what they wish. Not long ago Mr. Talbot, the Railway Mail Superintendent, at Quebec, who has been in the service for years, required assistance in his office, and I took a railway mail clerk, who had seen twenty yeaTS service, and put him in the position of Assistant Post Office Superintendant. He lost his mileage by accepting the position, and I had an order in council passed granting him the mileage he would have been entitled to had he kept his run. That man is perfectly satisfied, but other railway mail clerks, who are only thinking of the pull they could use with the minister, were very mad because I selected a gentleman who had been appointed under the old government. You cannot bluff the public that way; a man who has rendered faithful service is generally, and in my department always, first choice. I look to the men who have not simply fulfilled their duties with more or less efficiency, but men who have shown intelligence and love of their work, and I promote them, as in the case mentioned, Mr. EDWARDS.
without caring for what pull other men may have.


William Cameron Edwards: My reason for mentioning ' pull ' is because of the evidence I have in my own very county where political pull seems to be brought into play even in such a little matter as appointing a postmaster who gets $35 a year. About a week ago I called the attention of the Postmaster General to this case in my own county; the father was appointed postmaster, and for nine years his son had discharged the duties faithfully and satisfactorily, and when I asked that the son be appointed postmaster I am told that I should get a letter from the president of the Grit association of the county of Frontenae, and if I did so it would be done. Knowing the president of the Grit association, I spoke to him personally about the matter, and his reply was that it would probably take two or three weeks, as he had written to that part of the county to get the opinion of half a dozen or more people as to whether he should recommend the appointment of this man who, for nine years, had given satisfactory service, or whether he should recommend some one else.
That is the reason why it occurred to me that possibly a pull was necessary to a man to get promoted. Not only do the men who do service as mail clerks on the train have an unpleasant life, being deprived of many of the pleasures which other people have, but a comparatively small percentage of them live to say 55 years of age. It seems to me, speaking as a medical man, that their occupation must necessarily be a very unhealthy one, not only because of their cramped quarters in the mail car, but because of the constant shaking of the train, and every consideration should be given to these men. If I understand this resolution aright, the maximum salary is $1,400. This is as high as a man can expect to reach, no matter what his ability is. I do not see that a man has a great chance of making his way in the world, or is given very much encouragement at this rate. He starts at $500. and is allowed an annual increase of $100 until his salary reaches $800; that will take three years, and then he has $50 a year increase until it reaches $1,400. He will be 15 years in the service before he reaches the splendid salary of $1,400 a year, and there he stops. That is as high as he can go as far as that provision is concerned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Plus his mileage.


William Cameron Edwards: That makes a difference, but I think the minimum salary [ should be at least $600. I think the length

of time for the annual increase of $100 should be lengthened from three years -to five years at least.


Mr. CUKRIE (Simcoe).: I crave the indulgence of the committee in order that I may bring to the attention of the minister a subject to which I do not observe any reference in these resolutions. I understand that a deputation of postmasters from the towns and villages and country post offices waited on the minister last winter and urged upon him certain privileges and reforms, as well as something better in the way of remuneration. I want to emphasize my thorough accord with the request of these men. The country is indebted to the country postmaster to a very great extent, much more than to the men who are in the service in the cities. Not that I wish to make any comparisons, because comparisons are always odious; but the postmasters in the country, and in the towns and villages give services to the public for which they get no remuneration whatever from the public except their good-will, and in these days of high prices and high cost of living good-will will not go very far towards paying for a square meal or a barrel of flour. I want to urge on the Postmaster General the necessity of being more liberal in respect of the country end of his department, which I think is the largest end. I am satisfied that it is the end that gives him the most faithful service. When he is in bed sleeping the sleep of the just, the country postmaster is very often up waiting for the mail bag, and he really gets nothing for doing so. In view of the fact that the service has flourished as well as it has under the care of the present Postmaster General,.I think that a little of the surplus in his department might go to ameliorate the condition of these men. I do not wish to detain the committee at any length on the subject, but I would like to hear the views of the Postmaster General while we are discussing this resolution, so that they may be a matter of record.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I told them that any ai the postmasters who cared to see the annual report of the department might apply to the member or the minister, and he would get it. We send them the postal guide and in that they can get the information they require, but it would cost an enormous amount to distribute among 15,000 postmasters that bulky report-and for what reason? Many of them would not read it. That report contains details of expenditure which are of use to members of the House or specialists, but are not required by postmasters. However if any postmaster should require the annual report, I would be only too pleased to give it to him at his request.
My hon. friend states quite truly that the Post Office Department depends largely on the intelligence, integrity and fidelity of the rural postmasters for the service of His Majesty's mails, and I quite agree with him that in the near future we must yield to the reasonable request which they made when they came here in January last.


Mr. GOODEVE.: In my constituency there is a very large mileage, and a number of these letter carriers employed, and I cordially endorse all that has been said regarding an increase of salary to them. I was somewhat surprised at the attitude taken and the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). To say that there are other men who would be glad to take the places of these men is not an answer to the claim that they should have a fair salary. There are always men ready to take another man's place, and that is a very unfair argument for refusing to pay a fair remuneration to the holders of the office. There is scarcely any position in life, no matter how inadequate may be the salary attached to it, which you will not find outsiders ready to take. While possibly down in his portion of the country these men were receiving fair wages foT the labour they did, in our western country the cost of living is considerably higher, and that cost of living has gone up all over the country, so that what might have been a fair remuneration a number of years ago would not be at all fair to-day. I heartily endorse the argument of my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) with regard to our western country. The rapid development of that country has brought about a condition of affairs in which men are in some cases making very much more money than they could down east. It is apt to cause an unrest, an uneasiness among these men who fee1!, looking at their neighbours making larger sums of money, that their salaries look small. Therefore, it would probably tend to a better service along the lines suggested by the Postmaster General himself,- there would be an esprit de corps, men would feel that they were being recog-Mr. LEMIEUX.
nized and their good work appreciated and they would take a deeper interest in their *vork, and you would get a better class of service. I a.m glad that is the stand that is being taken, and I hope it will guide the Postmaster General in dealing with this question.


Mr. CROTHERS.: I have a suggestion to make and I make it with a pretty strong hope that it will be adopted, because I have always found the Postmaster General willing to consider any reasonable proposition, and to do anything within the bounds of reason for the benefit of the public or to remedy a wrong. I would suggest that the increase of $100 a year proposed to be given from $500 to $800, should continue until the $1,400 is reached. That would take nine years. It would seem to me a man should reach the maximum of $1,400 in nine years. I rather find myself disagreeing with some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House because I pretty fully agree with the propositions made by the Postmaster General in these resolutions. I think he is making a very fair allowance for the services rendered.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The railway mail clerks and others will be satisfied to receive the increase proposed, and as occasion may arise, as it will in the future, I will certainly consider the requests made this evening by hon. members.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Is this provision for the increases of $100 a year to $800 and $50 after that, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am glad the Postmaster General proposes to increase the salaries of the rural postmasters, but I do not think he has gone far enough, I do not know how many there are getting these very small salaries. I shall not ask anything like what the minimum salary shouid be, as it would be such a contrast, but just fancy a postmaster in a rural part of the country, in a little village where he is at the beck and call of every citizen in the neighbourhood, perhaps from six o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock at night for 312 days, getting $100. It seems a trifling sum for that service. They have been receiving only $35.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend must not forget that they receive at the same time a commission on the stamps sold, and of course many of these offices where the minimum is $35, do not earn the salary. For instance, the other day I opened an office at Bark Lake, in Arganteuil, for summer visitors. We had to advertise for the courier service and pay the courier, the office is open for four months and the postmaster receives $35 in addition to the

commission on the stamps he sells. Where a postmaster is obliged to be on his feet for ten or twelve hours a day he receives much more than $35, and of course he has the commission on the stamps, and at such an office he receives mails at night and in the day time, for which there is an extra allowance, so they are not so badly treated. We all admit the salaries at some of the little country offices are very small, because these offices must be kept open at any cost, in order to give the public newspapers and letters. I quite agree that the fact of keeping .an office open to the public, whether the postmaster is kept busy or not, should imply the payment of a decent salary, and 1 contemplate in the near future to give the rural postmasters another lift.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Will the Postmaster General give me an idea of the additional income from the sale of stamps and from other sources, where the salary is only $35?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He receives 40 per cent on the sale of stamps, and besides, receives a fuel allowance and a light allowance. Many of those small country offices afford "$500, $600 to $700 a year; it depends upon the business of the locality. But there are some offices where the business transacted does not amount yearly to $15, or even $10. But we must have an office there. Where there is a small settlement we must give them a mail service, and we pay the postmaster at least $35, plus whatever commission there is on the sale of stamps.
. Mr. CROTHERS. The minister says we must have an office, and we must have a postmaster. That postmaster becomes a public servant, and he ought to be fairly remunerated for the service he renders. Now the postmaster, at these little country offices, is at the beck and call of every one from seven in the morning until nine at night. He sells $25 worth of stamps a year, which would give him $5 additional.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And about $15 extra as an allowance for fuel and light.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That would be $60 foT 312 days. I am not speaking of these little offices that are opened for the convenience of tourists in the summer time But I am not making an unreasonable request of the Postmaster General that, instead of making the minimum $50, he make it $60. That will only give a trifle of over $1 a week extra for six days' service. I think that is reasonable.


Joseph Russell: I have to leave for home in a few minutes, and before I go I would like to make one more appeal to the Postmaster General. I know7 he would like to
see me going home happy, and if he will promise to make that increase $100 a year instead of $50, and raise the minimum from $800 to $1,400, I would go home as happy as could be, and I know that there are hundreds of mail clerks throughout the country who would also be made happy. I want to say a word with reference to something that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) said a little while ago. It is probable he has seen some of the civil servants around Ottawa when he says they do not earn their money. But I know railway mail clerks who have to leave their homes at six o'clock in the morning and hurry off to get their trains, and who don't get back home again until ten at night. I think when a man puts in that number of hours he earns his pay pretty well.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. gentleman know of railway mail clerk's in Toronto who are performing a service like this every day in the w7eek? Or is it only one day, and then he lays off for a few days?


Joseph Russell: Would the hon. member expect any man to perform that service every day in the week?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not expect it. But my hon. friend is putting that forward as an argument, and one would infer .from his argument that that was the case. I know that is not the case, because no man could stand it.


Joseph Russell: If you divide the number of hours that man puts in throughout the week, he puts in over eight hours a day every day in the week. You can't expect him to go out every day and work 16 or 18 hours in the day. One word more. Won't the Postmaster General please, please grant that little request, and make that increase $100 instead of $50? Then I will sleep happy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very sorry, but if I were to grant his request which he makes so vehemently, though it might give him a happy sleep, it would give me a nightmare.
' Before framing this Bill, I consulted even some of the railway mail clerk's. I had a visit the other day from one of the oldest of the mail clerks in the service, who declared himself perfectly satisfied with the provisions in the Bill. Why, Sir, some of the railway mail clerks, when they reach the maximum will be receiving the indemnity of a member of the House of Commons, with the mileage. Do not you think, Mr. Chairman, that it is going a little bevond the mark to insist that we should give them so much? I think they are well treated. I think to-morrow the railway mail clerks and the postal clerks will be satisfied. The work performed by a railway mail clerk, in my judgment, does not

compare with that of the letter carriers, yet the letter carriers receive only $2.75 a Jay.


Joseph Russell: They have regular hours, and the mail clerk does not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The letter carrier has to keep walking up and down the streets, he has sometimes to go up two flights of stairs, and wait at the door, in good weather or bad weather. I think their case is a stronger case than that of the mail clerk. I do not minimise the services rendered by the railway mail clerks, but when we give .them an increase of $200 over tfce maximum they have already had, they should be satisfied, and I think as a matter of fact they are satisfied.


Mr. CROSBY.: The Postmaster General told us to leave this matter to his tender mercies. In so far as the Postmaster General personally is concerned, and as long as we have to have the government opposite I am quite willing that he should hold that position. Like many other hon. members on this side of the House I was struck with the statement of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). I have often thought I would like to see the hon. member for Carleton standing on a good solid foundation, and making a good solid argument on some honest, fair case; I believe he could do himself justice. I. have heard him on a good many occasions when he has not had that advantage and he has always been able to put up a fair argument-I would like to have heard him a little over a year ago when we were passing $350,000 to distribute amongst the civil servants of Ottawa. I wonder where the hon. gentleman was on that occasion, and why he did not stand up and protest against it.
I am sure he would have given us some information on an occasion of that kind, that he would have done himself justice and that he would have had a good many admirers in this House. I have nothing to say against a man getting all he can get in so far as salary is concerned, but I must express my regret that in place of the resolution we have before us to-night we have not had presented to us a proposition to place the outside service, and particularly the railway mail clerks, under the Civil Service Act. It would be a great advantage not only to the Postmaster General himself but to the old country, and to those who are engaged in that service. I would also like to say a word in connection with the argument that has been made here tonight in favour of an increase in the allowance to postmasters. I have called the attention of the Postmaster General to the case of a postmaster who has been in the service for 43 years, who keeps a post office in which a daily mail is received, and who only gets $30 a year. No allowance is Mr. LEMIEUX
made for rent for the building. He may make something on the sale of postage stamps, but that cannot amount to very much, and I am glad to hear to-night that the Postmaster General is soon to take this matter into his consideration. I hope my friend the postmaster to whom I have referred will live long enough to be able to participate in the increase which the Postmaster General is going to give these officials. I trust the minister will be able to meet the views of my hon. friend from Elgin and make it $60 if he can. With regard to letter carriers, we have two letter carriers in the city of Halifax who had the misfortune during the early winter to slip and become disabled. I understand that these letter carriers have not been paid during the time they were idle.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend might send me'their names? Generally in these cases we pay them their time as if they had been at work provided they accompany their claim with the certificate of a doctor. The treasury board has to pass upon such claims, and the treasury board sits when it can. There is a heap of papers before the treasury board at present, and I think that these two cases are included in the recommendations which I have sent in. At all events, my hon. friend might send me their names.


Adam Brown Crosby: I will be pleased to do that. It would be nothing but fair that a medical certificate should accompany any claim of the kind. I am glad to hear that the matter is under consideration. With regard to railway mail clerks, we have the statement of the Postmaster General very definitely that the government have come to the conclusion that they could not make the minimum salary more than $500. I regret that that is the case, but I will not take up the time of the committee upon the subject, as a good many arguments have been presented from this side of the House in support of the claim that this amount should be increased. Then, some rule has been made with regard to the age of postal clerks. As a matter of fact, the Postmaster General knows that there are not very many men 18 years of age in the railway mail service. Generally we find them from 20 years up. A very strong argument could be made to show why these men should receive more than $500. Five hundred dollars means $9 a week. Reference has been made to the high cost of living in the west, but the Postmaster General is arranging for reciprocity so that things will he very cheap in the west, and the west will be helped in that regard.


George Henry Bradbury: How about reciprocity in the east?


Adam Brown Crosby: It is not going to touch us very much down there. You are looking for cheap living in the west, and you are likely to get it. While 25 or 30 years ago a young man in Halifax could get a respectable boarding house for $3.50 or $4 a week, to-day a young man cannot get board and lodging in any respectable place in any city at less than $7 a week, therefore, we have a young man starting in the railway mail service with barely enough to pay his board. Some reference was made to young men starting in banks. There is no comparison at all, because a young man goes into a bank to learn the business. He learns how to water stock, and a great many other things, and perhaps in a short time he can go out, organize a merger, make money, and become rich, whereas the poor railway mail clerk will never make a merger unless he runs one car into another, loses his ' life, and leaves a widow and children unprovided for, because he cannot save much out of 'his $9 a week. That is the condition that the railway mail clerk faces every day, whereas the other man is exposed to no danger whatever. He has cuffs and collars, and a nice tie, and he meets nice people, and if he happens to be in the ladies branch where nobody but ladies are permitted to go he has pleasure all the day long. The banks, particularly in western Canada cannot get clerks, and they are bringing young; men out from the old country and paying their passage. The other day I had the great pleasure of travelling with fifty young Irishmen who Were coming out to - the Canadian Bank of Commerce.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Nothing too good for the Irish.


Adam Brown Crosby: If there is anything good they are going to look after it. I was talking to these young men


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will they learn to water stock?


Adam Brown Crosby: If they get acquainted with my hon. friend he will be able to teach them something about that or about any other kind of stock. These young men had all their expenses paid, and they were starting at not less than $600 a year, and were learning a business besides. I am not an expert in physiognomy as I ought to be, I have learned most of what I know about it from looking at the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite, but I should say that these young men were from eighteen years to twenty-one years, and they were starting out in a far better position than young Canadians could start in the post office service of the country. The banks are taking our money from the east to the west and they are sending our young men after it, but they don't stay in the banks out
west, they go on farms and get rich and the first thing you know they are able to spend the winter in England. The reason you get good men in the east to fill these poisitions is that our farms are not very enticing, our manufacturing industries are not as great as we hope they will be, and our railway facilities are inadequate, especially in the maritime provinces, and there is lacking diversity of employment to keep our young men at home. We all know that the minimum of $500 is too small and that is admitted by the Postmaster General himself. But, now that he is proposing this resolution, he should urge on his colleagues to make the increase $100 a year until the maximum is reached. It does seem to me that with the knocking about a railway mail clerk gets on a train he has to be of pretty good stuff to live the fifteen years which entitles him to get the maximum under the proposal of the Postmaster General. When the Postmaster General spoke of a man getting promotion in the post office service if he had ' grit ' enough in him, I take it that he did not mean grit in the sense we generally understand it, and I say this in case some of my friends over here who are less scrupulous than I ,am may use that expression against the Postmaster General when the elections come around. In view of the surplus of $750,000 in the Post Office Department, the Postmaster General should not be niggardly with his employees, and I am confident that if he uses his persuasive powers on his colleagues he can get them to assent to our proposition that the increase should be $100 per annum and should not be limited to $50 after the first three years. I trust that the Postmaster General will make provision in the Bill that the railway mail clerks, instead of having an increase of $100 a year for the first three years only, will have an increase of $100 a year until they reach the maximum of $1,400.


George Henry Bradbury: I want to congratulate the Postmaster General on increasing the salaries of the smaller officers. I had the pleasure of attending the meeting held by the postmasters. of the Dominion, and at that time, if I remember rightly, I drew the attention of the Postmaster General to the special conditions that exist in western Canada. Take my own county, for instance. It is a very large county, and we have not the advantages of good roads. It is a prairie country, and in rainy seasons the roads are very muddy, and the people who come for their mail leave the post office in a condition that it is worth almost all that the postmaster gets for the week to clean it out. I would like to impress on the Postmaster General that there is a great difference between the districts in Canada regarding the remuneration

which a postmaster ought to get. In many cases it is a great sacrifice on the part of these people to keep the post office. The remuneration of the country postmasters in the country west of the lakes really ought to be more than $50 a year, though I appreciate the action of the Postmaster General in increasing it to that amount.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not to $50, but to $35.
Mr. BRADBURY Well, I am disappointed, because I understood that this Bill was to increase it to $50. I felt satisfied that those representing the postmasters of the Dominion had made a good case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I stated a moment ago that I was considering the question. It would not come under this Bill, because the postmasters do not come under the Civil Service Act.


George Henry Bradbury: Perhaps it will suit my purpose to leave the question open, as it will give the Postmaster General an opportunity to deal with that phase of it which I am bringing to his attention. In addition to what I have said, a postmaster who keeps an office in an isolated situation in the province of Manitoba often has to entertain his neighbours who come to get their mail about meal time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may say to my hon. friend that since I had that interview with the Association of Postmasters, and the members of the House, I have started to prepare a scale which the House may know of before the session is over.


George Henry Bradbury: The postmasters also brought before the Postmaster General the question of supplies for the country post offices. That is a very small request. There are more supplies wasted here during the session than would perhaps supply half the post offices in Canada. I think the minister should provide supplies of that kind to the post offices, especially those that deal with registered letters, and things of that kind.


William Cameron Edwards: I regret that I cannot see my way clear to add to the floral tributes which haye been handed to the Postmaster General to-night, because I do not think the Post Office Department has any right to have a surplus of three-quarters of a million. I do not think there is any credit due to the head of that department for having such a surplus. Every cent of it comes directly out of the people, and should go back to the people in more efficient mail service. Therefore, I do not feel like throwing bouquets so long as there are people in my constituency, as the Postmaster General knows very well there are, who have to travel 5, 6, 7 or 8 miles for their mail. When the Postmaster General Mr. BRADBURY
raises the salaries of the country postmasters I will throw .my bouquets, but it is a little soon to do it now. The country people of Ontario are not getting a fair share of the post office revenue, and so long as that state of things exists, and people have to go down on their knees and beg facilities which should he granted to them, without a moment's hesitation, and when there is a large surplus in the treasury, every member who represents a rural constituency should rise and make his protest.


Air. SEXSAIITH.: I agree with my hon. friend from Frontenac that while we have a surplus of three-quarters of a million dollars many of the rural parts of Ontario are getting very poor service. In my riding there are places where there is a mail only every other day, and other places where there is a mail only twice a week. I made application for a daily mail, and I had good reason to believe that the hon. Postmaster General, was going to grant it, but apparently there was not revenue enough to pay for the service, and we did not get 'it. If we are establishing rural mail delivery in many places, there are. many others which are badly neglected; and if we have the money, there is no reason why 'we should not give the people better mail service. Another subject which my hon. friend from Elgin (Air. Crothers) spoke of was the poorly paid postmasters in the rural .parts of Ontario. $50 is absolutely nothing. In many offices, it will not pay to sweep them out. The minister says that while $35 is the minimum, the postmaster has a commission on the stamps he sells. But many of these offices where 'they serve many people with their mails, have a very small sale of stamps. In my county there are a couple of offices which are four miles from the village and which, while they handle the mails of four or five father offices for the accommodation of the people, have a very small sale of Stamps because the people buy them in the village. I think $60 surely should be the .minimum paid for any post office in the country. There is no reason why we should ask any one to keep a room for the postal accommodation of the people for less than that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sure the Postmaster General can see that the best way out of the difficulty with the country postmasters is to increase rural free mail delivery. I am sure he will take into consideration the increase from $800 up to $1,400 at possibly $100 per year until the limit is reached if the Civil Service Act will allow it. Would he say when we are likely to have the railway mail clerks and those in the city post offices come under the Civil Service Act? Judging from the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton (Air. Carvell) and the

minister himself, I would conclude that there are plenty of applicants; and if these applicants come under the Civil Service Commission, I am satisfied that the Postmaster General will be rid of a great deal of trouble anl have no difficulty in obtaining employees.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I could not tell exactly when the outside service in the larger post offices, such as Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec and Winnipeg will come under the Civil Service Act. In my judgment we should bring them under it as early as possible, and that is the view shared 'by other members of the government and of the House. But there are difficulties in the way which will have to be overcome. I hope that within a year or so I shall be able to nut these large offices under the operation of the Civil Service Act.


Air. KIDD.: I quite agree with the hon. member for Frontenac, that when we have such a large surplus we should change in many places our mail delivery, and have the mails delivered twice a week or three times a week instead of once. There is nothing to boast of in a large surplus when we have such inefficient service, especially in the rural districts. Really $35 a year is scarcely sufficient to pay for cleaning out the post office room. The amount should be at least $100 or $2 a week. I have an application from the county of Carleton for a small section of rural mail delivery Which I trust the minister will take into consideration and deal with favourably.


David Henderson: I simply rise to say that I heartily endorse an increase for the small offices. I quite understand that the Postmaster General has in his mind to do something for these offices and purposes at an early date bringing the minimum up to $50. This country is big enough and rich enough to pay that. There is no reason why people living in the country should keep their houses open for the accommodation of their neighbours for the small sum of $50 and, perhaps, the minister's generosity will add something to that. I leave it in his hands and have no doubt he will be as fair as he can. With regard to railway mail clerks, they are, perhaps, entitled to more consideration than any other class in the service, owing to the more hazardous nature of their employment. I believe the Postmaster General has that idea fairly in his mind and is keeping that in view in arranging their salaries. With regard to the letter carriers, they are a class whom we do not have in my county, beyond a few rural mail deliveries which I believe are working very successfully. I am sorry that that system has not been further extended, but still I have no hesitation in expressing my opinion that the mail carriers are fairly
well paid. We hear a great' deal about the increased cost of living, particularly in the west, but it would be more accurate to speak of the increased extravagance of the people, and if we did that we would not have so many applications for increases in salary. The increased cost of living was one of those things that came about the time the Liberals came into power and a great deal is made of it. I trust that the Postmaster General will do justice, particularly to the smaller post offices; but there is a middle class of post offices in towns with a population of 1,200 or 2,000. In these the public are much more exacting than they were 20 or 25 years ago. For instance, if a postmaster were now to lock up the post office and go to dinner, as they used to do, the Postmaster General 'would probably receive a wire complaining of that, so that the postmaster is obliged to employ more help and more efficient help and he needs more revenue to do that. I hope the Postmaster General will do his best to assist this class of postmasters.
Mr. LEA1IEUX. Hear, hear.


Austin Levi Fraser: The rural mail delivery system can be operated most properly and successfully in Prince Edward Island because that province is much more thickly settled in proportion to its area than any other in Canada, and I hope if this system is generally inaugurated we will have our full share of it. I also think the salaries to the rural postmasters are too small, the minimum should be increased from $35 to $50.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Air. LEA1IEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 216) to amend the Post Office Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act by:
(a)	changing the classification of the clerks in the city post offices, offices of the post office inspectors, office of superintendent of railway mail service, and in the money order and exchange offices by abolishing the stampers and sorters class and fourth class clerkships, and substituting therefor third class clerkships, ranging from $500 to $1,000, and divided into two classes known as third class 'A' and 'B';
(b)	abolishing the junior and senior second class clerkships and substituting therefor classes 'A' and 'B' of the second class, and increasing the maximum of the class formerly known as junior second, and now known
1 as class 'B,' to $1,200, and increasing the maxi-
[Stage Direction]
mum of class 'A/ corresponding with the former senior class, to $1,400;
(c)	dividing the first class clerkships into divisions 'A' and 'B' with maximum salaries of $1,800 and $1,000, respectively, and increasing the minimum of the first class clerkships from $1,200 to $1,400, and creating a new class of clerks, to be known as chief clerks in the city post offices, subject to certain restrictions ;
(d)	improving the position of office superintendents in city post offices, and changing what was formerly a fixed salary of $1,800 to a mininfum of $1,800 and a maximum of $2,500;
(e)	providing for the employment of temporary clerks in the above-named offices for a period of not more than one year, at a fixed salary of $500, and temporary helpers to meet the exigencies of the service, at a salary not exceeding $2.50 a day;
(f)	increasing the salaries of certain inspectors, assistant inspectors and superintendents of railway mail service in recognition of years of service.-Mr. Lemieux.
Rodolphe Lemieux: We have discussed the two resolutions concurrently, but one is to amend the Civil Service Act, and the other to amend the Post Office Act.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 217) to amend the Civil Service Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 15, 1911.