PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, respecting the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec.-Mr. Charters.
Bill No. 21, to incorporate Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 22, respecting Montreal, Joliette and Transcontinental Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Gervais.
Bill No. 23, respecting Prudential Trust Company, Limited.-Mr. Mitchell.
Bill No. 24, respecting The Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.-Mr. Mitchell.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Ouimet be substituted for that of Mr. Papineau on the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills ;
That the name of Mr. Kyte be substituted for that of Mr. Gordon on the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections;
That the name of Mr. Stork be substituted for that of Mr. McKenzie on the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries;
That the name of Mr. Macdonald (Pictou) be substituted for that of Mr. Gordon on the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce ;
That the name of Mr. Copp be substituted for that of Mr. Robinson on the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Printing of Parliament, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith ;
That the name of Mr. Robinson be substituted for that of Mr. Stork, and the name of Mr. Ouimet for that of Mr. Turgeon on the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization ;
That the name of Mr. King (Kootenay) be substituted for that of Mr. Gordon on the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and on the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Waterways and Waterpowers;
That the name of Mr. Ouimet be substituted for that of Mr. Kyte on the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25 to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: This bill is to amend two sections of the Penitentiary Act in order to permit prisoners suffering from infectious diseases to be returned from the penitentiaries to the provincial authorities for treatment. The amendment is being made at the request of the provincial authorities, who are in doubt as to their power in the matter.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Judges Act



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask, partly for my own benefit and partly for the benefit of those who, like myself, live at a considerable distance from Ottawa, when the Easter adjournment will take place and for how long.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The custom in previous years has been to adjourn on the Wednesday prior to Good Friday until the following Tuesday. Unless there is desire on the part of the House for some other arrangement, it is the intention of the Government to follow that custom. However, the Government would like to consult the wishes of hon. members in the matter.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 19, to amend the Judges Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-puisne judges of Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan increased from 3 to 4:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What is
struck out by this amendment?


Lomer Gouin: One clause is repealed and replaced by another. It is simply providing for four judges instead of three.


Mr. CRERAR:: That is the only change?


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


Mr. CHURCH:: I have no desire to
oppose this (bill, but I wish to point out that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country with regard to judges of the High Court leaving their judicial duties for the purpose of serving on provincial commissions. The matter has been the subject of discussion by the Bar Associations of some of the provinces. The judiciary of Canada have always been on a high plane and have commanded the respect of everybody, and it would be well if the minister would lay down a policy under which judges of the High Court might not serve on these political commissions. In fact, an act was passed a few years ago prohibiting them

from doing so. It is not in the interests of the Bench; it is not in the interests of the judicial business of the province. The practice to which I refer has prevailed not only in Ontario but in various parts of the West and the East. In Ontario three judges of the High Court have been leaving their judicial duties during several months in the year to serve on these commissions. Before we pass this bill the minister should give us an assurance that without the addition proposed the number of judges in Saskatchewan would be insufficient. If three judges in Ontario can leave their judicial duties for four or five months in the year, it means that there are too many High Court judges in that province, and the same thing may apply to Saskatchewan and other parts of the country. This practice must stop if the confidence of the people in the judiciary is to be maintained. I trust that the minister will see that the act passed a few years ago with regard to the matter is enforced.


Lomer Gouin: The law which my hon. friend refers to has been enforced, and it is our intention to have it enforced in the future.


Mr. BAXTER:: When this matter was before the Committee the other day I expressed the view that there was some disparity between the members of the judiciary in Saskatchewan and those in the other western provinces. On looking up the number of judges provided for in the Estimates I find that I was quite right. In Manitoba, which is very populous and wealthy and must have more legal business than some of the other provinces, there are eleven judges in all,-the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal and four judges; the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench and five judges. In British Columbia there is a Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal and four judges; a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and five judges, a total of eleven. In Alberta there is a Chief Justice and four justices of the peace; a Chief Justice of the Trial Division and five justices, a total of eleven. At present in Saskatchewan there is a Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal and three judges; a Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench and six judges, a total of eleven. Now, the western provinces have each the same number of judges, though they are not distributed in the same way as between the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division. It is now sought to add another judge in Saskatchewan; and I would like to ask the

National Defence
54 7
Government and the House how long it will be before Saskatchewan will be taken as the measure and a judge added to each of the other western provinces. It seems to me that it is making in that direction. I suggested the other day that it was only necessary for Saskatchewan, if the division was not satisfactory, to increase the number of its Appellate Division, and reduce that of the Trial Division, by one. They would thus be able to adjust the present judiciary to the actual work of the province. I had investigated the reports very cursorily, but I examined them with a little more attention later, and I found that I had greatly overestimated the number of cases coming before the Court of Appeal in Saskatchewan. In fact, ninety was the total in one volume of the reports, covering a year,-much less than I had thought. The Trial Division reports are put in with those of the Appeal Division and it makes it look like quite a large volume. I assume, however, that the excuse for this legislation is to be found in the newspaper reports, which indicate that the appointment of a gentleman as judge in that province has already been decided upon. In view of the political outlook in Saskatchewan, I suppose it is extremely ' necessary to provide for some one; therefore the country must pay an additional $9,000 each year for something that is not needed, except to support an appointee of the Government who might not be as politically fortunate, as his friends in this House have been.


Lomer Gouin: We are informed by the legislature of Saskatchewan that the appointment is necessary. I have not heard any such rumour as my hon. friend has mentioned.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The hon. gentleman does not read the papers.


Lomer Gouin: Well, I do not read all of them. The hon. member must himself admit that a tribunal consisting of four judges is not sufficient to carry on the work in that province. No additional judges in the Trial Division are needed. As I stated the other day when the resolution was before the Committee, we are merely supplementing the legislation of Saskatchewan. We have been advised by hon. members of this House that the cases before the Court of Appeal in that province are so numerous that a large number are in arrears. I think this is a sufficient answer to my hon. friend's representations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, respecting the Department of National Defence.
Hugh Guthrie: I rise to a point of order in regard to this bill. I sumbit that this is a bill which seeks to impose a public charge -it certainly does by clause 5-and that it should therefore come before the House in the usual way by resolution after the assent of His Excellency has been obtained. I think it is Rule 77 that covers the case. The practice we have always followed should be followed now, I submit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend will find that the purpose of this bill is to reduce the public charge. So far from the bill proposing any extra charge on the country, its effect will be to reduce very considerably the present charge.


Hugh Guthrie: My point is this: This bill proposes a charge upon the people of this country. It is in regard to pensions, and gives the Governor in Council power to increase the pensions now allowed by law by adding from one to three years in the computation of the time, thereby largely increasing the amount the country will have to pay. That charge is being imposed for the first time, and I therefore submit that the bill comes within Rule 77 and should be preceded by a resolution.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia): As a matter of fact, I imagine, this bill will not impose any additional financial burdens on the country, but will rather lessen those burdens, although they may be carried under another name. This bill was submitted to the Parliamentary Counsel and declared not to be a money bill. He was strong on that point, before I introduced the bill in this way. However, if the hon. gentleman wishes to delay the bill, I am willing to bring down a resolution, but, of course, it will delay the beginning of the reorganization that much longer.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Marcil, Bonaventure) :: Does the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) press his objection?
Supply-Labour


Hugh Guthrie: I am not strongly insisting, but I do think that the rule should be followed, or a precedent may be set up that will be invoked later.


Charles Marcil: Rule 77 clearly provides that money bills must be preceded by a resolution.


Mr. GRAHAM:: My hon. friend will appreciate that I have postponed this bill for a good many days at his request, and now he is the first to object to our going on with it. I maintain that this is not a money bill, but in order that there may be no question I will withdraw my motion for the second reading, and proceed by way of resolution.
Motion withdrawn.
On the motion of Mr. Graham, the Order was discharged.

The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Civil Government-Department of Labour-* Salaries, $258,755 ; contingencies, $45,500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At a previous sitting I asked the minister for information as to the amount of money expended last year on account of the forty-two temporary employees. Perhaps he could now give that information.


Mr. MURDOCK:: I have here a list of the forty-two temporary clerks in the Department of Labour when I assumed charge of that office, most of whom, indeed, I think all of them except one, are still there. I will read the list:
No.	Position and Date of	Salary
Appointment.	per annum
1 Clerk-Stenographer, March 9, 1921... $	960
1 Clerk-Stenographer, April 20, 1920 . ..	600
1 Clerk-Stenographer, October 15, 1920.	600
1 Clerk-Stenographer, August 25, 1920..	600
1 'Clerk-Stenographer, August 11, 1920..	600
1 Clerk-Stenographer, October 6, 1920...	600
1 Office boy, February 13, 1920	 300
1 Statistical Clerk, April 27, 1921	 960
1 Statistical Clerk, May 21, 1921	 960
1 Statistical Clerk, January 12, 1921....	960
1 Office Appliance Operator, Gr. 2, February 16, 1921	 840
1 Office Appliance Operator, Gr. 2, June
8, 1920	 840
1 Office Appliance Operator, May 11, 1920	840
1 Junior Statistical Clerk, June 25, 1921	600
1 Clerk-Stenographer (Winnipeg), October 17, 1921	 960
1 Clerk-Stenographer (Winnipeg), December 9, 1920	 900
1 Clerk-Stenographer (Winnipeg), November 1, 1920	 990
No.	Position and Date of	Salary
Appointment	per annum
1 Clerk-Stenographer (Ottawa), March
4, 1921		 960
1 Statistical Clerk (Ottawa), April 28,
1920		 1,320
1 Statistical Clerk, May 19, 1920	 600
1 Statistical Clerk, April 17, 1920	 600
1 Clerk Typist, November 24, 1921...	600
1 Clerk-Stenographer, November 16, 1921	960
1 Clerk-Stenographer, December 5, 1921	600
1 'Senior Clerk-IBookkeeper, January 8,
1921	  1,380
1 Steno.-Bookkeeper, May 17, 1920 ....	1,020
1 Messenger Clerk, March 16, 1921 . .	600
1 Office Appliance Operator, Grade 3,
June 30, 1920	 1,080
1 Clerk-Stenographer, April 16, 1921 . .	960
1 Clerk-Stenographer, March 10, 1920 ..	600
1 Junior Clerk, September 9, 1920	 600
1 Statistical Clerk, August 18, 1920..	960
1 Junior Clerk, March 8, 1920	 600
1 Junior Clerk Stenographer, December
6, 1920	 600
1 Clerk-Stenographer, August 7, 1920..	960
1 Clerk-Stenographer, October 1,	1920	960
1 Private Secretary, January 9, 1922..	2,400
1 Confidential Messenger, September 11,
1920		 960
1 Clerk-Stenographer (Vancouver), September 16, 1921	  960
1 Junior Clerk-iStenographer (Calgary),
June 13, 1921	$ 900
1 Investigator (Ottawa), February 4,
1921		 3,000
1 Investigator (Montreal), January 1,
1919	$15 per day (when employed)
The appointment of private secretary was made after I took office. The confidential messenger was a temporary employee in the office when I came there, the date of his appointment being as specified. He was made the confidential messenger of the minister with the specified increase in salary whatever it amounts to-I think it is some $300 a year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the total?


James Murdock: I am sorry to say the figures have not been totalled but I can very readily make the count.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Never mind, we can get that information later. My hon. friend pointed out the manner in which the increases were made but what I want to find out from him, irrespective of that, is this: Are any of these salaries too high, and if so what are they?


James Murdock: It would be entirely
unbecoming, under the existing condition of the law, for the Minister of Labour to even hazard a view as to the consistency of wage rates now in effect with respect to the various classes of civil service as established and maintained by the Civil Service Commission, a body appointed

Supply-Labour
under the preceding government. While, no doubt, I might hold certain definite views in regard to these matters, it would appear to me as being entirely unbecoming that I should be called upon to express my individual opinion on the subject at this time, especially when I have no jurisdiction whatsoever over this question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would have thought that the minister responsible for these payments would be able to give the Committee an idea as to whether the payments ought to be made or not. After all, he is the minister who has chiefly to do with the wage scales of the country, and kindred subjects. He is held to be an authority on what are considered fair wages and what rates ought to be paid in the respective cases, and surely we ought to be able to appeal with confidence to him for information as to whether, in these or other cases, the salaries we are paying are too high or too low.


James Murdock: If the House in its
wisdom should later assign to me the duty of determining what should be a consistent and proper wage rate for the various civil servants I should then consider I would have an absolute right to answer the question of my hon. friend. At present it would not be fair-and I am sure my hon. friend does not want to put me in such a position-to ask me to express my opinion as to any individual rate paid, because these rates are established by the Civil Service Commission, an heirloom of which has been bequeathed to us from the previous government, and whose recommendations we are now following.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If there is
such an "heirloom", and it is bad in its character, I do not know why the minister does not puncture that heirloom, unless it is from any false sense of modesty, a sentiment I would not have ascribed to him. Now what I am asking is this:	My hon.
friend said, in connection with these estimates that there were large increases made in a particular way for particular reasons. I know my hon. friend is not in charge of all the other departments, nor is he sitting in general judgment upon the Civil Service Commission, but he is in control of his own department and he knows what kind of work the different members of his staff have to do. There is no use in talking about these things in generalities; there is not a bit of good in ministers coming here and saying "We have got big votes but it is the Civil Service Commission
that is responsible". The thing they can say, and they will help us by saying it, is "In our department we know the work that is carried on and we ought only to ask for so much money for this man or that man". If the minister has not considered that view of the subject he ought to do so before these estimates are passed.


James Murdock: I think I appreciate
fully what my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) would like to get me to do, but he has not a chance on earth of inducing me to meet his wishes. I will, however, go in the direction of meeting the hon. member's desires by expressing this view: A few days ago a deputation waited on me in this city and said they represented some forty-five returned soldiers who have been discharged as physically fit under D.S.C.R. regulations. These men I was told-all of them under civil service regulations, and most of them married-were being required to work for $720 a year. I will express to my hon. friend the belief that a man cannot in decency, in this Canada of ours under the existing conditions, maintain a family as Canadians should, live on $720 a year. Of course it must be admitted that at the present time there is a bonus attached to that salary. I do not know what the result is going to be in that respect, but if my hon. friend wants to get my view on any question affecting the existing salaries that is the only opinion I would care to express. As regards the individual employees in my department, my hon. friend flatters me when he even suggests that I have even been able as yet to get a line upon the work of every individual employee. I find there have not been sufficient hours in the day during the past three months for me to accomplish anything of the kind. However, I hope that, if I continue in my present position, when I again come to this House with estimates I shall have a better grasp of the situation in that regard. I hope to know if the various employees in the department are worth the amount of this country's money that is being paid to them for the duties they are called upon to perform, ibut at the present time I doubt my ability to give you any detailed information as to whether any or all of the employees in the department are overpaid or underpaid.


Mr. MARTELL:: Is it not a fact that the employees of the Labour Department, as well as all the employees in all other departments in the inside civil service, have
Supply-Labour

to receive a certain salary until they get to the maximum, whether you want to give it to them or not, or whether they are worth it or not?


James Murdock: The hon. gentleman is absolutely correct.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I feel very diffident in disagreeing with so final a pronouncement from the last court of appeal as that just given by the Minister of Labour, but I am compelled to. He tells this House that, r.o matter what may be the will of the Government, or of this Parliament, these men must get the salaries set opposite their names because the Civil Service Commission says so.


James Murdock: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, if he understood me to say that, I can only say that I did not intend to convey any such impression.


Arthur Meighen: What did the hon. minister say?


James Murdock: I understood the hon. gentleman from Hants (Mr. Martell) to ask me if it was not a fact that these salaries rnd the increases in the salaries were set forth, and that I was compelled to pay them, whether I wanted to or not. I answered, yes. The Civil Service regulations so far as I know-and I have some things to learn yet-provide for just that, no more and no less. I am not dealing with what this House can do.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see very much difference between what the hon. minister says and what I ascribed to him, but he will not get out of responsibility in that way.


James Murdock: I do not want to.


Arthur Meighen: And I do not want the hon. gentleman to get out of the responsibility, although he has been trying hard to. The Civil Service Commission has a duty under the act. That duty is to define the duties and to allocate the salary that is in their view commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of each office. With that duty they are intrusted by the Civil Service Act. But no civil servant has a right at all to any salary until this House passes upon it and decides that it is a proper one. And when the minister comes to this House with his estimates, he says: Those are the salaries that I think right, and I ask this House to vote them. That is his responsibility.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Fine hair-splitting.


Arthur Meighen: It is not the hon. gentleman's hair I am trying to split, my idea is to get it into his head.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you, teacher.


Arthur Meighen: If I only had his hair to deal with, it would be an easier task.


Mr. McMASTER:: That is the barber's business.


Arthur Meighen: When a minister conies to Parliament he takes his responsibility for the fairness of the salaries. He is in a position to say, "The Civil Service Commission recommends these salaries, they believe they are fair and right, and I have behind me their support.'' But he cannot say, "I am bound to put these salaries in the Estimates because that is the view of tlie Civil Service Commission"-not at all. He may come to Parliament as a new minister and say, "I have the Civil Service Commission's recommendation of this schedule as a fair one. I do not understand the department fully. I have not had an opportunity of reviewing the duties of office, and, therefore, I do not feel justified in coming to the House and asking for an alteration." There might be some reason in that, but if he comes to the House and says, "I have no responsibility in this matter at all, the Civil Service Commission has done it, and that is an end of it", what is the good of coming to Parliament at all? Are we here merely to put our imprimatur upon what the Civil Service Commission says? Not at all. The minister's responsibility is that he recommends these salaries to this committee, each and every one of them, and he cannot escape that responsibility. He may appeal to the Committee not to ask him to take the responsibility of modifying any of these estimates because of his inexperience in the department. It will be for the committee to decide the value of that plea. But do not let him come here and repeat over and over again that he has not the responsibility; because he has.


James Murdock: Will the hon. member state when and where I said I had no responsibility?


Arthur Meighen: I do not need to, because the Committee heard the hon. gentleman.


James Murdock: Will the hon. gentleman please not misquote me to this House. I will assume full responsibility now and ever.
Supply -Labour


Arthur Meighen: I think I have gone far enough.


James Murdock: I think so.


Arthur Meighen: The minister now says he has the responsibility, but I am sure no one in this House ever thought that he admitted the responsibility until he got up the last time. If the hon. minister came to Parliament and struck twenty per cent off each of those salaries, the reduced amount would be all the civil servants would receive, and there would be no violation of any law whatever.


George Perry Graham: The Civil Service Act.


Mr. HOEY:: As a new member, I would like to know if it has been customary in the past to change the schedules as brought down.


Arthur Meighen: They have been
changed. The government come to Parliament and say "We recommend salaries which the Civil Service Commission recommended to us. We accept them and take the responsibility to ask Parliament to pass them. We think they are right."


James Murdock: Would the hon. gentleman answer me one question: Has the matter ever been handled, in the case of one individual, as the hon. gentleman indicates? If I thought for a moment of doing what the right hon. gentleman, no doubt, would like to have me do, would it not be necessary for the entire schedule and every salary in the classification so dealt with to go back to the Civil Service Commission for re-arrangement and re-classification before being submitted here?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. If the hon. minister feels that he would be right in recommending to this House the reduction of $1,000 in any one salary, then the action of this House is final, and the reduced amount would be all that the official affected could receive. The minister would take the responsibility of doing so, out of line with the classification of the commission, but his decision, supported by this House, would be final. Suppose, for example, a motion were made to reduce the salary of any one, and that motion carried, that would prevail. The hon. gentleman would have to take the responsibility of saying whether he thought it should be reduced or not, acquiescing in the motion or not, but whatever the decision of the House is on these Estimates, that fixes the salary to [be paid.


James Murdock: Do I get an answer to my first question?


Arthur Meighen: That is, if it was ever done.


James Murdock: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Why, certainly it has been done. Votes have been struck out and votes reduced. But the Government asks for a certain vote. That is a Government motion, and, if it is not carried, the Government itself on that vote is defeated. If the hon. minister wants to stand by his estimates, let him do so, but it is his responsibility to stand by them. Do not let him lead hon. gentlemen to believe that he is powerless to reduce his estimates, because he is not powerless by any means.


James Murdock: Will the hon. gentleman answer my question?


Arthur Meighen: What is the question?


James Murdock: The question is-can the right hon. gentleman indicate to me one individual case of a civil service regulation where this House ever assumed the authority or taken the unquestioned authority to reduce a salary specified by the Civil Service Commission as equitable for a classified position? I want to know of one concrete case, and as a youthful person, inexperienced in a parliamentary way, surely, if there is going to be criticism, I am entitled to that.


Arthur Meighen: What the hon. gentleman asks is this-Has there ever been a case where a Government, coming in with its Estimates, which followed the Civil Service classification, has had the estimate of a salary reduced?


James Murdock: That is not what I asked at all-a Government coming in. My question was whether it had happened in the past.
Mr .MEIGHEN: That is the case. The Government comes in with its Estimates, and the Government's Estimates, the hon. gentleman says, are supported by the Civil Service Commission and in accordance with the classication. I do not know of a case where the Government did not stand by them, or where the salary of a single man was reduced; but that was because the House supported the Government; the House never sought to evade its responsibility, never in the world, until the hon. gentleman came into office.


Mr. BELAND:: Has the right hon. gentleman any recollection of the ordinary in-
Supply-Labour

crease provided for by the classification being challenged on the floor of the House by any hon. member?


Arthur Meighen: I was not able to attend to the Estimates very carefully when I was Prime Minister, but I am told by hon. gentlemen around me that last session motions were made to reduce salaries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not on Civil Government. I should like my right hon. friend to point out a case.


Arthur Meighen: Cannot such a motion be entertained?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
the point. My right hon. friend has made the statement that last session it was done.


Arthur Meighen: I said that I was informed it was done. I do not know of any case where, on a Government coming in with its Estimates, there was a reduction in the Civil Government Estimates, if an estimate had behind it the Civil Service classification. But the Government is responsible for presenting its Estimates; the Government can recommend to the House reductions. If an hon. member moves that the salary of any civil servant be reduced, the Government can accept the reduction, and that fixes the salary of the man. That is what I am concerned to have the members of the committee understand. Does the hon. gentleman say that that is not right?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is perfectly right in making the statement in the form in which he is now presenting it. Certainly, as I have listened to what he has been saying, he has been endeavouring to convey a wholly different impression of what the minister had in mind when speaking of his responsibility. Let me put the matter to the House in a way that, I think, will make per-
4 p.m. fectly clear what the minister is seeking to demonstrate. The present Government comes into office and finds certain salaries attached to certain positions. It finds that thpse positions have been graded by the Civil Service Commission; that the previous government has asked for certain sums of money, and that Parliament has appropriated those sums for the particular positions mentioned in the Estimates. The minister, when he is about to prepare his estimates for Parliament, calls in the permanent head of the department, his deputy minister, and he asks him to state what, in his opinion, are
[Mr. Bfiland.l
the estimates required to carry on the work of the department. The deputy minister presents his estimates. The minister asks him: "Are there any increases here other than those which are required by statute? Are there any new appointments? Has any clerk been given a promotion which he should not have received or which he is not entitled to? Eplain the estimates in that way." The deputy minister then makes his statement, informing the minister that the estimates are entirely in accord with what they have been in the previous year; that the only increases are those that are required by statute, and that all have been approved by the Civil Service Commission. The minister may take one of two courses. He may say: "I am anxious to keep this whole matter out of Parliament. I am desirous of having the Civil Service feel a sense of security, knowing that there will be no interference on the part of the Government or the minister. Therefore, I will come to Parliament with the estimates exactly as they have been prepared and presented to me by my deputy minister." That is what my hon. friend is doing >
at the present time. On the other hand, he may take the opposite course. He may say: "I am minister of the department now; I am going to look into the salaries; I am going to cut down so many clerks, promote other clerks, ignore the Civil Service Commission altogether. I am master of this particular department at the present time, and I propose to exercise my authority in that way." That is the kind of responsibility that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) has refused to exercise. As my right hon. friend says, he as the minister has the power, but to exercise it is to begin to interfere from a political point of view, and that is what hon. members on this side and members of the Government have refused to do. They have sought to respect the Civil Service as being outside of politics altogether, and, in the Estimates which they bring before the House, to be governed by the recommendations of the permanent heads of departments who know the service, and by the approval of the Civil Service Commission. My hon. friend has stated that, during the course of the year, once the ministry has been in office for a time, opportunity will be afforded to the different ministers to see whether there is a necessity for retaining in some of the departments the large number of clerks who are there at the present time. Up to the present, no minister has had the opportunity to become fully acquainted

Supply-Labour
with his department. But at this moment, to strike out of the Estimates some sums which may be necessary for clerks who are there at the present time, might be to do a great injustice to many members of the Civil Service. All we are asking is that Parliament vote what it voted in previous years, plus the regular statutory increases, and allow the ministers time to look through their departments; and when we meet Parliament again, or before we meet Parliament again, if some of those services are overmanned they will be reduced and the money will not be taken out of the public treasury. But there is a great deal of difference between a minister saying: "I will not take the responsibility of interfering with the recommendations of my deputy head, those recommendations having been approved by the Civil Service Commission," and one saying: "I do not take any responsibility at all."


Arthur Meighen: I take no exception to
any sentence of the hon. member; what he has said is precisely the truth that I was trying to express myself; but it is precisely the responsibility that the language, if not the intent, of the minister was designed to make the country believe he did not have.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: He has that responsibility. It is true, if he takes this man and that man and reduces their salaries and recommends those reductions to the committee, he might be charged with favouritism, with politics. That is what the Prime Minister fears. But the responsibility is the minister's. I would suggest to him that if he really favours reduction and does not want to be charged with favouritism or politics, there is another way in which he can act. He can come to the committee and recommend a reduction of ten or twenty per cent all along the line. That is quite within his power; the responsibility of the recommendation is his; the responsibility of the decision is his and this committee's for every salary in the list. I am ready to accept the minister's plea that he has not sufficient knowledge of his department to convince him whether there are too many clerkships or not, whether the salaries are too high or not; but I cannot help making this reflection, that hon. members, before the last election, had much greater knowledge of those departments than they have now. Before the last election we heard all sorts of talk about the "barnacles of the civil service". Why, the Civil Service was cluttered and clogged,
and you could not get through, and salaries were too high, and all the rest of it! They had their information sufficient to warrant them in making these assertions broadcast. Yet, three months and more after they have taken office, almost four months after the election, they do not know enough about the departments to make any changes at all. If they know less now than they knew three months ago, how much less will they know a year from now? The progress of ignorance seems to be rapid. I accept the hon. gentleman's argument that he has not been in the department long enough to find out whether it is overmanned or overpaid. Nevertheless this is not the only respect in which the loud-sounding phrases of the manifesto fell down in realization.


Mr. JACOBS:: You cannot forget them.


George Perry Graham: The Lord loveth a cheerful giver;-and the public love a cheerful loser. My right hon. friend seems to take every opportunity-


Arthur Meighen: Don't flatter me.


George Perry Graham: I do not have to; it shows for itself. My right hon. friend seems to take every opportunity to show his vinegary disposition. It was not always so; he was usually good.


Arthur Meighen: Just cold water.


George Perry Graham: Then he comes to the rescue of his friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), just as if he had not said enough. If it had not been for the remarks of the Prime Minister, I leave it to hon. members to say whether they would not have been misled by the statement of the right hon. leader of the Opposition. He implied that it was in the discretion of the Minister of Labour to move the reduction of the salaries of civil servants that had been fixed by the Civil Service Commission, and that that would do no harm. Why, it* would practically repeal the Civil Service Act to that extent, because the act provides, in effect, that these salaries shall not be left to the minister to fix, nor shall the appointments be left to him to make, but that both the appointments shall be made and the salaries fixed by the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Meighen: Subject to the approval of Parliament.


George Perry Graham: Subject to the approval of Parliament. But Parliament approved that law in the first place and gave the Civil Service Commission that power, and until Parliament repeals that act it must
Supply

Labour

continue in force, and any action taken by the Minister of Labour or any other minister to move to reduce a salary for a certain office-I am not saying a certain official, because the salary is attached to the office, not to the official-any such action would be equivalent to repealing the Civil Service Act so far as that particular salary was concerned.
Let me point out to the committee a concrete example of what power the Civil Service Commission has,

always subject to Parliament; that of course, goes without saying, for we can repeal the whole act just as well as we can repeal one section by doing as the right hon. gentleman suggests we have power to do. No one questions the power of Parliament to repeal any act, but so long as the Civil Service Act is in force a minister cannot, without contravening the spirit of that legislation, reduce any salary fixed by the commission, and everyone knows that.


Mr. ARTHURS:: He could reduce the personnel.


George Perry Graham: He can dismiss an official for cause, but he cannot appoint another in his place. In other words, he can reduce the personnel, but not change it. Le me point out a concrete case. A committee in the Militia Department, composed of certain officials of the department and one member of the Civil Service Commission, proceeded to reclassify that department some months ago under the instructions of the then minister;-this was before my time. That committee brought in a report classifying, I think, 190 officials and fixing their salaries. Eighty-two of those 190 officials appealed to the Civil Service Commission and got their salaries increased, notwithstanding the fact that the minister had approved of the lower classification made by the committee. That shows that the Civil Service Commission is intended, under the act that created it, to fix salaries, even if those salaries are higher than the scale proposed by Parliament.


Mr. BIRD:: Does the minister think it wise and in accordance with our parliamentary traditions that the expenditure of public money should be taken from the sphere of effective criticism by this House?


George Perry Graham: Certainly not. Hon. members would have the right to move for the repeal of the Civil Service Act if they wished.


Thomas William Bird: Would the hon. minister approve of that course being taken?
	.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend must be Irish: he answers a question by asking another. That is a matter for discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: I am pointing out the effect of the act as it stands now.


Thomas William Bird: I should like to point out to
the hon. minister the serious situation that arises here. We are engaged in the laborious process of criticising the Estimates, and yet it seems that all our labours are in vain, because when we try to bring our criticisms to bear we find the responsible minister of the Crown takes refuge by saying:	These things are fixed before
hand by the Civil Service Commission. I think it is a very serious feature of the present situation, and not in accordance with British parliamentary traditions which declare that all public expenditures should be subject to the effective criticism, of parliament.


George Perry Graham: That may be true.


James Murdock: Mr. Chairman, I should like very much indeed to expedite as far as possible the business of this committee. But as my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and others have chosen to "pick" on me in regard to this civil service question-and, personally, I do not mind that in the least-I am going to read into Hansard what purports to be a complete statement of this question as prepared by my honoured predecessor, Hon. Mr. Robertson. This statement, as I understand, was prepared for the Conservative government in the expectation of being able to show the wonderful benefits accruing to civil servants under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. It recites in detail the munificent and wonderful privileges and the sympathetic consideration enjoyed by civil servants through the acts of our predecessors in office. It would appear to be a very opportune time to place this statement on Hansard for the information of hon. members. It was evidently prepared, as will be noted before I finish reading it, after 1st October, 1921, just on the eve of the general election, for the purpose of showing what had been accomplished by adopting the Civil Service Commission method of dealing with the remuneration of civil servants.


James Arthurs: What is its date?


James Murdock: After 1st October,
1921.

S upp ly-La b our


Ernest Lapointe: And before 6th
December.


James Murdock: It reads:
The Arthur Young Company was appointed by an Order in Council of August, 1918. Mr. Crerar was a member of the Government at that time, having been sworn in on October 12, 1917, resigning November, 1919.
The employment of Griffenhagen and Associates, Limited, was authorized by P.C. 1238, May 31st, 1920. Their contract was terminated by 60 days' notice, P.C. 296, February 7th, 1921.
The subcommittee of Council to consider proposed legislation re Civil Service and to draft a Bill to bring about proposed reforms, consisted of the Hon. A. K. Maclean, convener, Hon. N. W. Rowell, Hon. F. B. Carvell, and the Hon. G. D. Robertson, appointed by P.C. 372, February 18th, 1918.
"The Subcommittee on Reorganization and Efficiency, consisting of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, President of the Privy Council, the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Immigration, appointed by Order in Council, P.C. 1238, May 31, 1920, was cancelled by P.C. 3649, October 3, 1921, which appointed instead of the foregoing, the Minister of Labour, the Secretary of State, and the Minister of Immigration. Employees who have up to date been blanketed in under the provisions of Order in Council of December 16, 1920, P.C. 2958-with overseas active service, 894 other females, J-,0621 other males, 727 ; total, 2,638. Number of employees in Civil Service, 191314, 29,135; 1917-18, 44,378; 1919-20, 50,307 ; 1920-21, 41,641. The decrease shown by last figure is. due mainly to the reductions in war departments. The above figures do not include rural postmasters. There were about 8,000 rural postmasters in 1914, and there are about 10.000 to-day.
The Union Government went to the country in 1917 with a definite policy to reorganize the Civil Service and to eliminate patronage. In implementing their promise they have carried out a reclassification of the Civil Service and a partial reorganization. The reclassification was carried out by, and under the direction of, the Civil Service Commission.
The merit system of promotion is now in full sway in the Civil Service, even in the higher positions. Clerks are selected from the ranks of juniors, seniors and branch heads from those below them, and so on right along the line. New employees are only taken into the service when there is no one suitable for promotion amongst the permanent employees. Patronage has been entirely eliminated. Examinations are practical instead of academic. The new order of things offers inducements and prizes to the highly trained man. Every position is graded and dovetailed into another of greater opportunity, responsibility and salary. Patronage is dead. Favouritism is as nearly eliminated as human nature and the inexorable processes of departmental procedure will permit. To-day entrance to the Civil Service is by way of competition and is ruthlessly just. Industry, integrity, and intelligence are now the only passports to success in the Civil Service, which offers opportunities worthy of the consideration of the best minds among the young men and women of Canada."-(Extract from a pamphlet recently issued by the Civil Service Commission.)
Some examples of merit promotion made recently are-


Thomas Langton Church: What has that letter to do with the item under consideration, Mr. Chairman? The minister is taking up the time of the committee with something that has nothing to do with the matter before us.


James Murdock: Some examples of merit promotion made recently are: postmastership of Winnipeg, filled by the assistant postmaster; director of Printing Bureau, Deputy Minister of Finance; Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance; Assistant Deputy Minister of Interior; postmaster of Toronto.
Coincident with reclassification the Outside Service came under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Previous to this, in the matter of promotions, the trail of patronage was apparent, and the more remunerative appointments were made under the direction of the Patronage Committee. This was particularly true in the Outside Service, where politics entered into every promotion and appointment. The lucrative posts in each locality were jealously guarded, and as no official was transferred from his district or promoted to higher duties in another place, promotion of any kind wras almost unknown. The majority of officials in the Outside Service were without hope and many of them in great distress.
The Civil Service Commission was constituted in 1908. Their jurisdiction, however, was confined to the Inside Service and remained thus limited for ten years. During those years, in spite of attempted remedies, the patronage system survived and flourished. The many anomalies and abuses existing were discussed from time to time in Parliament, but so little practical and permanent improvement had resulted that the people were skeptical-


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order. What item of the Estimates is now being discussed, and is the letter which the minister is reading relative to that item?


The CHAIRMAN:: The minister has the right to discuss the general policy of his department. The issue has been raised and he is now discussing that policy, particularly with reference to the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. MANION:: Mr. Chairman, may I
just draw your attention-
Some hon MEMBERS: Order.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The hon. member may not, if that is his intention, criticise the ruling which I have given.


Robert James Manion: I submit that the Chair cannot rule against an hon. member on that point unless he has first made such a criticism. I was just going to express the hope that in connection with all the Estimates we on this side shall be permitted to take that into account as well as the minister. The other day we were dealing with the question of soldiers' civil re-establishment
Supply-Labour

and it was brought to our attention that we were out of order in discussing matters of general policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Murdock: I am sorry that it is necessary to do this; I am doing it only because hon. members seem to want something from me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Murdock: So little practical and permanent improvement had resulted that the people were skeptical and the service itself, than whom none knew better the need for reform, was well nigh losing hope of salvation. However, Sir Robert Borden's manifesto on the eve of the election in December, 1917, placed the matter in a clear light. Next to the determination to " win the war," " Civil Service reform " was the chief plank in the platform of the Union Government, and immediately after the general election-


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: If you refer to this green book containing the rules of procedure of the House you will find it provides that speeches in committee must be relevant to the item under consideration. What are we now discussing that makes that letter relevant? I ask for the ruling of the Chair.


James Murdock: We are discussing the civil government estimates of the Department of Labour, which we started to discuss two or three nights ago, not the Printing Bureau items, which the hon. member for North Toronto got into a discussion of.
(Reading) :
Immediately after the general election the entire outside service was placed under the control of the Civil Service Commission. Subsequently on the 24th of May, 1918, a Civil Service Act was sanctioned providing for a reclassification and reorganization of all departments and extending the powers of the Commission to cover all appointments and promotions in the outside service.
In recent years the people have evidenced a growing interest in the administration of the public service. They are demanding more and better service. Now, as never before, the greatest economy is necessitated by the financial burdens resulting from the War.
In the reclassification of such a large army of workers, it was inevitable that there should be some dissatisfaction with the grades awarded, but a right of appeal was given to a Board of Hearing, and this resulted in many individuals being re-graded. Previous to Reclassification, there was no appeal against any seeming injustice or unfairness; influence was the only thing that helped.
The number dealt with throughout the entire Service under the original scheme of classification was	 60,000
TMr. Manion.]
Total number of appeals submitted.. 5,000
These were divided into five classes as follows :-
(a)	personal appeals claiming wrong classification ;
(b)	class appeals;
(c)	appeals for increased remuneration;
(d)	bonus;
(e)	general.
These personal appeals in Ottawa totalled 2,500. All of these were individually investigated and over one thousand were granted, entailing an increase in salary. The average amount of increase on the appeals granted was $400. The total amount- of increase in salary resulting from the hearing of personal appeals was over $400,000. This amount does not include the back-pay which was paid on the successful appeals being made retroactive to April 1919.
A considerable number of changes along the line of promotions have been made among the clerks not appealing, which has resulted in a considerable increase in the salary of these clerks, which would go to increase the above figures.
It can readily be seen that there is still a great number of adjustments to be made which have been delayed by the hearing of personal appeals. The latter are now about completed, when this phase of the work will be taken up.
The appeals from the Outside Service have been treated in the same manner as the appeals in Ottawa, and investigators have been sent from Coast to Coast to personally hear these appeals. The result cannot be given as they are yet incompleted.
It will, therefore, be seen that the Government has taken up seriously the question of proper classification and has offered the proper facilities for every employee of the Government to present his case and have it properly adjusted. This was carried out and is being carried out in the following manner :-
The different units throughout the various branches of the departments elected a representative to present their cases before the Investigators. The Investigator visited each appellant, investigated his work, received his personal statement and then in consultation with the Appellant's representative came to a decision as to the proper classification of the Appellant. In cases where the Investigator and the representative disagreed, all the documents and representations both of the Appellant and the Branch Representative, as well as the departmental representative and deputy head, were sent to the Board of Hearing for final decision. It will therefore be seen that every means was exhausted to give every clerk a full opportunity to present his case.
The whole scheme of reclassification was to place each and every clerk in his proper class in harmony with the work he was performing. This will eventually be accomplished. The result will be that each and every clerk will have a direct channel of promotion open to him. If he is competent, ambitious and faithful, he is bound to rise through the different grades of the class in which he has been placed. Under the old scheme this could not be followed, for the reason that a clerk might be doing one class of work to-day and another to-morrow, which did not afford him the opportunity of making himself efficient in any one ; therefore, though that inefficiency in the particular class in which he was then found might prevent his subsequent promotion, whereas, in the new, this cannot

Supply-Labour
occur, and the matter of promotion is entirely up to the clerk.
It must also be remembered that a great many appellants filed appeals simply on principle of taking advantage of every opportunity, and on investigation it was found that many of these had already received a substantial promotion and increase in salary, and taking a chance of getting more. This will account for a considerable number of those not granted.
The chief objection to the reclassification as it originally occurred in 1918, was the apparent low remuneration attached to the many classes. This was not as bad as it looked, for the reason that under the old system a clerk was promoted on seniority and not merit, on length of service and not on duties performed, and the classes under the old system included in each class a large number of grades as established under classification. That is to say that the grading under the old system, $900 to $1,600, would include a large number of classes which now are titled and bear different remunerations. When a clerk is placed in the class to which he properly belongs, his energy and ability can be devoted along that special line, the result being increased efficiency and usefulness. No matter what the service, efficiency will be the one factor which will lead to his promotion, and while the remuneration at the outset of his classification might be considered low, yet the range of possibilities along the lines of promotion are ten to one as compared to the old system. Another feature is, under the old system, a man's duties could change, and he might be assigned very much more important duties than he was then performing, but he would have no claim for increased remuneration or promotion, whereas, under the new classification, the moment new duties are assigned, his classification is affected and he has a claim for a higher grading.
Thus it will be seen that all vestige of patronage. of pull, of favoritism, or any of the old influences that ever entered into the promotion of a clerk are now eliminated, and it is up to the clerk himself as to whether he will make himself efficient along the lines of the duties in which he has been classified.
It will, therefore, be seen at a glance the tremendous undertaking of classifying this large body of Civil Servants and it cannot be denied that errors crept in and are bound to creep in, inconsistencies will naturally arise, but all these will eventually be adjusted, but this tremendous task canot be acomplished in a day. Owing to the demands of the Service for haste and speed this work had to be acomplished in a much less time than should have been consumed, considering the importance of the work, but now that personal appeals have practically been disposed of, these errors and inconsistencies will be rectified.
The hope of the Civil Service is not in appointments, but in promotions, and this is considered the one strong point of classification as it provides a future for every Civil Servant regardless of who he is, what influences he has, or how many years' service he may have rendered. The amount of money which these changes have entailed cannot as yet be estimated, but the figures given will give you some idea of the large amount required to meet this demand, and while we hear very little from the clerk who receives a substantial promotion and a considerable increase in salary as well as back pay, it is quite natural that we should hear from the unfortunate clerk who did not fare so well, and, therefore, it would appear that the great good that has resulted and the large amount of money that has circulated throughout the Service through re-classification, will not be brought to the surface as the satisfied people say little, but the dissatisfied very much.
If the statements of those whose duty it has been to go through the entire service and meet the rank and file-as has been done during the last year-are to be considered as representing the true state of affairs, then it can safely be said that there is more contentment and real genuine satisfaction throughout the great mass of Civil Service employees to-day than there has ever been before, and while there are a number of dissatisfied clerks, even these realize that to a certain extent their future has been assured in a better way than ever before and that an incentive has been given them for efficiency and proper service.
The service cannot realize the many difficulties that are being met by those having in charge classification, and if they will only be patient until an opportunity is afforded for the proper adjustment of what may appear to be hardships and unfairness, it can be safely said that good results will be obtained. If the service will only recognize that they have the opportunity to place before an unprejudiced tribunal any grievances which they may have or think they have, then their criticisms will be less harsh and the future will have a brighter outlook, and many of their worries will have disappeared.
It is to be hoped that nothing will interfere with the proposed* programme which has been begun for the betterment of the service. Those in charge of this tremendous work are now' reaching a point where they have their very proper understanding of the needs of the service and are preparing to meet all conditions in a proper and fair way and to see that every clerk, male or female, gets absolute justice. This will take time and require a little more patience on the part of the service.
Hand-in-hand with reorganization goes superannuation, consequently the Public Service Retirement Act of 1920 (or the Calder Act, as it is better known) was passed by Parliament. By it the government assumed responsibility for all employees retired. In every case W'here it w^as necessary, either on account of old age, ill-health, inefficiency or lack of employment to deprive a man of his position, some provision was made whereby he would leave the service with a retiring allowance. This amount has been calculated according to his length of service, age and salary.
While these retiring allowances have cost the recipient nothing, at the same time the interests of those who have been contributors to the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act were conserved and the allowances in every case made a little less than in the case of the contributors to the old fund.
When the Act began to be administered and it was found that anomalies were arising and that sufficient provision had not been made for all classes of employees the government passed an amending Bill at the last session of Parliament whereby an endeavour was made to cover all classes of federal service employees. This has been accomplished as practically all employees are eligible under its provisions for retiring allowances with the exception of men wrho are paid by the hour or what may be termed prevailing rates em-

Supply-Labour
ployed. (It may be pointed out here that the men who have been placed on prevailing rates during the last two years are consequently prevented from benefiting by the Act.)
Up to October 1, 1921, 468 employees have been retired under the Act. To these has been paid in cash gratuities $195,430.76. The pensions will cost the government while the present annuities live $194,485.60 annually.
In February, 1918, an Order in Council was passed which had the effect of extending a preference to returned soldiers, those who obtain sufficient marks to pass an examination being placed, irrespective of the marks obtained, in order of merit on the list of successful candidates above all other candidates. . Further the prescriptions as to age and physical requirements do not apply to any returned soldier if he is able to perform the duties of the office. Returned soldiers are exempted from examination fees. The term " returned soldier " includes all women who served as nurses and so on.
Not only were these preferences accorded by law, but the Civil Service Commission utilized every means to bring to the attention of returned soldiers the opportunities available. Co-operation of the veteran associations was secured throughout the Dominion, and on all special advisory boards for the purpose of adjudicating on applications there is always an official representative present from the Great War Veterans' Association.
Mr. Chairman, that is the document that was prepared and used, as I understand, to justify the position of the predecessors of this Government in connection with the Civil Service regulations, and under these regulations I have felt that I was hound while the law remains as it is and had no option to suggest or make changes in the existing classification of any employees who are being continued in the service.


Thomas Langton Church: Reading long letters will not settle questions of this 'kind. I do not see how the minister ever expects to pass his estimates-estimates which total upwards of $258,000-by wasting the time of the committee in reading a letter which is not at all relevant to the matter under consideration. What we expect from the minister is constructive legislation such as will improve the conditions of labouring people in this country whether they are engaged on the farm or at work in the large urban centres. If this is to be an example of the kind of administration we are to anticipate from the Minister of Labour-


Mr. McKENZIE:: I rise to a point of order. While the Minister of Labour has the floor he can only be deprived of that privilege with his own consent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But the Minister of Labour sat down, having concluded what he had to say.
[Mr. Murdock.)


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is an interruption to the speech of a minister.


Thomas Langton Church: I am very much obliged to the Solicitor-General (Mr. McKenzie) for his interruption. I would like to remind him, however, that he may not be much longer in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I regret to say that the Department of Labour is honeycombed with politics. Never was that condition more glaringly apparent than it is to-day. Now, this department has important relations with the industrial activities of the country and the social welfare of the people; it is a department that should be taken completely out of politics.


James Murdock: Has the department changed in character at all during the last three months, excepting that I am now administering it?


Mr. STEVENS:: That is a big change.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the change to which the hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Church) refers.


Thomas Langton Church: The Minister of Labour has made about 375 speeches up to date, and is still talking. He talked all day Monday, all day yesterday, and this afternoon he is still talking-it is evident that the more he talks the less he knows, and the less he knows the more he talks.


James Murdock: My hon. friend has not yet answered my question. Would ihe advise me if there has been any change in the character of the Department of Labour since I assumed control? It is too bad that my hon. friend cannot hear anyone but himself.


Thomas Langton Church: 
Ernest Lapointe: We did not catch that.


Thomas Langton Church: He said there were
200,000 men out of work in Canada to-day. Of course there are 200,000 out of work in Canada and why not, the way the department of Labour is run?
There is something wrong in the conditions under which Canada has been living or is now living. There is a marked necessity for a demonstration of real brotherhood now and in the weeks to come.
He goes on to describe the labour and capital situation.
The labour problem of to-day is very largely a state of mind.
He has been in several states of mind recently.
"I am quite sure there are among you those who will not agree with that thought. I insist and intend to show that this is a state of mind. The attitude of the worker towards his tasks, his lot in life, relation to employer, standard of living, are all questions potent for good or ill in Canada. Labour and labouring men approach these questions in a somewhat unbalanced mental attitude or unbalanced viewpoint. Having suffered only too often they have become soured, discouraged, resentful, and in an improper state of mind, so that they cannot argue out the desires and rights of the workers and the desires and rights of the employers."
Mr. Murdock said he had visited a city some time ago where he had seen married ex-service men given doles. Unmarried ex-service men sleeping in buildings with only an army blanket over them and lined up outside waiting for a
Supply-Labour

bugle to blow in order that they might march inside and get a bowl of soup. All this had distressed the Minister's mind very much.
"It is all wrong," he declared, with sorrow in his voice. "The unfortunate part was that no provincial or municipal assistance could fbe secured, and so far as the interests represented by me were concerned, I was unable to move until the supervision of municipal and provincial authorities was secured.
"Let the people do something in Canada by real brotherhood.
"Can this unemployment question be dealt with? Yes. If we can only correct the state of mind which we know exists."
Then the employer of labour came in for some warning. There were some employers, the minister said, who are in such a state of mind that they have no right to employ members of the human family.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of order. I understand that, under the rules of this House, when we are in committee on estimates the discussion must pertain closely to the item under discussion.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I draw attention to the fact that this long reading of documents wastes the time of 235 members who are here to transact the country's business.


James Arthurs: A few minutes ago a point of order was taken on exactly similar lines. The minister was then reading from a report of the Civil Service Commission, entirely foreign to his department, except that his department was like all ether departments of government.


James Murdock: I call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact, that the gentlemen of the Opposition were taking entire exception to certain conditions, which had been handed down to us as heirlooms from our predecessors. All I was undertaking to do was to read what my predecessor prepared as chairman of the committee to deal with the subject. In other words, if that document was an accurate statement of the prerogatives and rights of the Civil Service Commission in October last, it must, of necessity, be a fairly accurate statement of the condition as of March 31, 1922, and that is all I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee.


Thomas Langton Church: That is not a point of order. That is just a sermonette.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question was raised a short time ago in the House as to the right of dealing with matters of general policy of the department. The question arose as to the relationship of the Civil Service Commission to the office of the department of the Minister of Labour
[Mr. Church.1
and the fixing of the salaries of officials of that department. A discussion took place with regard to the relationship existing, and the minister read a statement from his department, which dealt with that particular matter and which was pertinent. I understand the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) is dealing with that matter, perhaps not in the same manner as the Minister of Labour did, but he is making an effort to deal with a particular issue of the expenditures of this department which are included in the civil government Estimates now before this committee, and in that he would be in order unless he were to go too far afield in discussing some speech which was made at some other time.


Thomas Langton Church: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your ruling. I want to read from this report just one more paragraph. This is taken down verbatim. I may say that the minister's theme was Brotherhood:
Mr. Murdock was quite anxious that the people generally should know his position on such questions.
He was anxious that they should know his position on these real live labour questions and what the policy of the department was as compared with that of his predecessor. I want to read just one more sentence.
I hold this one of those things that has got to be done more now than at any other time in the history of Canada. It is for labour to recognize its responsibility and the fact that the employer cannot, and should not, be expected to furnish all of the harmony necessary to the carrying on of business. The labourer has got to recognize the fact that there was something meant when in this Book of Holy Writ we were all enjoined to do whatsoever our hand found to do and do it with our might. The labourer and those representing labour have got to recognize and daily give a demonstration of this.
I am very much dissatisfied with the condition of labour in this country to-day. We are spending a quarter of a million dollars in this proposed appropriation and in my opinion, we are simply throwing it away in the same haphazard fashion as we did twenty-five years ago. It is the desire of every hon. member to do something to alleviate conditions of employees, workers, artisans and farm labourers in this country, and to do that is what I believe to be practical religion. I am not so unfair as to say that this department is perhaps worse under this Government than it was under any other government. While I am a Conservative, I am an independent Conserva-

Supply-Labour
tive and I am endeavouring to do something for labour in the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House. I am very much disappointed, as one who has been a member of this House only a few days, to find a minister, like myself a newcomer in this House, who, after he has been speaking on platform after platform for three or four months throughout the country, cannot come forward with a definite policy, when there are 200,000 people out of work in this country. Why cannot the Government utilize the Department of Labour as is being done in the United States to-day? Capital is very highly organized in this country; the trusts and combines are flourishing to-day as they never were before, and if they are allowed to continue to flourish, in six months from now things will be ten times worse than they are at present. In the United States, the Labour Department have their experts throughout the country; they are the eyes of the government; they are going into every city and town in the United States; the Attorney Generals of the different states are at their back and they have had 485 prosecutions of trusts and combines. Thus, the machinery of the Department of Labour in the United States is being used to the advantage of the employee and the artisan. Labour is disorganized in this country. While 5 p.m. it is true we have a Dominion department and provincial departments, while they may have done good work, I do not say that they have done the best they could have done. The -unfortunate part of the whole labour problem is that to-day it is made the political football of this political party and that. I plead for better consideration of labour in this House. I represent a city that is the home of trade unionism. Long may trade unionism flourish, because it has done a great deal for Canada. The minister has done something for labour, but he has been fairly well paid for anything that he has done for it. I should like to see the department with a bigger ideal. I do not care what the department spends; I would be the last man to raise my voice against the estimates of this department if I saw in them some means of solving the labour problem of Canada. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) during the late election campaign, went up and down this country sympathizing with the poor people who were complaining of the high cost of living. The policy of the hon. members to my left, the Progressive party, is to bring the pro-36
ducer and consumer together. How are they to get together with coal at $15.50 a ton? How is the labouring man going to live when the cost of living is so high as it is to-day? While the farmer may think that he is not getting proper prices for his produce at the present time, yet if the Labour Department will take this matter up and endeavour to do something to bring down the cost of living, to investigate the housing conditions, and like the Labour Department in the United States, endeavour to regulate the trusts and combines, it would be doing something for the benefit of the working classes. Under the British North America Act there is power enough for the Department of Labour to be up and doing, to do what the minister said he would do if he was returned as a member of this House, let alone a minister, to bring down the high cost of living. After listening to the minister for two or three days,
I am sorry I have to say that he will not be any more a success in solving the labour problem of this country than he was in solving the problem of the high cost of living under the late government. I believe some of the members of the Progressive party referred to the high freight rates, the high cost of getting their produce to the consumer. We sympathize with them in that regard. If the minister would think more of labour, be more of a labour man and less of a politician-not be a labour man to-day and a partisan to-morrow-if he would try to think of the employees and workers, in the cities and towns, he would be doing far better than reading lengthy letters in this committee. I am amused to see a letter which the minister wrote the other day to the Liberal organization in the city of Toronto. I will not detain the House by reading it; but if the minister would spend more of his time on labour problems and towards bettering the conditions of the working classes of this country, he would be accomplishing something that would be better for employees and artisans of Canada. I do not wish to offer any opposition whatever to the minister. If he will introduce a big progressive policy along these lines I will give him every assistance and support. But it is useless to attempt to settle strikes by the old methods and red tape and quoting charts on supply and demand. Strikes can only be settled by conciliatory and sympathetic action along practical business lines. In a word, we want practical labour men in the department who have worked for their living and know something

Supply-Labour

about labour conditions from actual experience, and the minister will have my support in any steps he may take to engage such practical labour men.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The other night I asked my hon. friend the Minister of Labour what I thought was a very pertinent question, but the adjournment intervened between the question and the possibility of an answer from him. I had expected that he might give the information when the House convened to-day. The question was; how the minister reconciled an increase in the vote of $23,000 odd when there was a reduction in the staff of thirty. In placing this matter clearly and concisely before the House I am taking advantage of the implied suggestion of the Prime Minister, that bona fide suggestions would be welcomed, and, furthermore, that the House itself must take the responsibility for any action in regard to the Estimates. I call the attention of the House to the fact that the Labour Department estimates for this year are increased by $23,000. This is the minister's statement, in answer to a question of mine, appearing on page 479 of unrevised Hansard:
The other thirty-
Referring to thirty of the forty-two additional employees.
The other thirty have received notice, which so far as I understand will not be revoked, that they are to leave the service on the 31st of this month.
That is to-day. At another point the minister explained that he was incorporating in the regular permanent staff twelve of the forty-two employees. Now, I want the House to get this point. Last year there was contained in the Estimates a sum of $10,000 for clerical and other assistance, and $10,000 for sundries, out of which would be paid these temporary employees. Inasmuch as the minister has been able to reduce his staff by thirty employees, who leave to-day-this being the end of the fiscal year-there is no necessity for the House to provide in the Estimates for those thirty employees for the coming fiscal year. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Sheard:
That in view of the statement of the Minister of Labour, as appearing on page 479 of Hansard, that thirty employees of his department would be dismissed on this day, March 31st, 1922, that item 24 on page 9 of the Estimates be reduced to the same amount as last year, namely, $171,640 for salaries, and $35,000 for contingencies.

This will give to the minister the same amount of money that he required for last year, including the contingencies, which we have not reduced at all.
I am not taking a course that has not been followed1 in the past. Last year motions were made to reduce items, and the government of the day took the responsibility of making or not making the reductions, and generally they rejected the motions. It is quite within the authority and power of the Government to reject this motion; but, on the other hand, I do not wish it to shield itself wholly behind the Civil Service Commission. That commission has certain distinct functions to perform, which we all recognize. This House has certain responsibilities, and the Government has certain responsibilities. We are merely asking the Government now to accept this suggestion by which those of us who vote for it are willing at once to aid in the reduction of the Estimates and to take our 'share of the responsibility for what in some quarters may be regarded as the questionable course of reducing this sum, because .sometimes a Government is a little hesitant about taking that responsibility. We offer the Government this opportunity to take advantage of our assistance in the reduction of this item so as to bring it to exactly the same figure as last year in view of the dismissal of thirty employees.


James Murdock: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate indeed that the hon. member for Centre -Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), formerly a Cabinet Minister, cannot .see the real facts. To me it is inconceivable that he cannot appreciate that the allegation contained in his motion is absolutely inaccurate. I presume that he can read and analyze Estimates, and was doing so before I ever thought of becoming a member of this House. May I a'sli him to turn with me to the page showing the number of permanent employees of the Labour Department for the fiscal year expiring to-day? He will find it is 106. Then, if he will follow slowly to the left he will find the proposal is to provide for 117 permanent employees for the next fiscal year. My firm conviction is that the hon. gentleman surely knows that the thirty employees under discussion are not included, and have never been in-, eluded, in either the 106 or the 117 employees as specified, but are temporary employees and a part of the staff that I found in the department when I took charge.
I have stated that when I took over the

Supply-Labour
Labour Department, 147 employees were engaged there. Of that number thirty-seven were temporary employees in Ottawa and five were temporary employees located at outside points. None of the thirty-seven in Ottawa or the five at outside points was included in the 106 permanent employees provided for by the late government in the Estimates of the fiscal year expiring to-day. I think I am justified in asuming that no one knows that better than my hon. friend from Vancouver. All this play and parade, therefore, all this imputing to the Minister of Labour something that he never intended to suggest, will not get the hon. gentleman or other hon. gentlemen anywhere. I intimated that a considerable number of temporary employees had been served with notices that there was no provision for them after to-night. A number of these employees were paid out of certain votes not included in the civil government items. I do not know what it may be necessary to do in regard to any or all of these temporary employees, but I have already assured the House that all will be (dispensed with whom we can get along without. So far as the 117 are concerned, I have repeatedly stated that we are establishing as permanent only a few of those who were handed to me as temporary and whose services are regarded as essential, according to my predecessor, in carrying out the work of the department.
Now, the adoption of the motion made by the hon. gentleman would personally make no difference to me, but it would herald broadcast to the world and to Canadian labour in particular that the Conservative Opposition in this House are doing all they can to stultify the efforts of my department to do the things that labour believes ought to be done on its behalf. That is all that the opposition to these estimates during the past few days has amounted to. If the motion should carry, it simply means that the department cannot even have the 106 permanent employes paid under the provisions of the law for next year. If the hon. member for Vancouver and his associates are prepared to accept the responsibility for that result, why, let the blame rest where it should. Labour will be interested in finding hon. gentlemen like my hon. friend from Vancouver coming out in their true colours. The member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) also has indicated clearly where he stands on questions affecting the rights
36J
of labour. They are trying to embarrass the department in every effort it is making to do the things that ought to be done.


Mr. LEWIS:: I see here an item for contingencies, $35,000. Does that cover temporary labour in the minister's department?


James Murdock: It does cover some of it. It has done so in the past and probably will be utilized for that purpose in the future where necessary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me ask a question just to clear the atmosphere a little after the somewhat warm castigation that my hon. friend has laid upon me. I understood all that my hon. friend has said before he laboured so hard to impress upon the House that I did not.


James Murdock: I knew it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has transferred twelve to the permanent staff; is that right?


James Murdock: It looks like that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But is that the fact? That is what I understood my hon. friend to say the other day.


James Murdock: What is the difference between 106 and 117?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend stated very clearly that he had transferred twelve. He mentioned also the other night that one had passed out; perhaps he forgets what he did say, but I do not. Thirty are being dismissed, as he has told us so clearly, his reasons being to do away with this miscellaneous group of temporary employees. The twelve employees whom he transferred were paid out of the estimates of last year; therefore if we give the same amount this year as last, $171,000, plus $35,000, we are giving exactly the same amount for a smaller staff. And there is something further that my hon. friend might take into consideration. There are two offices here which can be dispensed with. One is vacant now, involving a salary of $3,900. The other, with a salary of $3,700-Assistant Director of Technical Education

is not needed and, it is understood, was to have been dispensed with. This is a total of about $7,500, so that in asking for this reduction we are asking for nothing unreasonable.


James Murdock: The hon. member
surely does not indicate that (both the Director of Technical Education and the Assistant Director can be dispensed with?
Supply-Labour


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unquestionably, on this ground: these two offices were inaugurated in connection with the $10,000,000 vote by way of assistance for technical schools in Canada some years ago. The duty of these officers was to organize technical schools in each province and allocate the respective shares of the $10,000,000 vote to each. There is no necessity for continuing the services of these two highly paid officials once the provincial officials commence to function; a clerk in the deputy minister's office can do all that is required. When the Director of Technical Education vacated the office nearly a year ago, the late government was determined not to refill the position, on the ground that it was no longer necessary. My hon. friend the other day, while he did not think it was required, would not assure the House that he would not give this position to some deserving friend. But what I want to point out is this; there is no need for such an officer, because the provincial governments are functioning so far as technical education is concerned.


Hugh Guthrie: I have been trying to get this thing clear in my mind, but I do not know that I have succeeded very well. The motion refers to a statement made on the 28th of March as recorded in Hansard at page 479, and the statement, I take it, is as follows:
Mr. Murdock: The proposal is to make twelve of these forty-two temporary employees permanent. The other thirty have received notice, which so far as I understand will not be revoked, that they are to leave the service on the 31st of this month.
Now we may take it as clear that thirty men go out to-day, the last day of the financial year. I think it is quite as clear that it will not be necessary to provide any money to pay the salaries of these thirty men who will not be there next year. It is equally as clear in my mind that they were paid last year. Twelve of them will have to be paid again this year, but thirty of them will not. Then why are we asked to vote money this year to pay for thirty men who will not be there? It may be that the whole forty-two were paid last year out of some other vote-contingencies, perhaps. Well, we are voting the full amount of contingencies again this year, so why increase this vote to an amount that will include the salaries of thirty men who are going to leave the service to-day? I cannot understand the situation, and if I have not stated it correctly, I should like to be corrected. To my mind it is an idle and a wrong

thing of Parliament to vote money that is not going to be expended. We should know how the money is going to be expended before we vote it. It is clear that only twelve out of the forty-two men employed last year are to be retained as permanent, so why should we vote the money for the thirty who are not going to be retained? As I understand the motion, it is simply to reduce these estimates by a sum that will represent the salaries of the thirty who are to be dismissed, and I think under the circumstances the minister himself might very well have intimated to the committee that the vote would be reduced by that amount. It has been done before in this House. I remember last year when the civil government estimates of the Militia Department were up they provided for forty-one men whom we did not intend to employ that year, and we struck out those forty-one, and reduced the vote by something like $58,000. That is all that this motion asks for. The men are not there, so the salaries are not required, and the money should not be voted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the facts were as stated by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, I for one would not take the slightest exception to this amount being reduced as suggested by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). I think the whole difficulty has arisen from the form in which the estimates have been presented to the House. In this, connection let me say that it is not wholly the fault of the present Government that the form is what it is, because the Government in presenting the Estimates to Parliament has simply followed the form in which the Estimates were presented and passed last year, and has presented its figures under corresponding heads. If my hon. friends will look at the Estimates, they will find that what we are now discussing are items contained on pages 107 and 108, details of civil government, which relate to the members of the service whom we wish to have retained as permanent em- * ployees. If hon. members will turn to the estimates of the Department of Labour on page 52, they will see there the votes which were passed by Parliament at the last session. Let me direct attention to item No. 268, Administration, Employment Offices Co-ordination Act. Hon. members will see that last year the sum voted under this head was $75,000, and that this year the minister is asking only $45,000. I am informed that in connection with these em-

Supply-Labour
ployment offices some temporary clerks whose services are being dispensed with were formerly employed and paid out of that particular vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just at that point, may I ask how much of this $75,000 was expended last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While that
point is being looked up, I might invite the attention of the committee to another point. If hon. members will look at Item No. 267 on page 52, they will find that the amount voted last year for Fair Wages and Inspection Officers was $20,000, and that this year it is reduced to $5,000; and if one takes the last item of all on that page under Details, "Appropriations not required for 1922-23, $50,000," I speak subject to correction, but I think investigation will show that that $50,000 was in part used for the payment of salaries of temporary clerks who are leaving the service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That $50,000 would
represent simply the excess of last year over this year, and it is put in there for the purpose of balancing the two columns. It is meaningless outside of that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The members of the committee will see that the total amount asked for by the minister last year was $472,000 and that this year it is $372,000. There is a saving of $100,000. It is reasonable I think to ask the committee, when considering the question of reducing the civil government estimates by the sum of $97,000, to take into account the fact that the minister in presenting his estimates to the House this year shows a reduction of $100,000 in the expenditure for his department on what was asked last year, part of that amount having been used to pay the salaries of temporary employees.	*


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I correct my
hon. friend? I am not asking for a reduction of $97,000, but of $23,000 in this item No. 24, on page 9 of the civil government estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to
hear that it is not the larger amount, but what I have said would be equally applicable in that case; perhaps the force of my remarks might be increased. When my hon. friend asks that the civil government estimates for the Department of Labour be reduced by $23,000, I think it is fair to ask the committee to take into consideration the fact that the minister shows a reduction in
the main estimates for the Department of Labour, as presented to Parliament this year, of $100,000 on the amount asked for last year. I can readily see, that if hon. members wish to embarrass the minister, wish to make it difficult for a new minister requiring first knowledge of his department, and wishing to do justice to the members of his staff, they can probably make out a case from the estimates as brought down which would seem to show that some money asked for was hot required, but in view of what I have just said, and in view of the explanation the minister has made that some of the temporary clerks he is dispensing with altogether, were not paid out of corresponding appropriations to those he is referring to at the present time, and that the increase is accounted for by his seeking to disclose publicly to the House that he is making permanent a few clerks to take the place of a larger number of temporary clerks he has dispensed with, I hope my hon. friend from Centre Vancouver, under such circumstances, will not press his motion. If he should, I would ask the Committee to take what I think under the circumstances would be a reasonable attitude in considering the motion and bear in mind all that the minister has said by way of explanation, as well as his saving on the main estimates, and permit him at least the opportunity to get to know the work of his department before beginning to do an injustice to some members of the Civil Service who certainly will be adversely affected if a motion of the kind is passed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister answer my question as to the amount expended under the item of $75,000 because that is important; that is what this whole argument is based on.


James Murdock: My hon. friend will understand that as the fiscal year expires to-night we could not accurately give him the information now. It might be of information to him, however, if I would state the results at the close of the last fiscal year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Pardon me. I have asked my hon. friend for certain information. 1 am asking it in a conciliatory spirit and, having in mind the expressed wish of the Prime Minister that this motion be withdrawn, if he will tell me, or show me that a very substantial portion of the $75,000 has been expended on this the 31st day of March, or up to the 1st of March, it will go a long way to support the argu-

Supply-Labour
ment of the Prime Minister. If not I cannot see anything in the argument.


James Murdock: In answer to my hon. friend I would say that up to February 28th, 1922, $47,012.51 had been expended under Administration Employment Offices. I still would like to give my hon. friend some of the results that were before him at the close of the last financial year as indicating that he surely must have some knowledge of this situation. At the close of the last fiscal year we found that the civil government salaries $106,762.60 had been paid out, and that out of civil government contingencies $30,627.91 had been paid for temporary employees. For the salaries of Fair Wages Inspecrion Officers $12,269.84 had been paid; for salaries under the Conciliation and Labour Act $12,721.12; for salaries to Administration Employment Offices $50,953.93. I am sure my hon. friend will agree these are funds entirely different from those we are considering here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the item referred to by the Prime Minister.


James Murdock: Temporary employees. Other items are: salaries joint industrial councils, $326.62; salary director of coal operations, $6,285; salary arrears under reclassification, $8,052.97, or a total for the last fiscal year of $228,139.34. That was as of March 31, one year ago to-day. Again, may I say to my hon. friend that last year the records indicate that the temporary employees in the Labour Department were paid from these sources: contingencies, 56; employment offices, 56; joint councils, 2. This indicates there were 114 temporary employees at one time or another, but there were only about 42 when I took charge of the department.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Do I
understand the minister to say that during the past fiscal year at different times there were 114 temporary employees employed in that department?


James Murdock: That is correct.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And do I understand the minister to say that the wages of these men were largely paid out of the vote referred to by the Prime Minister?


James Murdock: The figures were: employment offices, 56; contingencies, 56; joint councils, 2.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And on
the 1st January when the minister took

charge there were forty-two temporary employees?


James Murdock: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And the minister proposes to do away permanently with thirty out of these forty-two?


James Murdock: Yes, in so far as that may be possible.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And
twelve out of the forty-two are to be made permanent? Is that the situation?


James Murdock: In order that there will be no misunderstanding, let me say there is no provision being made in these civil government estimates for thirty of the employees I found in the Labour Department when I took office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then their salaries are not needed in the vote?


James Murdock: Unless it may be
necessary to utilize their services in some one of the branches,' and either pay them out of contingencies or some other of the various funds of the department as fixed by statute.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That does not affect
the fact upon which my motion rests. They are provided for in your main estimates of this year. I would say to my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that the figure of 114 temporary employees given by the minister has no relation whatever, to the extent of forty-two, to the estimates under consideration now. The balance of them, and seventy odd employees, are provided for in item 272 to be found at page 52 of the Estimates. So we must not allow the idea to permeate the minds of hon. gentlemen that the number of temporary employees is being reduced from 114 to 12-that would not be correct at all.


Mr. HALBERT:: I hesitate to ask a question for fear of eliciting another speech from the Minister of Labour. We have spent a great deal of time with these estimates and we have not made much progress. I would like to get information on a couple of points from the minister if he can answer me briefly. I understand that under the Civil Service Act the minister has no power to discharge any official but he can abolish an office. Am I correct in that understanding?


James Murdock: My understanding is that I could discharge an employee for cause, but I could not do away with the office.

Supply-Labour


Henry Herbert Stevens: Could you not do it
under Order in Council?


James Murdock: My hon. friend corrects me to the extent of saying that I could do so under an Order in Council, but no hon. member would expect me to abolish an office that was necessary and one in which there was work to be done.


Robert Henry Halbert: I should think that perhaps you might dispense with unnecessary employees by degrees. For example if there were three clerks in an office it might be possible for you to get along with two. My next question is: To What extent have these estimates been increased by statutory increases to the clerks in the department?


James Murdock: The increase of
$23,400 in salaries is attributable to the statutory increases provided for in the Civil Service Act, and by the addition to the permanent staff of employees who have heretofore been temporary.


James Arthurs: Is it not true that during the last fiscal year a number of employees of the department were working with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and were temporary on that account?


James Murdock: I am advised that a good many of them were blanketed in during the year, but I had nothing to do with that. It was done before I was there.


James Arthurs: As a matter of fact, they were so employed.


James Murdock: I am told a considerable number were.


James Arthurs: They were there for the express purpose of assisting returned soldiers in the department and were partially paid by your department.


James Murdock: No, I am told that none of them were for that purpose.


Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: As I understand these estimates, the minister is taking 117 permanent employees to do the work for which he proposes to pay $195,000. The work which that 117 are supposed to do in the coming year was performed in the past year by 106 permanent employees, plus 42 temporary ones, and it cost the department $171,000 odd, plus the amount paid to the 42 temporary ones, taken care of in some other vote. Is that correct?


James Murdock: I think my hon. friend is substantially correct.


Robert Milton Johnson: In that case this vote, so far from showing an increase, would, in my opinion, show a decrease, because 42 are provided for out of the difference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, 12. My hon. friend is in error. That is very ingenious, but it does not carry. My hon. friend has declared, and never denied, that he has given notice to 30 of the 42 employees, and1 that, as far as he and the Government are concerned, their salaries cease. He has included in this vote 12 additional ones, or 11, but he says that 12 temporary ones are transferred to the permanent list. The item is increased by $23,000 plus the contingencies. Twelve are paid out of $171,000 plus the contingencies last year.


James Murdock: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The salaries of the 117 employees which he is now asking for in the $171,000, plus the $35,000 contingencies. We say to the House this year, "Give his department exactly the same as you gave it last year, and do not give it $23,000 in addition." I agree that these twelve are included in the $195,000, but he has told us, with a spirit of reproach, that he does not intend to clutter up the department with temporary employees like his predecessor. That is a very commendable action. Then it is not under the contingencies, and. he can change the vote if he likes. It might have been better had I moved that the total amount be reduced and not specify anything. I specified the item for the purpose of clarity. Last year the Government paid for 117, just the same as they provide for this year, with $171,000, plus the contingency vote of $35,000. We are asked to do the same thing this year.


Robert Milton Johnson: I would like to ask if the employees last year were not 106 plus 42 temporary, making 148 employees in the service.


James Murdock: At the close of the year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Paid out of $171,000
plus-


Robert Milton Johnson: I did not so understand it. I understood 106 of them were paid out of the $171,640 and the other 42 were paid out of some other vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Out of this $35,000.
Supply-Labour


James Murdock: The hon. gentleman from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is entirely mistaken, Ibut it is impossible to explain, and I will certainly have to give up trying to explain. I am forcefully reminded of the old adage "There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see," and I am also reminded of the words of Kipling-
If you can make one heap of all your winnings, And risk it on one turn of pitch and toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings, And never breathe a word about your loss.
Poor losers are the cause of all this discussion during the last two or three days.


Robert Milton Johnson: I had
hoped, by my remark, that I would help clear up this matter, but what is the use of trying to clear up this matter, if the minister proceeds to use it as an excuse to lecture his political opponents?


Mr. CARROLL:: The motion of the hon. gentleman for Vancouver Centre is in effect for a reduction of some $23,000. He is moving to have the $195,000 odd in these Estimates reduced to some $171,000 odd. I take it that is impossible, unless he is going to force the minister to take away from the permanent staff of the Labour Department the twelve employees whom he has placed there. If the motion read that the whole Estimates be reduced by $23,000 I would see some sense in it. I do not think that motion can be properly dealt with in this Committee. It is something over which this Committee has no control. This increase for the year is mostly made up by statutory increases plus the salary of twelve permanent employees who are taken from the forty-two temporary employees. I do not think the motion of my hon. friend is in order at all, so far as the real gist of the motion is concerned.


Mr. BROWN:: I would like to get at the facts of the case, and see where we stand. Perhaps it is not our part to lecture political opponents or political friends, but I think a little less pugnacity on the part of the Minister of Labour would enable us to arrive at an understanding of the situation. I think, perhaps, we understand the situation regarding the permanent employees. There were 106 last year and there are to be 117 this year. I presume the statutory increases provided in the Civil Service Act cover that amount, making the average salary last year $1,619 and the average salary .this year $1,667. I suppose that is accounted for by the working out of

that machine which we have created, and for which we do not seem to have provided any brakes. However, that is a matter for discussion later on, but that is the way it has impressed us so far. We have made a machine we do not seem able to control. If there is a brake we have not been able to get our hand on it yet. The question seems to centre around a little question of fact: were those temporary employees last year paid out of that contingency fund of $35,000 or were they not?


James Murdock: Part of them were.


John Livingstone Brown: If they were paid out of some other vote, I can understand the position taken by the minister that it is necessary to have that amount for contingencies voted this year as well as the amount covering the permanent staff. It is simply a question of fact. If they were paid out of some other fund last year, then we need that amount this year. If the $35,000 contingency fund covered all the temporary employees last year, then I can see that there is something in the motion made by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). Can we get at this question of fact? Speaking for myself-and I think I may speak for those around me- I may say that we came here with a great desire to reduce expenditures. We do not want to handicap unduly a minister in getting acquainted with his department. When I began to look at these estimates, I was almost afraid to confess that I did not know anything about the matter; but since ministers are prepared to confess that, I do not know that we need be ashamed. We do not want to reduce any expenditure that is necessary; we do not want to take the position of "cheap guys," who wish to cut down the salary of a man who is really useful in his department because, after all, the man who is getting the low salary is not, by any means, always the poorest man in a department. Sometimes it pays and pays well to get good men, however much you have to pay them. That is our position. At the same time we want to impress upon this particular minister and upon the Government that it is our desire, if any means can be found of controlling this machine, to control it, so that we may not have this expenditure mounting up year after year without knowing when we are going to reach the maximum for civil government. Can we get at this little question of fact as regards the contingency fund, which may or may not

Supply-Labour
have provided for those temporary employees? If we can reach an agreement as to that point, we shall understand where we are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman's question of fact, which is a pertinent one, will I think, be answered by reference to the Auditor General's report. If hon. members will look at the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1921, which is the latest report published, they will find that a number of clerks received salaries paid from funds other than those represented in the appropriation that is being asked for at the present time. The same thing took place during the past year. The Auditor General's report for the past fiscal year, which ends to-day, cannot be presented to Parliament until next year; but it will show then that temporary clerks have been paid out of funds other than the contingency fund referred to here. It will be found that when the minister came into office fifty-six temporary clerks were paid out of the appropriation for employment offices, and as was pointed out this afternoon, the estimate for the employment offices has been reduced this year by several thousands of dollars. I do not think the hon. member for Centre Vancouver is anxious to embarrass us unduly. His purpose has been to make quite plain the difficulties that these Estimates involve and I think all the hon. members will realise that, seeking to follow what has been the custom of other years and to present the Estimates in a similar form, we have not been in a position to make the differences as apparent as we ourselves would like to have them appear. I hope my hon. friend's purpose has been served, and that he will not press his motion to a vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) stated clearly-and there is no doubt as to his statement, so far as I can gather during these two or three days' discussion-that the forty-two temporary employees came under this civil list; the fifty-six temporary employees to whom the Prime Minister refers, are provided for in another appropriation altogether on page 52 of the Estimates. My hon. friend is wrong in suggesting to the committee that we are seeking to reduce this vote by virtue of temporary employees being dismissed who were paid under another fund. Nothing of the kind. That point is the crux of the whole business.
The forty-two employees, of whom twelve are remaining, were paid last year out of the civil vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we were to discuss this for another week, we would not get very much further ahead, and if my hon. friend intends to press this matter to a vote, I hope he will let us take the vote before six o'clock.


James Murdock: The hon. member for Centre Vancouver should1 know that eighteen of those temporary employees are at present being paid out of the Employment Service appropriation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which is another vote altogether.


James Murdock: And two out of the vote for Joint Industrial Councils. That accounts for twenty of the forty-two who are not therefore, being paid out of any contingencies that are now before the committee.


Robert James Manion: Those two votes are in the other section of the Labour estimates.


James Murdock: Yes they are being
paid out of the Employment Service appropriation on page 52.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I think it is desirable that hon. members should appreciate not only the difficulties which the present Government has, but the difficulties which the late government had, in the classification of the Estimates, and I would ask the indulgence of the House for a moment or two while I read a part of a debate which took place last session, and which will illustrate that the difficulties we on this side of the House are having at the present time in explaining our Estimates are precisely of the nature and character of those with which the late Government was faced when asking Parliament to pass its Estimates, and this as a consequence of its own legislation in giving certain powers to the Civil Service Commission and being governed in the reorganization of the Civil Service under those powers. I have in my hand Hansard of March 15th, 1921, when the then Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolrnie) was putting through his estimates. Hon. members who were in
Supply-Labour

the House last session will agree that no more conciliatory minister could be found than the then Minister of Agriculture, and the following is an illustration of the difficulties which he met with in endeavouring to explain the organization of his department. At page 935 of Hansard the following appears:
Mr. Cannon. Am I to understand the minister to mean that the Civil Service Commission has the right to fix the wages that shall be received by the civil servants in the employ of the Government, without the head of the department having anything to say about the matter?
Mr. Tolmie: The salaries and the increases are fixed by the classification.
Mr. Cannon: Does the minister refer to the classification that was made by those American experts imported into Canada, or to some other classification?
Mr. Tolmie: The classification brought into force about a year ago.
Mr. Cannon: By whom?
Mr. Tolmie: By the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Cannon: Last week the Minister of Trade and Commerce explained during a debate in this House that experts brought into the country by the Government and who were absolute strangers to the Civil Service had made certain changes in the classification of the civil servants. Am I to understand that the changes which appear in the item I refer to were made by the experts or by the Civil Service Commission itself?
Mr. Tolmie: I understand that these salaries were fixed at the time the classification was made, but what part the American experts played in the classification I could not say off-hand.
Mr. Cannon: What I want to know is who made the classification? The Civil Service Commission, the Minister, or the outside experts?
Mr. Tolmie:	It was certainly not the
minister, but the Civil Service Commission. Whether they had the assistance of these imported experts or not, I could not say.
Mr. Cannon: The minister states he is not responsible for the classification of these employees?
Mr. Tolmie: The minister had nothing to do with the fixing of these salaries.
Mr. Cannon: But before the classification was made was not the minister consulted by the Civil Service Commission or by the experts, because, after all, the people who can give proper information in regard to the employees of a department are the head, the deputy head, and the branch heads? Were they consulted, and if so, did they make reports written or verbal?
Mr. Tolmie: The classifiers had a staff of experts of their own, and also consulted the deputy head before the classification was approved.
Mr. Cannon: Am I to understand that the deputy head of the Department of Agriculture is responsible for the classification of these particular employees? If so, I would like the minister, who is the head of the deputy head, to tell us the reasons for these varying increases.

Mr. Tolmie: The evidence of the deputy minister was taken by the commission, who came to their own decision.
Mr. Cannon: I should like to know from the minister, now that his deputy is here and can give him the required information, why the junior translator is getting a bigger increase than the translator himself?
Mr. Tolmie: Although the evidence of the deputy minister was taken, the final decision was in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, I do not hold the deputy minister responsible for these increases that appear here. As I have explained before, there is the old classification and the new. This particular class of junior translator begins at a salary of $1,200 under the old system, with annual increases of about $50 a year up to about $ 1,6OiO. Under the new classification the minimum salary of translator is fixed at $1,440, with annual increases of $60 up to the maximum.
I think Mr. Chairman, it will be apparent to hon. members that the late government experienced the same difficulty in accounting for their estimates as presented to Parliament as we on this side of the House are experiencing to-night. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) has explained that in presenting his estimates he accepted the statement made to him by his deputy minister as to what was the proper classification of the different clerks in his department, and the appropriate increases they were to receive, and that the estimates as presented contained nothing in the way of new appointments other than the making permanent of a certain number of temporary clerks.
I took advantage of the recess to discuss with the minister, with his deputy and others of the staff who had to do with the preparation of the estimates, the figures as they are presented. I find that the position is exactly as stated by the minister : that some of the temporary clerks have been made permanent. But there is this feature which has not been brought out, and which should be explained. If a deputy minister thinks that certain of his clerks ought to be promoted under the methods employed, the Civil Service Commission require that Parliament in the first instance vote the money for the position to which the advancement is to be made. After the money has been voted, the deputy minister has to go to the commission and ask its members to make the promotion. The commission may or may not carry out the wish of the deputy in that regard. The consequence of this method of procedure is that, in bringing down his estimates, the minister is obliged to ask Parliament to vote the money needed for the new position and also to vote the salary of the clerk in his

Supply-Labour
existing position in case he should not be transferred to the new one. In these estimates, six positions are cited which represent positions into which certain of the clerks may be promoted. Whether the Civil Service Commission will grant the promotions after they have been asked to do so, no one can say; until Parliament has voted the money and the promotion has actually been made, it cannot be a matter of certainty. The deputy minister states that these positions are provided for in the estimates in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Commission and the classification.
My hon. friend has a motion before the committee to reduce the estimates by a certain sum. I would like to make it clear that the acceptance of the motion will mean that the services of certain clerks in the department will have to be dispensed with, because there may not be an amount sufficient to pay the salaries of all the clerks whose positions are being provided for. The new fiscal year begins to-morrow; what we are asking Parliament to vote now is an amount necessary to meet these salaries during the coming year. I think the minister will find it possible to dispense with some of the clerks in his department; he intends to do so, in any event, when he gets an opportunity to effect reorganization. But the adoption of the motion may involve considerable embarrassment to some of the members of the service; it might make it necessary to dispense with the services of certain clerks a little more summarily, perhaps, than would otherwise be the case. I would appeal to the members of the committee to consider the Civil Service in this matter, and not to take a step which will involve no embarrassment to the Government but which may bring hardship on certain members of the Civil Service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend the minister, and, in a more moderate manner, the Prime Minister, read a lecture this afternoon to me and to others here instead of seeking, as the Prime Minister now has done, to give us an intelligent understanding of this matter. If the minister finds himself in a dilemma, it is his own fault. I asked him a very civil and pertinent question on Tuesday last; I got no answer to it. I asked the question a second time. I am not blaming him or even rebuking him for not answering my inquiry, but he got off on other topics. To-day I broached the matter again, and my answer was a lecture which, I may say, did not impress me very strongly. If a minister replies to questions by delivering curtain lectures, he is not likely to get very much consideration at the hands of those who are seeking the information. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour both sought to give the impression that I had no serious intention in pressing for the information I was requesting. Now, let me point out to the committee a few facts. The Prime Minister this afternoon very skilfully led the committee away from the point under discussion to another vote,-and I am quite sure, Mr. Chairman, had I been in that position you would have promptly called me to order-a vote on page 52, resolutions 268 and 272, dealing with the Labour Department proper. He conveyed to the committee information which was refused by the Minister of Labour,-who, indeed, gave us exactly the opposite impression-that the temporary employees involved in this discussion came under vote 272. Now, the minister gave us the impression very distinctly-and I shall not read long stories from last year's Hansard or this to support my argument-that he was reducing the large floating temporary staff, and he took upon himself great credit for doing so. I am in the judgment of the committee whether or not I reasonably interpreted the minister's attitude. He took credit to himself for that, and in his remarks he referred to this vote now before us. I came to the conclusion, as I think other members did, that he was reducing the staff which was included in the vote we were discussing; otherwise, why should he bring it in at all? If he wanted to take credit for reducing the staff by over thirty employees who came under another vote which we were not discussing, why did he bring the matter up? I submit I was perfectly correct in taking the minister's answer as it was given, although I am free to say that it was neither clear nor free from ambiguity. But I will meet the Prime Minister exactly on his own ground. He takes us over the votes 268 and 272, and I assume I shall be in order, Mr. Chairman, in referring to them; the Prime Minister transgressed the rules sufficiently to take us there.
I submit these facts to the committee in justification of the motion which I have presented: In votes 268 and 272 and the vote now before us we have three sums -I will give last year's figures first- $171,000 in vote 24; $75,000 in vote 268; $15,000 in vote 272, a total vote of $261,000. I asked the Prime Minister how much of vote 268 had been used, and after a great
Supply-Labour

deal of pressure we secured the information that up to the first of this month, $48,000 out of the $75,000 had been spent. I will add $12,000 more for this year, making' $60,000-and it will not amount to $60,000, I may tell hon. gentlemen. In other words that reduces the amount for last year to $246,000 in respect of the three votes-and the Prime Minister is weaving these supernumeraries into the three votes. The amounts for 1922-23 are as follows: $195,000 for vote 24; $45,000 for vote 268; $15,000 for vote 272, a total of $255,000. In other words, we have $246,000 last year as against $255,000 proposed this year. The minister has given us his solemn statement that to-night thirty employees cease to be employed by the department. He is asking for about $9,000 more for thirty employees less in these three votes,-and I care not how the Prime Minister juggles from one vote to another; the thirty employees are incorporated in these three votes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would my hon. friend tell us what figures he is adding, how he gets $246,000?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I went over that pretty well, but I shall not follow the example of the minister and refuse to give the information again. In 1921-22 the civil government vote corresponding with vote 24 this year was $171,000, in round figures; vote No. 268 was $75,000, and vote No. 271, $15,000. The Prime Minister tells us that those are the votes in which these employees are somewhere involved. The total is $261,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where do you get $246,000?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give it to my hon. friend at once.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You said $246,000 just now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to finish the sentence I was about to utter. I asked the Prime Minister this afternoon how much of that $75,000 vote had been expended, and after a little pressure we got the answer, namely, $48,000; that applies to vote No. 268, and I say that I allow for this month, and it is an excessive allowance, an additianal $12,000, making $60,000 on that vote, or a total of $246,000. Now this is the point and the crux of the whole matter. That vote of $246,000 paid for the whole of these employees, both the ones included in the vote immediately under consideration

and the supernumerary group. Let us go a step further. The minister advises us that he is dropping thirty employees; I am clear about 'that.


James Murdock: My hon. friend has said so many times this afternoon what the Minister of Labour intended to do that perhaps I had better read the minister's language, so that there will be no misunderstanding.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will read it.


James Murdock: It is on page 479 of Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On page 479 of Hansard a question was asked the minister and he replied as follows:
Mr. Murdock: The proposal is to make twelve of these forty-two temporary employees permanent. The other thirty have received notice, which so far as I understand will not be revoked, that they are to leave the service on the 31st of this month.
Now have I misstated the minister's language?


James Murdock: That is correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then let me go back to my argument. For the sum of $246,000 a certain staff was maintained last year. This year there are thirty employees less whose services are to terminate to-night, the 31st of the month, yet the Government are asking $255,000 this year. I submit that there is no need to ask for $255,000 to provide for the services of thirty less employees when $246,000 proved sufficient for last year.
But that is not all. In the vote now before us the minister himself tells us that the position of Director of Technical Education, opposite which is the sum of $3,900 has been vacant for many months, I think nearly a year. He does not think it will be filled, but he is not certain. Then he states on page 479 of Hansard in regard to another individual, "I have no assurance that we shall fill this position." That was a position carrying a salary of $1,980 so here again there is an additional $5,800 for two positions which according to the minister's own statement there is no need to fill. So I submit to the House that in view of a reduction in the staff of thirty, and two other positions with salaries attaching to them amounting to $5,800 that the minister says he does not think will be filled, we are warranted in reducing this vote by $23,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend take into consideration in that

Supply-Labour
computation he made by way of a comparison any statutory increases for this year? He is eliminating them altogether.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend can
take what consolation he likes out of that interjection, but it is utterly void of reason and logic.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is chock full of truth though. ,


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I also say this: Last year, when these estimates were before the House, the then minister reduced them by $40,000. Why? I am not saying there was any particular merit in that, but the point is this: Exactly the same conditions apply this year as applied last year. During the war, and subsequently, there had been built up in this as in other departments extra staffs to deal with questions that were perhaps pertinent at the time but which to a large extent have now disappeared. Last year $40,000 of a reduction was made in these estimates, and I am informed that this year there should be a corresponding reduction in the requirements for this department. Indeed, Sir, when the Prime Minister himself spoke and carried us away from the vote under consideration to page 52 of the Estimates, he pointed out that the department had reduced the estimates on page 52. Now does not that reduction indicate that the activities of the department, and its main activities are covered by these main estimates, have been reduced by a corresponding amount? Otherwise, why the reduction in the estimates? If, therefore, there has been a reduction in the main estimates on page 52, does it not stand to reason that the head office expenses ought to be reduced accordingly? Is not that common sense?
The Prime Minister also made the statement that there were six duplications in these estimates. Let us pause for a moment to consider that. Why did not the minister tell us there were these duplications? He had his two deputies in front of him, and he told us that he required all of this. He said he might be able to weed some out, but the Prime Minister coolly tells us tonight that there are six duplications: that is, there are six clerks provided for here, and in order to meet some possible demand of the Civil Service Commission for possible elevation of officers to new positions, six new positions are provided. Does that sort of thing permeate the whole of these Estimates?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In every department?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a most extraordinary situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I suggest to my hon. friend is this: We have here a list of the votes in resolutions such as this: "Privy Council, $66,000." That is the resolution. Then details are given for our convenience, and the minister has a great many more details for his convenience, but the vote is a vote for a certain sum, and therefore I say to the committee we can very well afford to reduce the sum and then let the department work out these difficulties of duplications that have been mentioned. It is manifestly absurd for the minister to come before Parliament and ask us to vote sums on which we have no information at all. Let me put it this way to my hon. friends. If what the Prime Minister states is now the case, let us take these six duplications and segregate them so that they are not applicable to both votes. My hon. friend knows this perfectly well; supposing be elevates one of these clerks to a higher salaried position, he is immediately at liberty, by authority of Parliament, to refill the vacated position; he knows perfectly well that he is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend, I am sure, does not want to create a wrong impression. As I explained to him, that is part of the method of procedure adopted by the Civil Service Commission. They fill the new position. When they have done so, they take account of the fact that this money has been voted, not for the purpose of creating two positions, but for the purpose of enabling a clerk to be transferred at the appropriate time from one to the other. The minister cannot fill the position; his deputy asks the Civil Service Commission to give him a clerk to fill a particular position. The Civil Service Commission then takes account of the fact that when the Estimates were before Parliament one appropriation was put in to meet the possibility of this new appointment; that however, cancels the other-it does not create two new positions. This is simply a method of procedure which the Civil Service Commission has adopted to carry out what is necessary in effecting promotions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think perhaps it would be more correct to say that it was a method
Supply-Labour

discovered this afternoon, or this evening, by my hon. friend to explain this rather involved dilemma in which he finds himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The bare facts are
there. A certain sum of money was required last year for a given service. This simple fact I place before the committee- and let me say to them that the same thing applies to other departments-the service is reduced by the number of thirty employees, and I say that we should not be asked to vote a larger sum by $23,000, than was required last year, for the payment of that reduced service. Now let me say this to the Prime Minister-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend this question: Suppose the Civil Service Commission should refuse to promote a certain clerk? If his salary is done away with what is going to be done with that clerk? From what source is he going to get his salary? The only way in which the payment can be provided in the meantime is for the estimate to be voted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend can vote his appropriation for the clerk if he desires. We are not objecting to that; we are objecting to this increase when there is a reduction of service. Just exactly how my hon. friend is to work it out is his business and not ours. Now let me draw the attention of the committee to another fact. I may be transgressing the rules 'but the Prime Minister has set an example in this regard. The Government claim-a statement was handed to the press in which they made the claim-a reduction of $138,000,000 in the general estimates of the country. The claim is made-we will not debate for the moment whether rightly or wrongly- that this is an economy effected in expenditure throughout the country. But if you take the Civil List you will find that in practically every department, with the exception, I think, of the Department of Railways, there is an increase at Ottawa. Now I bring this fact to the attention of the Government and I say: Personally I will co-operate with you in bringing about a reduction in the cost of administration in Ottawa because of the decreased service throughout the country. Now, if that is not logical I do not know what it is. Take any department; take the Department of Public Works, if you like. If there is a cessation of public works activities throughout 
the country surely there ought to be a corresponding reduction in the overhead cost of administration. Let me point this out to the committee: The very expedient employed by the late government, and condemned by the Minister of Labour this afternoon, is the method1 by which this can be brought about. And what is that? You will note that a year ago a reduction of $40,000 was made in the Labour Department. How? By dismissing or dispensing with the services of a number of temporary employees. We have been told by the Minister of Labour, by the Prime Minister and other speakers for'the Government, that you cannot rediuce the staff because they are permanent employees. The Minister of Labour says he cannot reduce the estimates because the salaries are for permanent employees. He is making twelve new permanent employees out of temporary employees this year. My hon. friend shakes his head. I do not know how on earth we are going to pin the Minister of Labour down to anything. He has told us time and time again that he is adding twelve temporary employees to the permanent staff. The committee knows perfectly well that what I am stating is perfectly true. Now what I am pointing out is this: The expedient of temporary employees is for exactly the 'situation that is facing us to-day. What is that? A reduction of the cost of administration throughout the country resulting from a cessation of activities due to the war and causes subsequent to the war. We can never get down from the war peak in the matter of expenditure unless we dismiss some one. Whom should we dismiss? Why the temporary employees certainly, and that is what the Minister of Labour of last year did. He reduced the estimates by $40,000; he laid off certain temporary employees. The present Minister has forty-two temporary employees and this number, when temporary employee's in other branches are included, is increased to 114. How can he reduce his estimates, how can he reduce his overhead, how can he reduce the cost of administration in Ottawa? Simply by dispensing with the services of some of these temporary employees instead of making them more permanent than they were. And so I say this to the Government: All through the main Estimates for the Civil Service in Ottawa there is a tendency towards a general increase; and I am not going to allow the Minister of Labour to get away with his curtain lecture to me this

Supply-Labour
afternoon, or the suggestion that I was aiming a blow at the working people in the Civil Service. I am doing nothing of the kind. I say to the Government that where they have efficient civil servants pay them a salary commensurate with their services every time; but it does not follow that the country must maintain a large staff beyond the needs and the requirements of the service. If the conditions to-day, as they were last year, are coming gradually back to normal, and we are getting away from the exigencies of war, then let us gradually bring the service down to a peace standard. Therefore what we say to the Prime Minister, and to every member of the Government, is that they will find us willing to join with them in a study of these Estimates for the one purpose of bringing about a reduction in the overhead charge, viz., the cost of administration in Ottawa.


James Murdock: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely regret if I have not been able to make the hon. member from Vancouver realize my viewpoint and my understanding in regard.to some of these things. I have tried several times to make it clear that, although in the estimates in certain cases perhaps there are two salaries, it is only intended to use one. Let me give a concrete case to illustrate my meaning, that of Mr. F. E. Harrison, Wage Investigator, Calgary. This gentleman has been for some time classified as a wage investigator at a salary of $2,340 a year. It has been contended-and here is the argument -that he should be named as a senior wage investigator beginning at $2,520 per year, a classification established by the Civil Service Commission. The vote in this particular case is to provide for the promotion of Mr. Harrison. In addition to his regular position he was formerly assistant to Mr. W. H. Armstrong, Director of Coai Operations, and was paid a salary of $600 per annum from War Appropriations for his extra services. While the position of Director of Coal Operations has been abolished, many of the duties pertaining to this position have descended to Mr. Harrison who performs them at a loss of $600 in salary. The department feels that Mr. Harrison should not suffer any loss, but as the limitations of the classification of his position and the regulations of the Civil Service Commission prevented the department from giving him the required increase in salary it was deemed advisable to create the new position of Senior Wage Investigator carrying a higher salary in
order that he might be permitted to receive the compensation to which the department feels he is entitled.
This is not an increase in the staff, but it proposes to establish two classifications with pay, only one of which will be used, under any circumstances, but if this $2,520 salary for Mr. Harrison's classification, as senior wage investigator, does not pass, we surely want to leave him with his present salary of $2,340, and classified as a wage investigator; otherwise we would have to come back to you and ask you to reconsider it. There is a number of exactly similar duplications in this proposal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By whom was Harrison appointed? That is important.


James Murdock: The Hon. Mr. Croth-ers, the late Minister of Labour, now deceased.


James Arthurs: Is it not possible, if both votes pass, for the senior wage investigator and the other investigator, as proposed, for the Minister of Labour to appoint another man?


James Murdock: I am told that the
lower position would be at once abolished by the commission, when the senior wage investigator had ben appointed.


James Arthurs: Why?


James Murdock: That is something I cannot answer.


James Arthurs: Have you any wage investigator other than this man?


James Murdock: Yes.


James Arthurs: Why should the
position be abolished?


James Murdock: I can only give my
hon. friend my word that the position will not be filled, and, furthermore, I will acquiesce in your view. If hon. gentlemen say that no more money should be paid for permanent salaries this year than last year, to-morrow morning I will proceed to put into effect the desire of this House, but not one temporary salary has been paid out of the vote of last year, or could be paid out of the vote of this year, and, therefore, any stress that has been placed on the forty-two temporary employees has no bearing upon this specific civil government vote.


Mr. HOCKEN:: As I understand the
minister, a larger salary has been put in
Supply-Labour

providing for the promotion of this investigator. He is not sure that this man is going to be promoted. If the position for which he is providing this salary is filled by the Civil Service Commission, we will have two employees on the pay-roll. Here is a wage investigator, as I understand it, at $2,300 a year. Then $2,500 is put in in the expectation that he will be promoted. If the Civil Service Commission say that he is not a suitable man, and they select somebody else, you will have two men on salary. Is that right? You do not lay off the wage investigator; you retain him in the position he occupies now, and you add another entire salary.


James Murdock: I am told we would at once drop the wage investigator.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You put in the man who now holds that position?


James Murdock: We would not accept any other man for promotion in place of this man, for whom a new official classification has been made.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Do I understand that in the promotion of this man, and the creation of a new office, the department has power to refuse the man selected by the Civil Service Commission?


James Murdock: The department would have the right to refuse to appoint any one. I desire the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) to understand that this man is regarded as being specially entitled to some extra consideration on account of the special mining situation in District 18, and the fact that he has proven to be a valuable officer in British Columbia and Alberta. While war appropriations were being dealt with he was getting $600 more, but that cannot be paid any longer, and, therefore, the only way to give him a fair measure of justice is to make a slightly increased classification, giving him a couple of hundred dollars more than other investigators.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am not objecting to his getting an increase or promotion, but I am stating that the Civil Service Commission is the body that will decide whether he is to be promoted or not. Am I right?


James Murdock: My hon. friend is hardly right, because they would not appoint without an application from us, and if they appointed anyone except this man, I am told the Labour Department would

not accept the appointment, and would not regard some other man as being specially entitled to $200 extra, and, therefore, the position would not be filled.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then I do not understand the Civil Service Act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who does?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I thought the procedure was that the department notified the Civil Service Commission that there was a certain office to be filled. The commission then advertised for applications for the particular office, and held an examination, or an inquiry, into the man's capacity and filled the office. I do not object to this man being promoted, or getting more salary, but if the Civil Service Commission say "You having asked for a new officer, we do not think the man who was the former wage investigator is competent for it, and we will appoint someone else." Then I understand the appointment by the Civil Service Commission would stand. If they appointed someone else, then the department has not only the wage investigator on its payrolls, but also the new appointee. I do not see how you are going to get over that, unless the Department of Labour directs the course of the Civil Service Commission. If the minister tells me that he can control the commission that will explain the matter. I was under the impression that that commission was not controlled by the department. If it is controlled by the department, then patronage has not been abolished, and if it is not controlled, we are in danger of having two men to fill one job.


Mr. EULER:: It came out pretty clearly last year, before the committee dealing with the Spinney Bill, that the deputy head of the department could make a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission, which was almost always accepted by the commission. I was a member of that committee and I think that was pretty clearly established.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was that not with regard to promotions only?


William Daum Euler: Not necessarily. This would refer to a promotion, I understand. It was clearly understood in that investigation that the opinion, or the suggestion, of the deputy head would be accepted. I do not know that they are absolutely bound by that opinion, but it was established before that committee, certainly to my satisfaction that the commission accepted the recommendation of the deputy head. There-

Supply-Labour
fore, if the Minister of Labour or his deputy made his recommendation to the commission that this particular man be appointed,
I think there is very little doubt that the commission would accept that recommendation-at least they stated so at the investigation.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I wish to ask a question, and I am not asking it in a controversial way. It arose from a statement made by the Prime Minister, which struck me as being of considerable importance, and I should like to get a clear understanding of it. If I mistake not, it was said that, not only in this department, but in others, the necessity arose at times practically to duplicate positions in the Estimates in order to provide for possible or probable promotion from one position to another, and in order to allow for that, a salary was provided for each position, with the understanding that only one salary would be used.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the case in some of the departments.


Alfred Speakman: In that case, is it necessary to provide for both salaries? Would it not be sufficient, in cases like that, to provide for a salary to cover the higher position of the two, because the greater always contains the less, and in case the promotion was not made, the salary appropriated for the higher position would still pay the salary of the lower position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend is quite right. I am informed that, in some departments, what he has suggested is done, but in others, the other course has been adopted.


Arthur Meighen: That is the way I have understood the act to be worked out; but does that not all go to show that this motion should pass? The motion is made on the ground that there is not so much to provide for this year as last; that is to say, that the Labour Department, in the scale of its operations, would be smaller rather than larger, on account of the assurance of the minister that the number of employees would be less, as undoubtedly they should be less? The number has been growing progressively less for some time. Objection is taken on this ground

this is given as an illustration of the objection-that it is necessary to name in the Estimates two positions to cover the event of the man who fills what is now only the one position, the lower, not being chosen by the commission to fill the higher. The minister says: "Well, if he is not chosen, we shall not accept the other choice." I think he is right in saying that the department has power to refuse the choice of the commission. In that case only one salary is going to be required, and if the higher one is provided for, undoubtedly that is all that is necessary. Supposing there is simply a general cut ordered by this committee. Then it is certainly within the power of the department to allocate that cut so that just the six duplications will absorb a good part of it. Consequently, there is no argument in the case of duplication against the cut being made.
Mr.MACKENZIE KING: I think my right hon. friend is quite correct so far as he goes. The sum which the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) has proposed is an arbitrary and rather a large amount. Without opportunity for adjusting all these estimates very carefully, it is difficult to say just what amount could be saved. If my hon. friend from Vancouver would consider reducing his amount somewhat, possibly the hardship of which I have just spoken might be avoided; but to take the sum which he has suggested and deliberately pass it in this committee, I am afraid, would create hardship upon some members of the Civil Service.


Mr. STEWART (Lanark) :: I should like to ask the minister whether with reference to two positions provided for in the estimates, a substantial saving might not be made. On page 107, the third position is that of Director of Technical Education. As I understand the matter, the legislation under which this office was created was passed in 1919, and Dr. Gill was appointed Director of Technical Education either in the latter part of 1919 or in the early months of 1920. In carrying out the provisions of the act, it was found that it was necessary for the Director of Technical Education to visit the different provinces for the purpose of making the necessary arrangements for the proper working of the act, and that required that the director should be absent from Ottawa a great part of his time. That was found to interfere with the carrying on of the office at Ottawa; and in order to carry on the negotiations with the provinces, later on an Assistant Director of Technical Education was appointed. We have a Director of Technical Education, and for the last year the appropriation was $4,275. This year the appropriation is $3,900. The arrange-

Supply-Labour

ments, as I understand the matter, have all been completed with the provinces, and on the first of September of last year, Dr. Gill resigned. Mr. Crawford was appointed Assistant Director of Technical Education, and from the first of September of last year until the 29th of December, when the late government went out, Mr. Crawford was carrying on, performing the duties of Director of Technical Education. It was the intention of the late government that no appointment would be made to fill the vacancy; that Mr. Crawford should be promoted to be Director of Technical Education. It was found that the reason for the appointment of the assistant had passed.
All arrangements had been com-
9 p.m. pleted between the department at Ottawa and the provinces, and the Director of Technical Education was again in a position to carry on his work here. The late government was in office from the first of September until the 29th of December, and no appointment was made to fill the vacancy. Why? Simply because it was the policy of the government to do away with the assistant and to let the director again carry on at Ottawa. There is really no work outside of Ottawa, and it was the policy of the ex-Minister of Labour and of the late government that the Director of Technical Education should be a fountain of information only; that he should be in Ottawa for the purpose of giving to the provinces information that they might write for, so that these two offices are clearly not necessary, unless the present minister has changed the policy of his predecessor in office and has some other policy for the administration of this act. If he has, I am sure he will tell the House what that policy is. If he has no other policy, surely it is unnecessary to provide a salary of $3,900 for the Director of Technical Education and a salary of $3,705 for the assistant director. I do not know whether any appointment has been made since the 20th of December last or not; but I know that prior to that time no appointment had been made, and that the late government had no intention to make any appointment. There you have a clear saving of $3,705. With another item here, the two would make a saving of more than $5,000. I should like to know from the minister, in connection with the second item on page 108, "Confidential Messenger," who the confidential messenger was last year.


James Murdock: I am advised that Mr. Lacelle was confidential messenger last year and is this year, as proposed.


John Alexander Stewart: When was Mr. Lacelle appointed?


James Murdock: In 1906, I am told.


John Alexander Stewart: Was a Mr. Rump not confidential messenger last year?


James Murdock: I am advised that he was promoted to a clerkship, and that he earned his promotion by passing the specified examination. He has been there since I have been in office.


John Alexander Stewart: If I were to claim that when Mr. Rump was placed in another department no appointment to the office of confidential mesenger was made, that would not be according to what the minister understands to be the fact?


James Murdock: I am told that Mr. Lacelle has been a messenger since 1906, and that he was made confidential messenger some two or three years ago.


John Alexander Stewart: Did Mr. Lacelle occupy the position which in the estimates $1,200 was provided for last year?


James Murdock: The estimates as I have them before me so indicate.


John Alexander Stewart: That is your answer ?


James Murdock: Yes sir; and he did occupy the position to the best of my knowledge and belief.


John Alexander Stewart: Will the minister kindly explain the position of the department with reference to the appointment of a Director and Assistant Director of Technical Education?


James Murdock: Gladly. The position of Director of Technical Education was vacant when I assumed office. I understand that Dr. Gill, who ocupied the position, went to British Columbia at a substantially increased salary some time early in September last. My predecessor in office very kindly left me a memorandum in regard to Dr. Gill, and the hon. member for Lanark has explained fully to the House the recommendation and suggestion made to me at the time I took office. The position has not been filled yet, although numerous applications have come to me, and I have not thought of filling it at the moment. We have in the department an Assistant Director of Technical Education. With my knowledge of his abilities and of the work to be performed, I do not care at the present time to promote him to the director-

Supply-Labour
ship. I do not see the necessity of having two officers at present, but I do not know whether that condition will continue. It is only proper to say, though, that this year there are $1,000,000 to be handled under the direction of either the Director or the Assistant Director of Technical Education. I am told that each year agreements have to be made between the federal government's representative and the educational authorities of the provinces with regard to the expenditure of this fund, and that it requires a very capable officer to see that the appropriation is judiciously expended. That is as I understand the situation with regard to the Directorship of Technical Education. I think the hon. member will agree that it would not be advisable for me to strike out the position of director and leave in the position of assistant director-in other words, an assistant to a position which does not exist. Therefore, at present the two positions are left in, although one is vacant.


John Alexander Stewart: If it is intended to promote the Assistant Director of Technical Education to the position of Director, surely the position of Assistant at $3,705 should be struck out of the estimates; or if it is the intention to continue the assistant, then the position of director at $3,900 should be struck out. It is not intended to continue the two positions?


James Murdock: Would it be consistent to strike out the Director of Technical Education and leave in the Assistant Director? If my hon. friend, as a business man and member of this House, will advise that course, I will agree with him at once.


John Alexander Stewart: No. I would suggest to the hon. minister that he follow what I stated to have been the policy of the late government-promote Mr. Crawford.


James Murdock: I am not prepared to do that, Sir, at present.


John Alexander Stewart: But that
would not be any reason why both appropriations should be kept in the estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why not strike out the appropriation and leave the position there?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the
Prime Minister made a very reasonable suggestion, and I want to bring it to the attention of the committee as early as possible. I would suggest that my resolution which now reads:
37J
That in view of the statement of the Minister of Labour as appearing on page 479 of Hansard that thirty employees of the department would be dismissed on this day, March 31, 1922, item 24 on page 9 of the Estimates be reduced to the same amount as last year, namely, $171,640 for salaries and $35,000 for contingencies.
Instead of that I would move to substitute therefore:
That item 24 on page 9 of the Estimates be reduced by the sum of $15,000.
This, I have calculated somewhat carefully, will pretty well cover these points upon which we are agreed there will be required no vote. If the Prime Minister is agreeable to that, I would amend my motion accordingly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the House will agree, I think we shall save time by accepting the hon. gentleman's amendment.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for an opportunity to address the committee briefly. I am delighted with the zeal for economy shown by my hon. friends to my right. They have made a great deal of progress during the past year in the right direction, and I hope that that progress will continue. It did seem to me that my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Stewart) was on pretty good ground with respect to this Directorship of Technical Education. I expressed my opinion yesterday on that question, and 1 need only make this further observation now, that the position of Assistant Director of Technical Education might very well be dispensed with. If the minister does not wish to promote the present occupant of that position to the senior position, he might leave him in an active capacity in the other, at any rate, until he had made up his mind whether or not he wished to make that promotion. In fact, I am pretty well convinced that there is no need for either, and I think that the deputy minister or the minister himself, might very well be able to make the necessary arrangements with the provincial authorities covering the expenditure of this money, which in my judgment should never have been voted to the provinces for this purpose. But let that pass.
There is one other aspect of these estimates that I wish to briefly bring to the attention of the minister, and I do it not in any spirit of captious criticism, but with a real desire to assist him. I observe there are several items in the estimates for statistical clerks. Altogether we are providing about $27,000 for twenty-two stat-
Supply-Labour

istical clerks in the Department of Labour. We have a Bureau of Statistics, a branch of the Government service which in my judgment is very efficiently manned and operated. Would it not be possible for the Department of Labour to have its statistical work done, in large measure at least, in the Bureau of Statistics? The offices of the Labour Department are only a few blocks from those of the Bureau of Statistics; the bureau has all the machinery and equipment necessary to carry on the work. Are we to understand that the Department of Labour are building up within their own confines another statistical bureau? I mention this because I know how easy it is to duplicate services in government departments in this city. Another question I would ask is whether the Department of Labour is being equipped with the machines that go with statistical research work and which are already installed in the Bureau of Statistics?


James Murdock: At present we are
merely continuing the plan which, as I understand, has been in effect for very many years. These statistics collected in the Department of Labour are in connection with employment questions, the cost of living, and other matters coming within the purview of the department. I may tell my hon. friend, however, that for the past couple of weeks two or three ministers who think there is unnecessary duplication of statistical work have had it in mind to confer with the deputies of the respective departments and their chief officers with a view to finding out where those duplications can be eliminated, and how the collection of statistics can best be made uniform and placed under the supervision of one department only. I could place before you correspondence indicating that that matter is now under advisement and awaiting the time when we shall be able to get together for that purpose.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am delighted to hear
that statement from the minister. I am very certain that if the committee of the Cabinet prosecute their inquiries diligently, as I am sure they will, very considerable saving can be effected. I may not be fully conversant with the circumstances, but there appears to be no good reason why this information gathered from different parts of the country for statistical purposes cannot be turned over to and compiled by the Statistical Bureau, with a consequent saving of thousands of dollars to the other departments.
fMr. Crerar.]


Arthur Meighen: I make no criticism at all of the vote; in fact, I am disposed to think it is necessary. But it is only right that the committee should know that the concentration of statistics has been the work mainly of the last two years. The statistics formerly were prepared in every department-Railway Department, Trade and Commerce, and all the rest, and the result was not duplication, but triplication and quadruplication and all the other "cations." They have, however, been concentrated in the Trade and Commerce Department, under a very efficient officer, Mr. Coats, who stated in a recent address that, in his belief, we now had the best statistical service of any country in the world. That has been the work of late years. I do not rise particularly to emphasize that feature of the late administration, but possibly I can be justified in doing so in view of the taunt that has just been flung at us that our enthusiasm for economy is of recent birth.


John Livingstone Brown: Another thing that the
Government might well consider is the question of what statistics are really valuable, and what are not. As an illustration of statistics that are not very valuable I recall the case of a man in our community who used to bucksaw wood and who could tell you at the close of the day exactly how many sticks he had cut. He marked it down and kept a faithful record; in other words, he accumulated statistics. We had a very ponderous volume put into our hands since we came here, the Canadian Atlas, a magnificent volume, splendidly printed on paper of excellent quality. I turned over the pages the other day and I came across this heading: "Tons of freight per head of population." Now, that information is entombed in this ponderous volume. It reminds me of going into a museum and finding the mummies of cats and hawks and other vermin that were taken from the pyramids of Egypt. The Government might very well consider whether it is wise or necessary to publish statistics that are not of permanent value. One of the things that makes us speak as we do in regard to the reduction of expenditure is that the wheat crop of Manitoba is said not to be able to pay the taxes of this year.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but as its range seems to have stretched from Dan to Beersheba and has proceeded, whether relevant to the item under consideration or not, I wish to suggest that

Supply-Labour
when the Government are co-ordinating, so to speak, the statistical branches of the various departments they consider seriously the advisability of eliminating at least fifty per cent of the civil servants employed in the inside service at Ottawa. I am an old civil servant; I had about four years' experience in the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Ottawa, and during that time I was forced to the conclusion that the service at Ottawa is overmanned, and, to great extent, overpaid. The people of my constituency are up in arms against the conditions prevailing in Ottawa with regard to the Civil Service. The late government gave us what was termed Civil Service improvement or Civil Service reform. A few, days ago I went over to the department in which I used to be employed, and I found that where there were two employees in 1914, in many of the branches to-day there are fifteen or sixteen, drawing pay from the public treasury. The farmers and the labouring men of Hants object to the public funds being dissipated in this manner. This afternoon we spent a great deal of time in the consideration of a matter involving $4,000 or $5,000; and we spent about $25,000 or $30,000 of the public moneys in useless discussion, largely owing to the fact that the ministry have inherited from the Government which was driven from power on the sixth of December a legacy for which the people owe them nothing but Christian forgiveness-to say the least. My only object in rising this afternoon is to ask the Administration, when they take into consideration the t co-ordination of the statistical branches, to give serious attention also to the reformation of the inside Civil Service-without going to the United States for assistance and without accepting the legacy which was handed down to us by the late administration.


Mr. NEILL:: I have much pleasure in endorsing the remarks of the last two speakers, although my experience has been from a different point of view. While it is highly desirable that we should save the money that is spent in handling and tabulating these returns when they are brought in, the people who excite my sympathies are the wretched people in the country who have to make them out. There are a large number of retailers in Canada -I forget the exact number-and it was a plank in my platform that I should endeavour to eliminate these useless returns. They are a perfect pest to the body of retailers throughout Canada. A
merchant in a big way in Vancouver told me they had to employ an extra clerk to make out the returns; this was more particularly during the war. Every time they sold a sack of potatoes all these different returns had to be made out, and not only did they have to keep an extra clerk for that work, but a very capable clerk, a statistician, indeed, to cope with it. I know one case where a storekeeper got one of these wretched returns and sat down and wrote on it,' "I will go to gaol before I will attempt to fill out this return." He simply could not do it and was not going to lie about it. This going- [DOT] to goal part of the business is no fantasy, because nearly all these returns have a notice at the bottom that if the return is [DOT]not sent in by such and such a date you are liable to so many days in gaol. The company I am associated with have had a number of returns to make out, and while we fibbed a little we generally got them out a month or so late, and mailed the things in. One in particular I had mailed, but it did not appear to have reached the department, because I got a registered letter to say that on account of its not being sent in I was liable to,
I forgot hoW many months in gaol, and they rather indicated they expected me to go to gaol by registered letter forthwith.
I had no way of proving that I had sent the return in, although I knew perfectly well I had sent it in. The company I am connected with also sells coal, and we have a monthly coal return to fill in. It is made out in such a way that no known system of book-keeping can be used in making out the return. We fake the thing as a matter of fact. Every sale is supposed to be tabulated in this miserable return, and we simply have to fill it out more or less by guess. And if that were not enough, about every three months, or to be quite safe, every six months, they change the whole system of making out the returns so they cannot be of any possible use to them for purposes of comparison. Hon. gentlemen are inclined to laugh, but it is a matter of deadly earnestness to a great many people. I am often at a loss to know and often wonder whether it will be myself or my book-keeper who will go to gaol eventually. Certainly one of us will. If the Government will eliminate some of these returns they will certainly earn the gratitude of the very large body of retailers throughout Canada.
Amendment (Mr. Stevens) agreed to: yeas 120, nays 0.
Supply-Labour


John Alexander Stewart: Before the resolution as amended is agreed to I would like to ask if it is the intention of the Department of Labour to be represented at the Genoa Conference by a labour representative of this Dominion.


James Murdock: If my hon. friend is referring to the Conference in April, we shall be represented by Colonel Carnegie. I think the conference my hon. friend refers to is at Rome, not Genoa. The governing body of the International Labour Office meets at Rome in April.


John Alexander Stewart: I am speaking of the Economic Conference at Genoa.


James Murdock: We have nothing to do with it.	*


John Alexander Stewart: I think Canada is represented at the Genoa Conference by Sir Charles Gordon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And Professor Montpetit.


John Alexander Stewart: Is it the intention of the department or of the Government that labour shall be represented at that conference?


James Murdock: We have had no invitation to be represented at that conference.


John Alexander Stewart: The conference is for the consideration of economic and financial questions which are vital to the interests of Canada, questions in which labour as well as capital has a very deep interest. I should like to ask the minister if, in his opinion, in the consideration of these matters the interests of labour would be well taken care of by Sir Charles Gordon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I
might answer my hon. friend. An invitation was extended to the Government of Canada to be represented at the Genoa Conference. It was intimated that one or two delegates might be appointed, but the Government has chosen, as my hon. friend has mentioned, Sir Charles Gordon and Professor Montpetit. As my hon. friend is probably aware, Professor Montpetit is professor of economics in the University of Montreal and is well versed in labour and other problems. I am sure that in the hands of these two gentlemen the interests of labour, so far as they are matters for special concern, will be represented at this conference. It was not especially requisite that any particular group or class should be represented.


John Alexander Stewart: I do not
wish at all that my question should indicate that I have any fault to find with the selection made by the Government. If I were to express my own view I should say that in the selection of Sir Charles Gordon no happier or better choice could have been made for Canada. I simply desired to know whether in this conference, as in past international conferences, it was the intention that the Department of Labour, or labour, should be specially represented by a labour representative.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out to my hon. friend that this conference is very similar in character to the conference at Washington. The late government when asked to appoint delegates to Washington selected Sir Robert Borden to represent this country; it was not thought advisable to appoint a special labour representative to that conference. The same reasons that governed the late administration in their appointment have also actuated the present Government.


Ernest Lapointe: May I tell my hon.
friend furthermore that I do not know of a better economist in Canada than Professor Montpetit and he is not more of a capitalist than myself. Besides I do not see why a labour man should be appointed at this conference any more than a farmer or a person engaged in any other trade or occupation in Canada.


John Alexander Stewart: I am entirely satisfied; I simply wished to get the position the Government took. _ There is another question I would like to ask the Minister of Labour before this matter is finally disposed of and that is: Is it the present policy of the minister to promote, or to attempt to promote, further good relations between employers and employees, particularly in the building trades? I find that in January last the minister is reported to have said that employers and employees in the building industry "must and shall get together." Now if my hon. friend is correctly reported I think it is possibly due to the committee that we should know what the policy of the Labour Department is, particularly in view of the fact that after that statement was reported by the press to have been made by the minister, the Fourth Annual Conference of the Association of Building and Construction Industries, held in the city of Hamilton from January 17th to 20th, passed this resolution :

Supply-Labour
Resolved, that in our industry we have found Joint Industrial Councils tend only to cause dissension rather than cure it, and therefore such councils should not be continued.
I would like to have the minister state to the committee whether in view of the fact that earlier in the month of January he is reported to have stated-if he was incorrectly reported of course that disposes of the matter-that the employers and the employees must and shall get together, the department has any policy for dealing with the situation in view of the resolution passed in Hamilton.


James Murdock: I am glad to advise
my hon. friend, although I am sure he is already aware of the fact, that the Labour Department has no authority to compel pleasant, proper and consistent relations in the building trades as between employer and employee. I can however, inform the hon. member that anything that can be done in a suggestive way will be done, any assistance that can be rendered will be rendered, in order to bring about, to create and to maintain proper- relations between employer and employees in the building trades. That is being done from time to . time. Occasionally we have suggestions as to how we can assist in that respect, and in every case we undertake to do whatever it appears possible to do to bring about, establish, and maintain the relations which should exist between employers and employees. But again I repeat my hon. friend is as familiar as I am, if not more so with the knowledge as to how far, under the existing federal regulations, the Labour Department can go in a matter of that kind.


John Alexander Stewart: It was only in view of the language used by the minister himself "must and shall" that I asked for information as to what the policy of the department was. Now I have one more question to ask and then I am through. In the Toronto Globe of November 24, 1921, the minister is reported to have expressed himself as follows:
I have been long-big- for two years to appear before a proper tribunal in order to get the facts as to the manner in which the rights of the people of this Dominion have been sacrificed and intentionally so. But no opportunity will come until after December 6th. When I am member for South Toronto I am going to continue in Parliament this battle for a showdown. Among those who may be questioned will be the Conservative nominee for West York, who will then be a private gentleman.
I shall ask what protection the Canadian people have at present against combines, trusts and mergers. I'll answer here and now, none whatever.
I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether with the staff and organization of the Department of Labour, he has undertaken to carry out and wage this battle which, at Mimico on 24th November last, he promised to wage, and if not whether he intends to carry out the promise? If so when and how?


James Murdock: The hon. member's question has nothing whatever to do with the Department of Labour but I will answer by saying that no action has been taken or will be taken through or by the Department of Labour to do the things to which my hon. friend refers; and I here and now suggest that I was rather optimistic in regard to certain things at that time.


Arthur Meighen: I agree with the Minister of Labour that there is no power of compulsion in the department to compel the employers and the employees in the building trades to get together; but if there is no power of compulsion, would it not comport more with the dignity of this country if the minister did not use the language of compulsion? When a minister of the Crown uses the language of compulsion, saying what people " must and shall " do, that signifies that the power of compulsion is behind the language; and when the power of compulsion fails it does not comport very well with the dignity of the country or with the dignity of the office which the minister holds.
The next point I want to make is this: The minister through the campaign painted a lurid picture of what he described as trusts and combines which he designated as the enemies of the people. They were described as foes to be fought, as the oppressors of the real people of the country -the common people of the nation. Does he really think that the man whom he joyfully painted as acting in that role- and he was joined in vigorous language day after day and night after night by the leader of the Progressive party in denunciation of Dominion Textiles and all that pertained to them-does he think that the head and front, the founder, the centre, the heart, and everything practically, of Dominion Textiles is the right representative of Canada at an economic conference? If I believed what the minister expressed before the election, and if I believed what the leader of the Progressive party expressed over and over again, and Sir Charles Gordon were appointed to represent this country at an economic conference- a man who was declared to be the common
Supply-Labour

enemy of the people of Canada

I would feel like getting up in Parliament and saying so. Why is it there is silence on the part of the minister and the Government after Sir Charles Gordon is selected? Why is there silence on the part of the Progressive leader in Parliament after Sir Charles Gordon is selected?	Does not all this
seem very strange?	Certain things, of
course, were brought into the arena of vituperation, hut none so much as Dominion Textiles. That organization was held up as the child and creation of the late Government, and those who controlled it were represented as the dictators of the Government policy, pressing their heels on the neck of the common people, without sentiments of real patriotism for the nation as a whole, and selfish aggrandisers interested only in the accumulation of wealth. Is such a man as Six Charles Gordon a fit representative of the Dominion, and of labour, along with the rest of the Dominion, at any conference at all? How could' hon. gentlemen have been sincere, and then sit silent when such a selection was made?


James Murdock: Two or three hon. gentlemen have referred to Sir Charles Gordon, and to what I said in the campaign. I never mentioned Sir Charles Gordon's name throughout the election, and 1 challenge any hon. gentleman to produce proof to the contrary. Furthermore, I never gave consideration-


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Did the hon. gentleman mention the Dominion Textile Company and one of the presidents of it?


James Murdock: One at a time, please. I never thought about Sir Charles Gordon during the campaign. I never dealt, specifically or otherwise, with the Dominion Textiles, but rather with certain other concerns.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Will the hon. minister allow me a question? Did he impale the Dominion Textile Company in the city of Toronto?


James Murdock: I referred in Toronto, and at other places, to certain combines in textiles, cement and various things affecting the interests of the common people of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Dominion Textiles.


James Murdock: I do not think it. I do not think I ever used the words "Dominion Textiles."


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: I should like to know if we are discussing the Department of Labour or holding a post mortem?


Robert Alexander Hoey: The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has made frequent and characteristic attacks, has misled the members of this House and has referred to the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar).


Hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Charles Marcil: I do not think those expressions are quite parliamentary.


Robert Alexander Hoey: If they were parliamentary, those are the expressions I would use.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I want to say-


Charles Marcil: I think the hon. gentleman must withdraw that expression, and use some other.


Robert Alexander Hoey: If it is your pleasure and ruling, Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to withdraw, although I have the misfortune to come from a country where men do not usually withdraw their statements once made. I say, in answer to the charge made by the hon. leader of the Opposition, that the hon. leader of the Progressive party has already on the floor of this House, in the debate on .the Address, protested against the appointment of Sir Charles Gordon to the Economic Conference at Genoa.


Arthur Meighen: I am very glad the hon. gentleman rose and made the statement. If he said so, I did not hear him. I am very glad he made the statement. He was consistent in doing it. I am not disputing it at all.


James Arthurs: During the debate
yesterday a question arose regarding the mining situation in Nova Scotia, and the minister is reported to have spoken as follows:
I presumed to send to Nova Scotia a very capable officer of the department in order that he might go on the ground in the mining towns of Cape Breton and ascertain what the actual conditions were.
Further on he said-
I am sorry to say that I must have been too presumptuous in sending a federal employee to that district and in that capacity, because when he got to Halifax he was given to understand, in substance, that he had better mind his own business and get back to Ottawa.

Supply-Labour
What officer of the department was sent; for what purpose was he sent and from whom did he receive the order to come back to Ottawa? The minister must know this.


James Murdock: In reply to the question of the hon. gentleman from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), I may say that Mr. T. A. Stevenson was the officer of the Labour Department who went East to investigate the entire situation and report to the minister. After being in Halifax a short time-I could not say the time without the file-he was given to understand by an official of the provincial government, as I understand the report, that the provincial government of Nova Scotia was amply sufficient unto itself to deal with the situation in that locality, and that there was not any real necessity for a representative of our department to go further than Halifax to look into the situation.


James Arthurs: The hon. gentleman
has stated that some officer of the provincial government of Nova Scotia gave this order to come back to Ottawa. Has this officer sent by his department made a report to the Minister of Labour, and if so is that report available to this House?


James Murdock: Mr. T. A. Stevenson made a report as I recall now. I am speaking from recollection subject to correction. He made a report of each mining town investigated during his stay there, forwarding daily reports, and if they were all collected into one continuous report, I imagine we would find a concrete reference to every mining town he visited, or every situation which he investigated while down there.


James Arthurs: That does not answer the last question. Is that report available to the House? Further, who was the officer of the Nova Scotia government who asked this man to come back to Ottawa. I would also ask the hon. gentleman as a favour to lay the report on the Table, so that it would be available to every member of the House, and we could see the conditions that this officer found.


James Murdock: Anything in the Labour Department is available to the hon. gentleman and to this House. I will undertake to bring it to the hon. gentleman and to give to it such publicity as he desires.


James Arthurs: That is all we want.
The minister did not answer my other
question as to who was the officer of the Nova Scotia government who asked this man to come back to Ottawa.


James Murdock: I would have to look at the report in order to give the information which my hon. friend wants, and which, I judge, he can get from the report when he receives it.


John Alexander Stewart: There are
two matters I should like to clear up on the record with reference to these estimates, and I am sure the minister would be glad to have them cleared up. On page 108, there is an item, "one supplies clerk", for which, last year, there was an appropriation of $1,600, and for which there is no appropriation this year. I understand that, last year, no appointment was made to this office and no salary paid. Can the minister confirm that? From the estimate as it appears now, it would seem to be a reduction in staff and a saving.


James Murdock: It has been found possible to discontinue entirely that position for this fiscal year.


John Alexander Stewart: I make the statement that no appointment was made last year and no salary paid, and that consequently no officer can be disposed of. This year the Government is not dispensing with the services of an officer or with a salary, but is simply carrying out the policy of the ex-minister in the late government.


James Murdock: My hon. friend will note that last year there was a salary of $1,600 provided for in the estimates for one supplies clerk. I am told now that, by the usual methods of Civil Service promotion and advancement, that gentleman has gone up to the classification of senior supplies clerk at a salary of $1,680, or an increase of $80 a year.


John Alexander Stewart: Last year
no appointment was made and no salary paid. That is all I desire to clear up.


James Murdock: I am told that my hon. friend is perfectly right, and I am thankful for the information because I was not aware of it.


John Alexander Stewart: I simply
wish to clear up what appears from the estimates to be dispensing with the services of an officer and the saving of a salary of $1,600. My hon. friend does not wish to create that impression when it is not so. Does the same thing not apply to
Supply-Militia

the next item, "one audit clerk", for which, in the estimates of last year, a salary of $1,300 was provided, and for which there is no appropriation this year? I understand no appointment was made to the office and no salary paid. If that is so, that is all I desire to clear up.


James Murdock: If the hon. member
will look further up the list, he will find an item, "senior audit clerk", at a salary of $1,500. That is where that classification has gone to and where it is specified in the current estimates.


John Alexander Stewart: Last year both these offices were not filled and both salaries were not paid.


James Murdock: I am told, the same individual in each case.
Item as amended agreed to.
Civil Government-Militia and Defence-Salaries and contingencies-$015,577.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that this resolution was called on Monday or Tuesday last and was allowed to stand over owing to my absence. I may say that I have taken the opportunity of going through the various items with some care, and I think I can say that I have some familiarity with the particular items concerned. There does not appear to be very much reduction from the estimates of last year as they were amended by
10 p.m. the committee on that occasion, but I think the reason for that is justifiable. The work consequent upon the conclusion of the war is still being performed to a large extent by three branches of the Department of Militia, notably, the Central Registry Office, the Records Office and the Pay and Allowance Branch. The work these three branches are doing is practically all after-war work, necessitating the employment of a considerable staff. I thought, perhaps, there might be a little greater reduction at the present time than these estimates show, but still I cannot express much surprise at the statement now made. Perhaps I might state that, in addition to the staff which is shown upon page 74 of the Estimates, there is a large temporary staff in that department; 400 of the temporary staff are, I understand, to be let out to-day. When I had the honour of being made Minister of Militia and Defence the temporary staff alone numbered 5,280, and last April, while the estimates were before the House, I remember I was able to say that the staff

had been reduced to 1,200 or thereabouts, and that it would be gradually reduced and finally wiped out within the next year or two. I think myself that a reduction of 400 this year is a fairly good showing. That temporary staff, however, is not paid out of the Militia Department vote at all, but out of the Demobilization or War Claims Vote, as it is now called, which will be found in the Estimates, amounting to some $6,000,000 or $7,000,000. It is purely a war vote. These clerks are doing war work and have always been paid out of the demobilization fund. Their services will expire automatically, I should think, within a year or at most two years, when these temporary officials will of course be all out of the service. I would hardly like to say that the minister has saved the country $600,000 as I saw stated in one newspaper, by reason of dispensing with four hundred clerks on the first of this month. Certainly that amount will not be paid to them this year, but no one expected it would be. Automatically they go out because there is no work for them to do. The Demobilization or War Claims vote will also vanish entirely within a year or two. But on page 74 of the Estimates we find, the permanent staff as it is to-day of the Militia Department. Having gone over that as carefully as I can, I do not think any reasonable objection can be taken to it, and so far as I am concerned, the vote having stood over for my presence in the House, I do not think I have any further criticism to offer on that head.


Robert James Manion: I notice a Director of Separation Allowances and Assigned Pay. Of course, I know that officer was used very much during the war, but I am wondering as to the necessity of such an officer at the present time.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence): Although the war is over that officer's work is going on at the rate of two hundred cases a month.


Robert James Manion: Are they disputed cases?


George Perry Graham: He is also in charge, I believe, of the loan branch in connection with the Finance Department, and is a pretty busy man.	.


Robert James Manion: The minister apparently did not hear my question. 1 asked if the officer's work was in regard to disputed cases of assigned pay and separation allowances.


George Perry Graham: 
Mr. SALES:: Is such an officer as custodian of surveying equipment at a salary of $1,680 really necessary?


George Perry Graham: Until some time ago
that gentleman was a senior clerk. He has been given that title by the new classification, and his work is the same as before, although he is engaged in the Survey branch.


John Livingstone Brown: I have had occasion to look over the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1921, and under the head of civil government, Department of Militia and Defence, I find the total allotted to be $221,955.14. Does that cover the items that we are considering here, which were increased to $586,000 odd last year, and for which $585,000 is now being asked? Did the expenditure for that department increase that amount in one year?


George Perry Graham: The statement would of course be for two years ago


John Livingstone Brown: I realize that.


George Perry Graham: -before 270 employees were added.


John Livingstone Brown: Then does the number
of employees added to the staff account for that very large increase over two years ago?


George Perry Graham: The classification of the department, although recommended, was delayed for quite a length of time, and when it came into effect it was to some extent retroactive, which made the expenses all the larger.


Alfred Speakman: I notice that the purchasing department has been increased to this extent: there are three junior purchasing agents instead of one; two purchasing agents as there were before; and they have dropped one assisting purchasing agent, making five agents altogether instead of three. Is this due to reclassification? That is, are they the same men under different names? If so, are the former positions which they held still provided for by duplicated statements, or have they been abolished?


George Perry Graham: The positions which
they held before have been abolished. The department did not recommend that these new titles be given, but on appeal the officials were given them by the Civil Service classification. It is the same men, and the former offices disappear.


John Livingstone Brown: I have not had my question answered yet, and I think it is something that the country would like to know. I asked whether I have correctly interpreted the Auditor General's report in assuming that the cost of this department has increased from $221,000 two years ago to something over half a million both for last year and the present year.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact, the hon. gentleman is literally true on account of the postponement of reclassification from an earlier date up to that time, and the increase two years ago was really made almost entirely owing to the reclassification.


John Livingstone Brown: That means over $300,000 in that one year.


George Perry Graham: The work that these
permanent clerks now do was performed at the time he mentions by temporary clerks who were paid out of the demobilization vote.


Mr. GOULD:: Reference was made by the hon. ex-Minister of Militia and Defence to the services of some 400 temporary clerks being dispensed with to-day. Are the salaries of members of the permanent staff in the Records Office paid out of the war appropriations fund, or out of the moneys that are being voted to-night?


George Perry Graham: The permanent staff is paid out of this vote. A large portion of the temporary staff, as has been explained by the ex-minister, was paid in former years out of the demobilization vote. This year-and personally I regret the necessity for doing it-four hundred members of the temporary staff are being retired, effective the first of April. I hope that with the amalgamation bill put through we shall eventually be able to carry on the work of the four branches, each of which
S upply-A griculture

has now a large temporary staff, with the permanent staff only.


Oliver Robert Gould: About three years ago contracts were entered into with those who now constitute a part of the permanent staff to cover their employment for a period of three years. I understand that at the end of next month those contracts will expire, and that they apply to quite a number on the permanent staff in Ottawa. If these contracts are not to be renewed-and from personal conversation with some of the men affected, I judge they do not anticipate their renewal-the decrease in the permanent staff should be apparent in the amount we are asked to vote to-night.


George Perry Graham: That would be in connection with the military staff, not the civil staff.


Mr. MacLAREN:: In the preparation of these estimates, has the system of duplication of salary votes been followed, as in the case of the Labour Department, where provision is desired for promotions?


George Perry Graham: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Agriculture-Salaries and contingencies, $775,717.50.
Mr. TOLMIE:: The Prime Minister
stated a few evenings ago that the secretaries employed by ministers of the lata government would be placed in such a position that they would receive, as nearly as possible, their ordinary salaries, less secretarial allowance. My late secretary, Mt. Lynton, was first engaged in the Department of Customs; later he was taken by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) when he assumed the office of Minister of Agriculture. He served him for two years and was then taken over by me. I am anxious to know what the disposition of the minister is with regard to Mr. Lynton, or what he proposes to do in that connection?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: We are endeavouring to locate him, but we have at present no vacancy which is worth as much as the position he held previously, and so far we have not succeeded. That, however, is our aim.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I notice a very considerable increase in the amount for salaries from $567,000 last year to $640,000 this year, contingencies standing at the same amount. The total amount voted for

salaries in the Department of Agriculture has grown from $399,000 in 1913 to $640,000 this year-a very substantial increase. Perhaps the minister could give us some explanation of the increase of $80,000 over the amount voted last year.


William Richard Motherwell: The increase of $71,680 is due to three causes. A certain number of temporary clerks have been promoted to the permanent staff and get larger salaries, in accordance with the new salary range. In addition to that, there are some nineteen new positions, accounting for something like half the total increase. There is a reduction, however, under the head of clerical and other assistance from $45,000 to $35,000. My hon. friend may think the salaries very high, but if we have a number of these positions vacant to-day, as we have, it is because the salaries are not sufficiently high to attract applicants to fill the vacancies. The position of Dominion Cerealist, for instance, will be vacant in June. The positions of Dominion Agrostologist and of Plant Pathologist have not been filled yet. Taking them altogether, I do not think that the key men in the department are overpaid. As a matter of fact, we have some difficulty in retaining them at their present salaries.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like to ask why $10,000 additional is necessary for travelling expenses. I was under the impression that the cost of travelling was coming down to a certain extent.


William Richard Motherwell: There are a number of assemblies and conventions held, some every year, and others at longer intervals, at which the department is represented. The Agricultural Institute meets at Rome this year, and we shall have representatives there. Then there are always a certain number of conferences in connection with live stock and other matters at which we are represented. Some of the travelling expenses that were formerly charged up to the branch vote will this year be charged to this item specifically set aside for travelling expenses. The main increase is due to these overseas conventions being held this year.


Mr. EVANS:: A number of new positions are being filled this year, such as Dominion Bacteriologist, Chief of Feed Division, Specialist in Ornamental Horticulture, two Assistant Entomologists, and so forth. It seems to me that agriculture is top heavy at the present time with pro-

S up ply-Agriculture
fessional men. It is too expensive altogether. Was there a call for these new appointments this year?


William Richard Motherwell: We have not had a Dominion Bacteriologist in the department hitherto, but if my hon. friend has been reading the newspapers and is acquainted with the legislation passed last session, the Dairy Produce Act, he will know that a great deal of attention is now being paid to the question of bacteria in milk and dairy products generally. Then there is the question of soil bacteria. It has been found as we go along in our agricultural research work that bacteriology plays a far more important part in agriculture than we ever dreamt of some years ago. This man will have to deal more particularly with dairy products and soil bacteriology.
With regard to the Chief of the Feed Division, it is proposed to subject our various feeds to an analysis to guard against any dilution or disease in the seed. It includes bran and shorts, and all kinds of stock feeds.
The specialist in ornamental horticulture will be used at the Dominion Experimental Farm. That farm is a rendezvous for visitors from all over the Dominion, and it was thought that a little more attention might be paid to ornamentation of the lawns, shrubberies, and that kind of thing.
The Assistant Chemist is required because the chemist's work is growing and he is unable to take care of it himself. Many samples of soil are sent in from time to time, and in order that we may intelligently apply artificial manures, it is necessary to analyze different soils to ascertain what manures are best adapted to them.
With regard to the Assistant Entomologist, I am sure we must all have heard at various times of the tremendous loss to our forests as a result of the spruce bud-worm and other insect pests. The department sends out scouts from the Entomological Branch for the purpose of locating these insects and directing the activities of the lumbermen to the affected parts of their limits, so that they can cut down their trees and use them before they are destroyed by these bark beetles and other insects. As a matter of fact, we are going to be short even with these new men.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am not in any mood to criticise the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, because since my appearance in this House I have been quite convinced that of all departments of the Government the Department of Agriculture has been used the most niggardly in the matter of expenditure. I have made a point of that throughout the country. The minister has mentioned the work done by our Entomological branch and in that connection an incident comes to my mind which happened some years ago at a time when the cut worm was very bad in the West. I mentioned it simply to urge that the Entomological branch has been perhaps in a more or less starving condition so that research work could not be carried out thoroughly, with the result that we who were engaged in agriculture and suffering much loss annually through the depredations of insects would sometimes have to challenge the advice that was given out by the branch. On this occasion, I was driving my team up and down the field, and as the horses were warm I stopped them and walked into an adjoining field of wheat. I had been reading Bulletin No. 32, I think it was, of the Entomological branch, dealing with the cut worm, and according to the advice given in that bulletin all these cut worms should at that time in the morning have been under the surface. It was about eleven in the forenoon and the sun was shining very strong when I walked into my field of wheat and saw, I should judge, a million cut worms in a given space, some going north, some south, some east, some west. I said, "My, according to information in a certain pamphlet you fellows should all be under the ground. What are you doing here?" I wrote to Mr. Criddle about it, and we exchanged several letters, and in the end-I am not saying this boastfully at all-he informed me that my contention was right, that the instructions given in this pamphlet were wrong, and he asked me to continue my research work.
My point is this. The professional man whose money is secure, being voted by this Government, is in a much more favourable position for carrying on research work than the practical man who is concerned with making his living, and consequently I ask that adequate provision be made both in the estimates and in the staff of the Entomological branch so that those who are making their living by agriculture may receive real assistance through entomological research work, which the individual on the farm has not the time to carry on. As I said before I believe that many of the branches of the Department of Agriculture have been starved in the past for the want of funds, and I make this special
Supply-A griculture

plea particularly on behalf of agriculture and of the producers of Canada. I read in the records of last year that the loss to agriculture from insect pests amounts to no less a sum than $120,000,000. A few days ago I put a question with reference to the methods employed by the Government in dealing with insect pests. I asked, for instance, about chlorine gas. I was informed that chlorine gas was considered too expensive to employ in the destruction of insects. That may be true; but the expense of chlorine gas does not prevent its use'in the destruction of human lives. If we entertain a proper conception of the value of the agricultural industry surely we shall not hesitate to employ chlorine gas, or any other remedy, which will enable us to prevent the wholesale losses that result from these insects. Let me point out that the vacant lands held by this Dominion in our western country form veritable breeding grounds for the grasshoppers, cutworms, and many other insects injurious to agriculture, of which I have been complaining. These vacant lands are also breeding grounds for gophers and other pests-menaces to the growth of wheat and other products Of the soil, and in view of this fact the Dominion Government must assume the obligation to combat these pests which live upon the Dominion Government's land. We settlers can take care of our cultivated areas and we do so; but when we have taken the necessary precautions in the shape of spreading poisoned bait we see when we come out the next morning hordes of grasshoppers emerging from the vacant Dominion lands, spreading in all directions, and all our work, onerous as it is, has to be done all over again, to say nothing of the additional expense incurred. I earnestly urge the Government to appropriate sufficient money to wage a determined fight against these insects and other pests which commit such depredations in the west.


Mr. SPENCER:: I understand that Mr. Duncan Marshall is in the employ of the Department of Agriculture. Which of these positions does this official fill?


William Richard Motherwell: He does not belong to the inside service.


Robert Milton Johnson: Reference has been made to a position which was shortly to become vacant. Am I correct in understanding that this position has ,J)een vacated by Dr. Saunders, who was identified with the research and experimental work which resulted in the origination of

the variety of wheat known as Marquis wheat?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend refers, I think, to Dr. Charles Saunders. He and his father were closely identified with the experiments which resulted in the discovery to which my hon. friend refers-both of them worked together.


Robert Milton Johnson: I am informed that this position has become vacant owing to the resignation of Dr. Saunders on acount of ill health?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Robert Milton Johnson: Is this position being filled; also is any provision being made for Dr. Saunders, or has he made any application for assistance of any kind?


William Richard Motherwell: 
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it true that another Professor Saunders-in this case in Nova Scotia-has resigned from the Department of Agriculture? The official to whom I refer has been engaged in demonstrating the efficacy of poisons for the potato bugs and other insects.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that what my hon. friend states is the case. The officer was an entomologist.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Why did he resign?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have understood he resigned because of the inadequacy of his salary. I feel that Professor Saun-der's resignation is a distinct loss to the Dominion, especially to the eastern section of Canada where we grow large quantities of potatoes and encounter serious difficulties with varieties of insects that destroy the crop, to say nothing of rust and other plant diseases which affect potatoes. I repeat that it is a distinct loss to the potato growers of eastern Canada that we should lose the services of Professor Saunders.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend's remarks further illustrate the difficulty to which I was referring. I am informed that Professor Saunders resigned because he received a better offer from elsewhere.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Prom the Unitec
States?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, these offers invariably come from the United States. We experience very active competition from that source in regard to qualified scientists. Under the provision as to salary we were not able to meet the competition and we had to let him go.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What salary was
he getting?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know.
That comes under the outside staff. We have not that information here.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does your plant
pathologist come under this head?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, he is under civil government, but we have plant pathologists who will come under the vote for outside staff in connection with the different farms, the information regarding which will be given while we are considering the general estimates of the department. I understand that we have lost pathologists there also for the reasons that I have indicated. We will go into that more extensively when we have the general estimates up.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I hope so.


Mr. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) :: What are the duties of the chief car inspector?
Supply-A griculture


William Richard Motherwell: This gentleman's duties are to inspect the fumigation and cleansing of the stock cars under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. He has charge of the inspectors, who look after fumigation and general cleansing of the stock cars.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Have you inspectors all over the country?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, located at
strategic points all over Canada.


Oliver Robert Gould: We have provision made
for the Dominion Apiarist, who is an adviser in the keeping of bees. It is not my intention to object to this item, but I wanted to draw the attention of the minister to a circumstance which exists in my own district, the Moose mountain country. Several farmers in that part of the country, owing to the shelter provided by the Moose mountains, attempted to go into the business of keeping bees, and with more or less success. These men have all communicated with me, and asked what assistance might be given them in the way of advice, or what advice the department had to give them, which would be applicable to their particular district. They feel that they should not do all the pioneer work, and I would suggest that perhaps this expenditure might be increased to help out conditions existing in the West. The hon. gentleman is well acquainted with the fact that it is difficult for the people in the West to raise bees. We have small fruits and none of the larger fruits, and the production of honey in that western country would be a wonderful thing, particularly as a weapon to defend ourselves against the encroachments of our British Columbia friends who want to charge us 90 cents extra duty on apples. I think these men who have done much of this bee-keeping work around that country should get a little assistance in the way of advice at least from the department based on information they have received from experiments carried on in a community where conditions are the same as exist in the West. I would ask the minister if any provision is to be made to give advice to farmers as to how it is best to keep bees so that they may produce honey for home consumption.


William Richard Motherwell: That is exactly
the object of his appointment. The apiarist is assistant to the Dominion Apiarist. The Dominion Apiarist has charge of the bee work of twenty-two experimental farms, and his assistant is at liberty to travel through the length and breadth of the land for the purposes mentioned by my hon.

friend. This is a work which is neglected. The little tiny bee looks small to the farmer, but the time has come when we must look into small things in connection with agriculture, if we are going to make the best of everything that we can avail ourselves of.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the duty of
the fertilizer inspector? This is a new appointment.


William Richard Motherwell: The principal
work is to take charge of the experiments in connection with the application of the fertilizers, so that he may be able to report back to the people just what the results are from the use of the fertilizers.
I expect to bring down a consolidation of the present Fertilizer Act, with extensive amendments this year. It is for the purpose of superintendence, and, in addition to that, the carrying out of the act, to see that the fertilizers are of a particular strength in certain important constituent parts. Perhaps that would be the duty of the chemist. This appointment is principally for the purpose of conducting experiments with fertilizers. The officer will first analyze the soil to see what it is deficient in, then apply the fertilizer and report back to those interested.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am as much interested in fertilizer-because we use it in growing potatoes-as my hon. friends from the West are in wheat. Potatogrowing is the chief industry in New Brunswick. I do not see how you can expect to get an inspector for $1,900. The chief canning inspector gets a salary of $2,660. It looks to me as though the fertilizer expert would command a larger salary than the canning inspector. I am as much in favour of economy as anybody in Canada, because nobody realizes the necessity more than I do, but I think it is false economy to try to employ a specialist at the price of a common day labourer, because you will not get him at that price.


William Richard Motherwell: I think you are quite right in that respect. We find it pretty difficult to keep up with our work just now, and with reference to the item I read a few moments ago " New positions and promotions," we expect to promote one of the officials, and put him into a higher grade. He will begin at the bottom salary, and get automatic increases for two or three years, whatever the various steps may be, and this $4,000 will take care of that. I do not know exactly why it was put in at such a low rate. It is a

Supply-Agriculture
new position entirely, and the salary range has not been fixed, we just simply put it in at that figure until such time as we could put it through the Civil Service Commission, with the salary raised and all that sort of thing. It is rather complex and difficult to understand. I have been trying to grasp it for the last three months and I am in my A B C's yet, but I think I understand a little more about it than I did when I began. It is one of the most complicated pieces of machinery I ever saw.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not finding
fault with the salary. I do not think you will be able to get a competent man for that salary.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think
so.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And I think my
friends from the West hardly realize the importance of it to us in the East. We use a ton of fertilizer to the acre to produce a crop of potatoes, we pay as high as $100 a ton for the fertilizer, and it sometimes proves very unsatisfactory. I think you will understand the necessity of having a good man as a fertilizer expert. I know a hundred farmers in one locality absolutely refused to pay for the fertilizer two years ago, because it not only did not produce a crop, but it destroyed the soil. They were to pay $100 a ton for it, and they used a ton an acre. Some of the men ploughed it in, and sowed grain in the soil. Others left a few potato plants in the ground and did not get any results. The fertilizer company entered action against one man as a test case to collect the price of the fertilizer and seventy odd farmers combined to fight the case, and put up the money. Yet the fertilizer company has not brought the case to trial, although it is two years old. A sum amounting to $70,000 is involved in the matter between the farmers and the fertilizer company. I hope when the ministers new fertilizer bill comes down, it will cover the case more fully than the old act did. Last year I brought up an amendment to the Fertilizer Act, in an endeavour to remedy this condition. It received its first and second readings; it was referred to the Committee on Agriculture by the then Prime Minister; it was unanimously endorsed by that committee; but notwithstanding that fact and the fact that the committee reported it back to the House at least a month before Parliament prorogued, the government failed to bring my bill up for third reading. I da not know whether the reason was because the representatives of the fertilizer company, who came and fought the bill before the Agriculture Committee, stayed around a week longer lobbying in the House. I noticed that the next day after the Agriculture Committee had reported the bill back, they were going around with long faces. I think the barber must have charged them half a dollar to shave them that morning, their faces were so long. Their faces shortened gradually during that week, and they finally went away with broad smiles. My bill was not brought up for third reading, which is merely a matter of form and takes a very short time in the House, and accordingly it lapsed. When the ministers new fertilizer bill comes down, I hope it will cover the subject very fully. I also hope he will be able to get an expert, through whom the farmers will be able to get some redress in a case like that I have spoken of.


William Richard Motherwell: I will promise my hon. friend that the Agriculture Committee will have full opportunity to deal with this bill when it comes down, because it is my intention to refer the bill directly to the committee. I am disposed to think this salary will not get the party desired. I had an explanation from Dr. Grisdale before he was waylaid in Ottawa the other night and was so maltrfeated that he was not able to get around for some time. There was some special reason why he thought at that time he could get a man for the salary; but inasmuch as there is an appropriation to provide for a probable increase, I think we shall be able to meet the situation. We do not want any third-rate man; there is no place in the department or anywhere else for poor men. If you are going to get a good man and if you wish to retain him, you must pay a good salary I forget why this salary was put at $1,920 but there is some provision for the highei rate, if we get the consent of the Civil Service Commission, and I think we shall.


Mr. MILLAR:: Perhaps it might be appropriate just now to go back to the first part of the session when we had a number of speeches in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Many congratulations were offered. I am going to congratulate the leader of this Government (Mr. Mackenzie King) on securing such a man as the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). Perhaps



Supply-Agriculture
it is appropriate that I should do so because we lived within a few miles of each other over thirty years ago, and I have known him ever since. I think I may say that, amongst the men that were available at that time to fill this position, I know of no man who commands the respect and confidence of the people of Saskatchewan amongst all classes, not only Liberals, but Progressives and Conservatives, to the same degree as the present Minister of Agriculture.
I was going to ask a simple question. I was quite interested in the remarks about rust. I thought it was significant that the minister connected his remarks about filling the position of plant pathologist and the salary required to get the proper man, with the fact that there were only two or three on the continent who could successfully cope with the question of rust. From the minister's knowledge, what chance does he think there is of successfully coping with the rust question? The losses are enormous, and I was rather of the opinion that, so far, there was no one who could successfully cope with this great evil. I thought, perhaps, from the minister's remarks to-night he had some inkling that they were making some headway and had some chance of finding a remedy.


William Richard Motherwell: Before answering my hon. friend's question, I should like to express my appreciation of his very kind remarks with respect to myself. I can remember the time, not so long ago, when my hon. friend was the first secretary of the Territorial Grain Growers' Association, including Saskatchewan and Alberta, and I was the president for the first five years of its existence. I can appreciate my hon. friend's very kind remarks in connection with our relations in those days. I do not exactly know how it has come about that this aisle is between us at the present time, but we shall look forward to the time when, perhaps, the distance between us will be lessened.


John Millar: The minister is on the wrong side.


William Richard Motherwell: Referring more
particularly to the question of rust investigations, I may say that progress has been somewhat slow. I can recall now, over fifty years ago, my first experience of rust in Ontario, more particularly with respect to winter wheat. It was looked upon as a very mysterious visitation; it was thought to be associated with climatic conditions. Certain days were then spoken of as "rusty"

days. Intermittent blinks of sunshine and rain, calm, warm, murky nights and mornings, we knew, were conducive to the development of this parasitic spore. Of later years we came to the conclusion that we knew very little about it, and now our research men are investigating in all directions to find some remedy for it. They seem to think the remedy is along the line of plant resistance, of breeding a wheat plant of sufficient resistance to fight off the attack itself. Just as Dr. Saunders, by plant breeding, discovered a wheat known as "Marquis," somewhat similar to, but very much earlier than the old "Red Fife," so it is thought there may be discovered a wheat plant that will be able to resist the ravages of this rust fungus. I saw in the local papers the other day some American research workers had discovered a smut-resisting wheat, and I am sure some of my hon. friends must have noticed it. Smut has sometimes been referred to as a twin brother or sister of rust, although there is no relation between the two, but it is one of our enemies in the West more particularly. It is thought, if these researches are taken up exhaustively, we shall be able to discover a rust-resisting wheat and other rust-resisting cereal plants. Just the same as animals are resistant ti disease, as has been well established, sc plants are also resistant, some more so than others, to diseases of this nature. I may say to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, that the progress in that direction has not been very rapid. We have made the discovery, that in the West these invasions usually start down about the Gulf of Mexico in the spring of the year. In another two or three weeks, you will have the wheat planted; in fact, it will be green there now. If they have a severe attack of rust down in Oklahoma and around the gulf, about the beginning or middle of May, and later on in Kansas, it is almost certain that western Canada will have an attack sooner or later. Sometimes, it occurs so late in the season that it does not do very much harm. If it starts sufficiently early down in the south, it has to travel, and travel against the prevailing winds; it comes up through the Dakotas and Minnesota, into part of Saskatchewan, but mainly into Alberta. By the time it gets that far west or northwest the grain is ripe and safe from its ravages. How it travelled had always been a mystery, but experiments made with balloons showed that at an altitude of three or four miles the rust spores travel

Supply-A griculture
in the cross currents going in an opposite direction to the currents at a lower level. Those spores have been found fertile even at that altitude. That will explain in a measure how rust travels so rapidly in a northwesterly direction against the prevailing wind. We know that it does travel, and that it is more or less epidemic. Once it gets started it develops very fast even though the climatic conditions may not be very favourable to it:	but
if the climatic conditions in the south are favourable, it gets to the northern latitude before the harvest is over. Experiments so far have not led to any particular conclusions; we are feeling our way and are getting sufficient foundation material to know in what direction to act, but it will take some years to reach this stage. Up until quite recently we knew very little about this pest. This much, however, has been established, that the barberry bush is the intermediary or host-plant that makes it possible for this fungus growth to develop. Without the barberry it is questionable if it could find another host-plant to serve its purpose. Therefore, wherever we find the barberry bush we would be well advised to look upon it as a noxious weed and destroy it. As a matter of fact some of the western provinces are now treating the barberry bush as a noxious weed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the Department of Agriculture carrying on any work with the object of combating the ravages of the spruce bud moth of eastern Canada? All over the maritime provinces and Quebec the situation is becoming very serious.


William Richard Motherwell: I am almost
ashamed to admit that the only way in which we are taking care of that extensive work is by the addition of this one lone entomologist we spoke of a moment ago. That is one of the many requirements that we have to attend to; there is no question about that. When my hon. friend on my left (Mr. Fielding) gets his revenues in a more buoyant condition I will apply to him and may get an appropriation for a good many more entomologists. The ravages of this spruce bud worm are tremendous, and arte measured not in tens of millions of dollars but in hundreds of millions. I was given the information by a gentleman recently, but the figures are so alarming that I hesitate to quote them. This matter comes under the Department of the Interior, but there is a certain amount of interchange of work, and on request from
38i
that department we do a certain amount of scouting for the purpose of discovering where the invasions of this pest are most threatening so the lumbermen may cut the timber before it is quite destroyed. We are not doing much, but we have to cut our coat according to the cloth. I do not think that is a good policy in this case, and I would1 certainly 'like to giet more cloth somehow or other. The next war, it is said, must be against insect life. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) I do not think is unduly alarmed at all, for he comes from a district which by dear experience knows the ravages made by insect pests.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are the provinces taking up this work themselves?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the Department of Agriculture co-operating with them?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.
Mr. CALDWjELL: The hon. minister speaks of the loss in dollars, but it cannot be computed in dollars at all. I think we hardly realize what it means to eastern Canada if the spruce bud moth continues its ravages. Unless it can be checked there will be no pulp to make paper and no lumber to build houses. The spruce forests of eastern Canada are different from those of the West, where I have also spent a considerable time. The spruce is a perpetual growth, the trees varying from the size of one's arm up to the largest sizes, all being intermingled, and as the large trees are cut the young growth develop and give a crop of lumber every ten years upon the same ground. But in New Bruswiclc-and I know that province best-it is estimated that 50 per cent of the standing spruce, both large and small, has been killed already by the spruce bud moth, which means that for generations to come this land will be barren, it being generally unfit for agriculture, and simply a lumber preserve. Our spruce forests are what the province of New Brunswick derives its revenue from almost absolutely, and I think the Dominion Government will be well advised to take some steps to explore the possibility of combating this menace. It looks to me to be a big problem. I have seen the air full of these moths fluttering around the tops of our spruce trees, and as a result of their ravages you will notice the buds turn red as if they had been scorched, and the tree dies in one or two years. It is not merely a matter of dollars and cents; the preservation of the future supply of our
59G
S upply-A griculture

lumber for building, for pulp and paper, and for other uses is involved.


William Richard Motherwell: The maritime
provinces and Quebec are taking steps to preserve their forests, and a fairly extensive reforestation plan is being carried out in Quebec now. This is such an interesting subject that I may be excused, Mr. Chairman, if I refer to the Main Estimates *-and this will also relieve the anxiety of my hon. friend from Assiniboia-where it will, be found that provision is made for dealing with other insect pests. At page 22 we have an appropriation for the administration and enforcement of the Destructive Insect Pests Act. In the present temper of the country I might be subject to some criticism if this vote was not for such an urgent purpose, as it will be noted that last year the vote was $190,000, as against $235,000 this year, or an increase of $45,-
000.	But that will be found rather small, too, when we come to apply it to the enormous task we are discussing, the fight against these hew insect pests, because, Mr. Chairman, the last four or five years have been so dry not only in the West but also in the East, that a lot of new insect enemies have been developed that we never heard of before. In other words, if you change the climate you change the insect pests. The result is we have to meet the situation with a new vote for that branch which will come up later on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, if the pleasant exchange of compliments between the minister and the governmental supporters on this side is finished-


Ernest Lapointe: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -I would
suggest that it is a good time to adjourn.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carry the Estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like to assist my friends as much as possible, but there are several members very much interested in this item who did not think it would come up so soon, and I would therefore ask that the committee rise and report progress.


Mr. FIELDING:: Is the item to carry or to stand?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let it stand.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.12.
Monday, April 3, 1922