Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	Since what date lias the Mint been in actual and continuous operation?
2.	What is the face value of silver and copper coinage, respectively, struck during that time?
3.	At the same rate of production, what would be struck off during the calendar year 1908?
4.	What amount of each is required for the actual necessities of Canada?
5.	Has the Mint been running during the above time at its full capacity?
6.	What has been expended during the above-mentioned period (a) for silver and copper bullion, (b) for salaries and wages, (e) for running expenses other than (a) and (b) ?
7.	What has been the amount of silver and copper placed in circulation during the time mentioned?
8.	How much is held out of circulation?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: -
1.	2nd January, 1908.
2.	Silver, $314,148.35; bronze, $15,243.85.
3.	Silver, $628,296.70 ; bronze, $30,487.70.
4.	The actual issues in the year 1907 were: Silver, $667,732 ; bronze, $39,862.
5.	No.
6.	(a) For silver bullion, $204,737.09 ; for bronze, $6,948.70 ; (b) $24,854.21 to 31st May, 1908 ; (c) $4,465.54 to 31st May, 1908.
7.	Silver, $95,328 ; copper, $3,655.
8.	In the hands of the assistant receivers general : silver, $721,638 ; copper, $2,577.


Mr. FOSTER.: Did the hon. minister answer parts b and c of paragraph 6 of this question ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have sent the answer to ' Hansard.' I think all the questions are answered in detail. If he finds, on consulting ' Hansard ' to-morrow, that the answer is incomplete I shall be glad to supplement it.


POST OFFICE, ROUND BAY, NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	Does the government intend to remove the post office from Round Bay, Nova Scotia? If so, where will the nearest post office for the people of that district be located?
2.	Who are the parties petitioning for the removal of said post office, and what reasons do they give in asking for said removal?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	No. The Round Bay district continues to be served by the Round Bay post office.
2.	A petition was received from the residents, representing that the post office was located at the extreme end of the district, and asking for its removal to a more central site. The change in location having been favourably reported on by the post office inspector, was recently authorized as being in the public interest.


VALLEYFIELD, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND MAIL ROUTE.
Mr. A. MARTIN (Queens) asked :: 1.	Is the mail route for Valleyfield, Prince Edward Island, to be changed? If so, what route is to be adopted?
2.	Has the Post Office Department received a petition against the proposed change from the residents of Valleyfield? If so. is a change proposed against the wishes of the petitioners ?
3.	Has there been any demand from any of the people of Valleyfield asking for the proposed change? If so, from whom, who recommends the change, and why?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) Valleyfield and Valleyfield East.
2.	(a) Yes ; (b) The change has been authorized and the contract awarded.
358J
3.	Mr. A. Martin, of Queens, P.E.I., pointed out in a letter to the department dated 5th June, 1907, that the service between Grand View and Valleyfield was not giving satisfaction and that the connections were bad. The matter was investigated and the service was increased from tri-weekly to daily, but the inspector reported that it was still a very poor service and recommended a change in the railway distributing point from Grand View to Montague via Valleyfield East.
The inspector reports that the petitioners are entirely mistaken in supposing that they will not receive a better service. The incoming mails will be delivered six hours earlier than by the old route and the outgoing mails will be delivered at their destinations from one to two days earlier.


NEWSPAPER MAIL REGULATIONS.
Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	What is the nature of the regulations under which the weekly newspapers are distributed in the United States, and at what places are they received for distribution?
2.	Has the government received any communication from Canadian weekly newspapers calling their attention to the unsatisfactory delivery of their papers, and dissatisfaction in general with the new regulations? If so, what course does the government intend to adopt to remedy said grievance?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1. Canadian newspapers or periodicals issued less frequently than daily, when transmitted by post direct from the office of publication in Canada, and intended for regular subscribers in the United States, are subject to postage at the rate of one cent per four ounces, or fraction of four ounces, calculated on the weight of the package to each separate post office address as fixed by the postal convention existing between the two countries. The domestic regulations of the United States Post Office Department provide that copies of any foreign newspaper or periodical may be posted at any post office in the United States provided the same has been accepted by the United States Post Office Department as entitled to second class mailing privileges, upon payment of postage at the rate of one cent per pound upon the total weight presented for mailing, one condition, however, being that all such posting must be performed by a recognized agent. Accordingly, any Canadian newspaper or periodical is under like circumstances also entitled to such privilege.
Recently, however, the United States Post Office Department modified their regulations to the extent that at the following post offices Canadian newspapers or periodicals, accepted by the United States Post Office Department as entitled to such privilege, may

be posted upon payment of postage at tlie rate of one cent per pound upon tbe total weight of the issue if the publishers consign their mailings free of all charges direct to the postmasters at the particular office at which entry is desired :
Boston, Massachusetts.
St. Albans, Vermont.
Ogdensburg, New York.
Buffalo, New York.
Detroit, Michigan.
Sault Ste Marie, Michigan.
St. Paul, Minnesota.
Grand Forks, North Dakota.
Helena, Montana.
Spokane, Washington.
Seattle, Washington.
2. Certain representations have been made but in view of the circumstances no other arrangements than those above outlined are feasible.


PUBLIC WORKS, LAKE MEGANTIC.
Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	What public works are at present being carried on at the point where the Chaudiere river emerges from Lake Megantic, in the counties of Beauce and Compton?
2.	What has been the cost to date on the works in question, and what is the estimated expenditure necessary to complete the same?
3.	Will the Minister of Public Works give particulars as to the necessity and value of the construction on the Beauce side of the river ?
4.	Are the works being performed by day labour or by contract? If the latter, who is the inspector and what does he receive per day?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Agnes landing pier.
2.	(a) $970.07. (b) $4,100.
3.	The construction of this new pier was urged by the people of Morinville and Megantic with a view of securing convenient landing and shipping facilities in place of those formerly afforded them by the old wharf which has been washed out and completely destroyed. It was also reported on as necessary for the accommodation of both places by resident engineer.
4.	(a) By contract. (b) P. H. Renaud. (c) $2.50 per working day.


LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	Is the Department of Marine and Fisheries chartering any steamers for this season's lighthouse service on the St. Lawrence and gulf? If so, what, from whom, and on what terms?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 


Yes. SS.: 'Aramnore,' ^froin Messrs. Holliday Brothers, of Quebec, at $250 per diem, for a minimum term of four months.
2.	SS. ' Restigouche,' from Messrs. Bou-Mr. LEMIEUX
chard Brothers, of Quebec, at $235 per diem, for a minimum term of three months. In each case the charter includes wages of crew, engine room supplies, food, coal, and all expenses of operation. The ' Restigouche ' is now employed on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia.


MR. CLEMENT.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What position, if any, is held by Mr. Clement, formerly secretary to Hon. Mr. Pre-fontaine in the Department of Marine and Fisheries?
2.	What amount of money, if any, has been drawn by Mr. Clement since the death of Mr. Prefontaine ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	First class clerk.
2.	$3,945.82.


MAIL CARRIAGE-PORT MEDWAY TO MEDWAY, NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	Who carries the mail between Port Medway, Nova Scotia, and Medway station, and for what remuneration?
2.	Were tenders lately called for this service? If so, who were the tenderers, and at what amount?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	F. B. Dolliver at 75 cents per trip for 12 trips per week equals $469.50 per annum.
2.	Yes, the following tenders were received :	F. D. Misner at 44 cents per
double trip, $275.44 per annum. Josh Min-nick at 50 cents per double trip, $313 per annum. F. B. Dolliver at 75 cents per double trip, $469.50 per annum. James Es-ler at $1.25 per double trip, $782.50 per annum. Tenders No. 1 and 2 were reported by the inspector as not competent to perform the service.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.

William Stevens Fielding: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), I move that the House this day go into Commiteee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide, in connection with the Bill now before this House, intituled: ' an Act to amend the Civil Service Act,' that there shall be a Civil Service Commission, consisting of two members, with the salaries of deputy heads; that the salary of the Deputy Ministers of Justice, Finance and Agriculture may be each $6,000, of the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals $8,000, and of each of the other deputy ministers $5,000 per annum; that the salaries in the proposed first division of the service shall be from $2,800, to $4,000 in subdivision A, and from $2,100 to $2,800 in subdivision B; in the proposed second division, from $1,600 to $2,100 in subdivision A, and

from $800 to $1,600 in subdivision B; in the proposed third division, from $900 to $1,200 in subdivision A, and from $500 to $800 in subdivision B; that the salaries of messengers, porters, sorters, packers, and such others in the lower grades as are determined by the Governor in Council, shall be from $500 to $700; that in addition to the annual increase of $50, a further increase not exexceeding $50 may be given in case of exceptional merit; that a minister's private secretary may be paid as a clerk in subdivision B of the second division; that if a person dies in the public service, after having been at least two years therein, an amount equal to two months of his salary shall be paid to his widow, or to such person as the Treasury Board determines; that all sums of money voted by parliament for the financial year ending on the 31st of March, 1909, applicable to the payment of salaries or increases to salaries of persons in the public service, shall be applicable to the payment of the salaries or increases to the salaries of such persons upon their promotion to a higher grade, or their transfer to other positions in the public service, or their becoming entitled to increases of salary under the provisions of the said Act; and that during the said financial year there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada such sums of money as have not been voted by parliament, but are required for the payment of such salaries and increases to salaries as are provided by the said Act.
I beg to say that His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject-matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Eulas Foster: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to suggest to the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), that the reports of the evidence taken before the Cassels Commission, which have been laid on the table of the House, should be printed forthwith for the use of members. All the members are equally interested and require copies. This report will have to be printed some time, of course, and I imagine it might as well be printed from day to day as it comes. It is a great expense and trouble to get copies made by the clerks. I imagine there will be no objection to this resolution.


William Stevens Fielding: The document has not been formally laid on the table, but has been placed there from day to day for the information of members. But <1 suppose that need not stand in the way. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) would move that the evidence be printed
from day to day for the use of members, and that this should apply to past as well as to future numbers.


George Eulas Foster: I move that these proceedings be printed from day to day, and that any rule to the contrary be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WM. P. TELFORD (North Grey).: Mr. Speaker, I have here 435 resolutions I have received from church organizations, Women's Christian Temperance Unions and other moral reform associations, recommending the passing of the Bill which was passed yesterday for the prohibition of the use of cigarettes by minors.	I
think it is only right that I should bring this to the attention of the House.	I
was


Mr. SPEAKER.: This point is not a proper one for discussion at this time, except with the general consent of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


William Pattison Telford: I think it but right to bring the matter to the attention of the House, because these parties have put themselves to a great deal of trouble and expense, too, I suppose. I will read two of them, which are a sample of the others.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I must rise to a point of order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If any objection is taken the matter cannot be discussed at this time.


Samuel Hughes: The Bill Is passed.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. TELFORD.


William Pattison Telford: I rise to a question of privilege. I find myself reported in ' Hansard ' as replying to a statement which I never heard. And the extraordinary thing about it is that the statement I did hear and replied to is not reported. Therefore, you see, I am in a very difficult predicament, and I wish to set myself right with the House. The statement made was that the registrar of the county of Grey-at least this was the purport of the statement-the registrar of the county of Grey, who was returning officer in the election, had spoiled tiie ballots in the township of St. Vincent. That is a serious charge. It is a charge of theft and perjury. I know that the registrar has not taken an active part in politics in the last thirty years, and is incapable of the acts charged against him, so I think it is not surprising that I answered rather warmly that the thing was an absolute falsehood. But, as the statement which I heard is not reported, I wish to have my reply expunged also. Of course, the non-appearance of

the statement made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) must have been purely accidental-at least I will give it that charitable construction-


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel).: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Telford) referring to me? If so, would he be good enough to state what I said to the House with regard to the North Grey matter?


William Pattison Telford: I have given the purport of it.


Richard Blain: With the permission of my hon. friend (Mr. Telford), I wish to say that I never mentioned the returning officer for North Grey. What I did say was that my hon. friend would know all about it, because the well known polling subdivision of St. Vincent was in his county.


William Pattison Telford: It is the same thing. And I must state, Mr. Speaker, that the remark, which, by the way, was not original, for Mr. Whitney made the remark publicly that the registrar ought to be whipped


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that hardly comes within the question of privilege.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: Mr. Whitney did not make the statement that the registrar should be whipped, but that he-Mr. Whitney-should be whipped because he did not dismiss McICnight, and most people think so, too.


William Pattison Telford: There is one thing about it


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Samuel Hughes: This is not a question of privilege.


William Pattison Telford: I merely wish to say that the court, the trial judge and the electors of North Grey and the ninth commandment, are all opposed to the charges and insinuations made by Hon. Mr. Whitney and the hon. members from Peel and East Simcoe.



PRIVILEGE-MR. TURRIFF.

Mr. JOHN G. TURRIFF (East Assini-boia).: My attention has been called, within a couple of days, to a speech delivered by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on the Cth of February last, which the hon. member is now having printed and circulated by the tens of thousands, franked through this House, to the electors throughout the Dominion of Canada-a speech bristling from beginning to end with statements that are absolutely false.
I am going to draw attention to one of these false statements ; if I drew attention to them all I should have to read the whole speech. After I have drawn attention to this one statement to which I particularly refer, I shall then read the evidence of myself and others before the Pub-


William Pattison Telford: lie Accounts Committee when this matter of timber limits was under investigation. When 1 have done this I shall leave it to the members of this House and the people of this country to say whether the hon. gentleman had any justification for making the statements in the first place, and, more especially whether, after the absolute denial by myself and others, it is right, fair, honourable or honest for the hon. gentleman to circulate these statements so absolutely untrue, and whether the party to which he belongs


George Eulas Foster: I shall have to exercise my right of calling the hon. gentleman to order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order. The hon. gentleman from North Toronto rises to a point of order.


George Eulas Foster: What I -want to ask yon, Mr. Speaker, is to instruct the member who is at present standing when he should be sitting-that you should request the member who has just spoken, to retract the statement he has made, that at the time I made that speech I knew the statements I was making in it to be absolutely false.


John Gillanders Turriff: I did not say that.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I did not understand the hon. member to say that.


George Eulas Foster: Well, if he did not say that, then my ears are at fault.


John Gillanders Turriff: I did not say that, but to show


Robert Franklin Sutherland: He said that the statements contained in this speech that was sent out were absolutely false, but that does not indicate that the speech that was sent out was sent out by the member for North Toronto.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman stated at first that the speech he held in his hand was the speech that was delivered in February.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I want to be clear as to what the statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia is, that the hon. member for North Toronto is taking exception to:


George Eulas Foster: The statement I take exception to is this, that the member for Assiniboia stated that the speech he held in his hand was a speech delivered by the member for North Toronto some time in February, and that the statements made in that speech were absolutely false and dishonest.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is right.


George Eulas Foster: And that I had knowledge of their being absolutely false and dishonest.


John Gillanders Turriff: No, I did not say so.


George Eulas Foster: And that knowing that to be the state of things, that speech has been

sent out under ray frank, or under the frank of other gentlemen on this side of the House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There is always the difficulty in questions of this kind, that on the one hand something is asserted by an hon. member wffio has personal knowledge of certain facts, and that on the other hand something is asserted in a speech made by another hon. member who may not have the same personal knowledge. In this case, as I understand it, the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) made certain statements in a speech, statements in reference to matters which must be within the personal knowledge of the hon. member who has the floor at the present moment (Mr. Turriff). That hon. member states that he has given evidence, or that evidence has been supplied, which proves these statements to be absolutely false. The matters are within his personal knowledge. If there arises a controversy in a matter of that sort between the member who has personal knowledge of certain matters, and another member who makes statements based on evidence and information, I think under those circumstances I must accept the statement of the member who has personal knowledge of the matter. I could not do otherwise.


George Eulas Foster: I take no objection at all to the statement as made by the Speaker, and if the statement as made by the Speaker had been made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, I never would have risen to the point of order. But my contention is that he declared that I knew them to be absolutely false and dishonest.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I did not gather that from the words of the member for Assiniboia. If he were to make a suggestion of that kind, of course it would have to be withdrawn at once.


John Gillanders Turriff: What I did say, and what I complained of, was that after the hon. gentleman had made that statement, and after he found out by the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee that the statement was absolutely untrue, absolutely false in every respect, he, and the party with him, sent out that statement to the electors all over Canada by the tms of thousands. I did not say, Mr. Speaker, that at the time he made the statement he knew it was an unfair, and a dishonest and an untrue statement. But I think I might have gone that far, because in the same debate


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order. I think the hon. member should not say that.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not wish to be out of order, I do not wish to say anything unfair, but I wish to say this-


George Eulas Foster: If the hon. gentleman does not wish to be unfair, he had better
retract that last statement, and I call upon the Speaker.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the hon. gentleman should not make that suggestion.


John Gillanders Turriff: What suggestion ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That at the time the hon. member might have known the statements to be untrue.


John Gillanders Turriff: All right, I withdraw that. But in that same debate, and before he made the speech I am complaining of, I made this statement in discussing the question of timber limits and opening tenders :
I declare in the most emphatic manner possible that it is absolutely false.
That is, the statement that anything wrong had been done in' connection with the opening of tenders, or in the administration of Dominion lands.
And I now challenge the hon. gentleman

That is, the hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Ames).
-or any other hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House, to take the manly course and to rise in his place and to make a charge.
Now when the hon. member for North Toronto spoke, he spoke after I had made that statement. Now this is what I complain of in this quotation :
The man who appeared from the west

He was referring to the ex-Minister of the Interior.
-was put in a position of authoi'ity, and instead of tenders thereafter being adjudicated upon by Mr. Ryley and his coadjutors, they were given into the private side pocket of Mr. Turriff.
That statement, Mr. Speaker, was absolutely false.


George Eulas Foster: That the hon. gentleman lias no side pocket ?


John Gillanders Turriff: -and when hundreds of thousands of dollars and partisan considerations were pressed upon him from the man who made the application, from interested friends who basked him up, from lawyers who had their fee to gain and their charges to get-when all that took place, a strong partisanship dyeing every fibre of his body, he was put into a darkened and secluded room and given the full power of decision in reference to those matters. Did not make a change? Why, lie made the very change which, if he wanted to, gave him the opportunity of parrying out the most nefarious schemes in respect of the administration of his department.
I want to read now some of the evidence that was given.


George Eulas Foster: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? The last paragraph that

he read, does he take that as applying to himself ?


John Gillanders Turriff: Would the hon. member please explain who he intended it to apply to ?


George Eulas Foster: I thought the hon. member for Assiniboia had sufficient intelligence to understand the passage himself. If he has not, I will say that it applied to the minister, who, in one of his arguments, declared he had made no change. I was combatting that argument by saying that he had made a change.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, perhaps the hon. member will state who he was referring to when he said that he was put into a secluded and darkened room.


George Eulas Foster: I referred to the member who is now standing on his legs.


John Gillanders Turriff: That statement is absolutely untrue and since the hon. gentleman found that


George Eulas Foster: It is a question of degree.
Mr. TURRIFF-since the hon. gentleman found that out and knew that it was absolutely untrue and false, since he knew that he had made an absolutely false statement, he has sent out this speech of his by the tens of thousands. I shall read to the House the evidence that was given when this matter was up before I he Public Accounts Committee. It had been stated that I opened these tenders alone. One of the officers of the department was put in the witness box and was asked these questions :
Q. Are you prepared to swear positively that you were always present when the tenders were opened, when Mr. Turriff was there, all the time?-A. Except when on my holidays, yes.
Q. Yon did see everything that did go on while the tenders were being opened?-A. Yes, I certainly did.
Q. You went in there for the purpose of being there while the tenders were being opened. and you did that?-A. Yes.
Then my own evidence :


Mr. STAPLES.: Will the hon. gentleman tell who the witness was?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order.


William D. Staples: Who was the person who gave the evidence?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order, hon. members will please allow tbe hon. member who has the floor to proceed with his speech.


John Gillanders Turriff: I will go through with it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The question is whether the hon. member who has the floor will Mr. FOSTER
permit the hon. member (Mr. Staples) to ask the question?


John Gillanders Turriff: No, I will not just now.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hou. gentleman is quite within his privilege in not doing so.


Mr. SPROULE.: What is the name of the witness who gave the evidence?


John Gillanders Turriff: The member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) or any other member can look up the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee. I was examined as follows :
Q. During your regime as land commissioner were these timber berths that were put up always awarded to the highest tenderer-A. Always.
Q. And in no case was the tender awarded to anybody in which the tender was not accompanied with a certified cheque or cash?- A. Never.
Q. The conditions were always fulfilled as far as that goes?-A. Always.
Q. Now, Mr. Turriff, did you ever disclose -did you ever permit tenders to be received after twelve o'clock otherwise than you have already explained?-A. I never received a tender one moment after twelve o'clock in the whole course of my administration.
Q. Did anybody ever solicit you to accept a tender after twelve o'clock?-A. I never was asked. On a few occasions tenders came in later than the time specified, but they were not dealt with.
Q. Did you ever disclose to any person whatever any information regarding tenders received by you from other people?-A. No.
Q. You never disclosed any such information?-A. No, I never did.
Q. Mr. Turriff, did you ever permit anybody to change their tender after it was deposited with you?-A. Never.
Q. Did you ever permit anybody to supplement tile money accompanying the tender with an additional amount of money after hours?- A. Never.
Q. Or an additional cheque?-A. Never in any way.
Q. Or additional money of any kind?-A. I never did.
Q. The names of certain companies and individuals appear on the record in connection with these timber berth tenders as assignees; for instance, there is the Imperial Pulp Company and there is the Big River Lumber Company, I think it is, and Mr. Burrows and Mr. A. W. Fraser. You have heard, you know, of these corporations or individuals?-A. Yes.
Q. Are you interested in any of these companies?-A. No, I am not.
Q. Were you ever interested


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, Is it competent in the case of a question of privilege to go into a discussion of a matter that has already been fully debated in the House? I have not understood that questions of privilege should be utilized for such a purpose. It is perfectly proper for an hon. gentleman to. rise and to characterize as untrue any statement that he thinks is to his prejudice, but that is done usually iu a very few sentences. To undertake to

read all the evidence after the long discussion of the subject that has already taken place seems to me to be out of order.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am almost through.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think an hon. member, in the case of a question of privilege, has the right to introduce such matter as will explain the statement as to which he makes a complaint; beyond that I do not think it is proper to go. As to whether this is properly a question of privilege, I am not at all clear. The point has not been raised, but so far as I can gather ifrom the discussion thus far it is rather a reference to the hon. member at a time when he was not a member of the House, but in another capacity, and there may be a question as to whether that is a question of privilege at all.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am almost through with this phase of it. The examination continues :
Q. Are you interested in any of these companies?'-A. No, I am not.


Mr. BRISTOL.: Is an hon. gentleman entitled to read a portion of the evidence of other witnesses in a case of this kind without reading the whole evidence?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If there is any other part which qualifies the part quoted I think it would be proper to read it. I am rather of the opinion that I ought to interfere and suggest to the hon. member who has the floor that this is not a question of privilege. This is a reflection on him as an official of the government at one time and in respect of conduct as such official; it does not reflect on him as a member of the House, and my recollection of the authorities is that it must be something reflecting on him in his position as member of the House to constitute a question of privilege.


John Gillanders Turriff: Constituents of mine have been using this as a reflection on me as a member of parliament, and therefore I am justified in answering the statement that was made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think I shall have to rule that it is not a case that comes within the class of questions of privilege.


John Gillanders Turriff: I bow to your ruling, although it appears to me that when such a statement


George Eulas Foster: Order.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not disputing the ruling-reflecting on me had been made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), I have ceased to expect anything fair from him


Mr. TAYLOR.: Order.
Mr. FOSTER, Order.


John Gillanders Turriff: That I should have latitude enough to


George Taylor: Order.
Mr. TURRIFF-to try and put myself right.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the hon. member has had reasonable latitude in the mat-_ ter and I understand he has .gone the length of making a statement to the House that the statements complained of are not true. That is now a matter otf record. I think that all the latitude that is appropriate has been given, particularly when there is a question as to whether this is technically a question of privilege.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. member for North Toronto on June 18 made exactly the same complaint and nobody interfered with him. He was allowed to wander all over and was given full permission


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: How much did I wander?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Iif the hon. member was at that time given any latitude, which I do not recall at the moment, if exception had been taken to it at the time, the matter would have been dealt with at the time. Sometimes matters are overlooked, the Speaker cannot always keep his eye on everything, although he tries to do it as much as possible.


John Gillanders Turriff: Since I cannot go any further I would say in conclusion-


George Eulas Foster: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I understand the hon. member desires to make a statement denying what has been said about him.


George Eulas Foster: Is this a question of privilege?


John Gillanders Turriff: A question oif privilege. I desire to say that every statement that was made reflecting on me in the part of the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto which I read was absolutely false, absolutely false, and I deny it most emphatically. I think it is an outrage that after he found out it was-


George Eulas Foster: Should this be allowed ? I rise to this point of order that I have not yet found out that it is false.


Edmund James Bristol: Can the hon. gentleman compel us to take his statement as true regarding actions that took place years ago when he was not a member ? Is it not only since he became a member ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: They are sworn statements.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order, the hon. members must allow an hon. member to rise to state a point of order.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: This is a new question, it is not a point of order.


Edmund James Bristol: I would like to know as a fact if it is charged that the hon. member before he became a member did certain acts and he denies doing them are we as members compelled to accept that statement in the House now that he has become a member of parliament?
1 Mr. SPEAKER. That is not so much a point of order as asking my opinion upon another matter.


Edmund James Bristol: It is a point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mir. BRISTOL-whether the member is within his right in asserting that the hon. member for North Toronto must accept his statement in that regard.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. member did not state it at all.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Do I understand the hon. member is speaking to a question of privilege ?


John Gillanders Turriff: I have been so interrupted that I have not had a chance to state my point. The statements made iu that speech by the hon. member with regard to me in connection with timber limits, that I went into a darkened or secluded room or opened the tenders alone, or did anything unfair, are absolutely untrue, and I am surprised that the leader of of the opposition, who is of a somewhat different character from the hon. member for North Toronto should allow that pamphlet with the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) to go out as campaign literature.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES-JUDGE CASSELS' INVESTIGATION.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to ask the government what is the present position of matters in respect of the inquiry being carried on by Mr. Justice Cassels.' A Bill was passed by this House, and is now an Act of the parliament Of Canada, having been assented to a week ago last Tuesday, which gave to the government, as I understand, power to appoint a deputy in order that Mr. Justice Cassels might proceed with the work of the commission, giving it his undivided attention. Is it true that Mr. Justice Cassels has stated publicly that the reason why he has not proceeded with the inquiry is that the government have not exercised the power conferred upon them by that Act, and have not appointed a deputy to perform the judical work to which he thinks, and properly thinks, his attention must be given in the first instance? It is a matter that has been the subject of observation in the public press. Public statements have been made by Mr. Justice Cassels as to his reasons which I


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: cannot go into now, as I am merely asking a question, but it seems to me that we should have an immediate response to this question in order that we may understand exactly where the work of the commission is and when it may be expected to conclude.


Right Hon.   S@: I understand that Mr. Justice Cassels has adjourned the investigation with which he is entrusted to the 2nd of September. I understood from him further that it was not his intention to take this work or any other kind of judicial work during the long vacation of July and August. The royal assent was given to the Bill providing for the appointment of a judge ad hoc in the court of Exchequer only some eight days ago. It is the. intention of the government to comply with it and make an appointment at as early a day as possible and probably at no distant date. The attention of the government had not yet been called to the matter but I am sure, after statements that have been made on the floor of this House, that the Minister of Justice will be prepared to nominate a gentleman to fill that position.



CIVIL SERVICE REPORT-FRENCH TRANSLATIONS.

Mr. BERGERON.: A few days ago I asked the government if the translation of the report of the Royal Commission on the civil service had been completed and if the printing was going on. I know as a matter of fact that the translation has been completed for over a month. I received an answer which I suppose was sent to me by order of the government stating that the report has not been translated and is not yet in the hands of the printers. There is a matter of controversy in this and I would like to have orders given to ascertain the exact position. We want the report in the French language as soon as possible.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I have no information which I can give to my hon. friend. This is a matter which does not concern the government, it is in the hands of the House itself but I understand from the clerk that the translation is not quite ready.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would my hon. friend find out, I am told it was translated a month ago.



CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Customs Act, chapter 48, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to provide that the following provisions be added at the end of section 22 of the said Act :
2. The conductor of tevery railway train carrying freight arriving at any port in Canada from any foreign port or place, shall,

at the time of making his report, if required by the officer, produce to him the way bills of all goods on board his train or true copies thereof.
That the following provisions be added after section 69 of said Act :
Section 70. The equipments or any part thereof, including boats purchased or supplied in a foreign country for, or the expenses of repairs made in a foreign country upon, a vessel intended to be employed, or which is thereafter employed, in the coasting trade of Canada shall, on the arrival of such vessel in any port o'f Canada, if arriving within one year after such repairs have been made or equipments purchased or supplied, be liable to entry and the payment of duty on the cost thereof in such foreign country at the following rates, viz.: (a) on the expenses of repairs, twenty-five per cent ad valorem; (b) on equipments, including boats, the same rate of duty as if the articles were imported into Canada in the ordinary course.
2.	If the owner or master of such vessel shall wilfully and knowingly neglect or fail to report, make entry and pay duties as herein required, such vessel, with her tackle, apparel and furniture, shall be seized and forfeited.
3.	If the owner or master of such vessel shall, however, furnish good and sufficient evidence that such vessel while in the regular course of her voyage, was. compelled by stress of weather or casualty to put into such foreign port to make such repairs, to secure the safety of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of destination, then it shall be competent for the Minister of Customs to authorize the refund of the duties on such repairs, and such vessel shall not be liable to forfeiture under the next preceding section.
That the following provisions be added after subsection 2 of section 287 of the said Act :	'
3. Officers of customs examining baggage, inspectors of customs and their assistants, and other duly accredited officials of the Department of Customs, with their baggage and their equipment, shall at all times when thereunto required by the Minister of Customs, be carried free of charge on any steamship or" steamboat navigating the waters of Canada, and on any railway in Canada, provided such railway, steamboat or steamship participates in the transportation of goods in bond under customs manifests in Canada.- Mr. Paterson.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister give us a brief explanation?


Mr. PATERSON.: The first amendment is simply for the purpose of defining the present power of the customs officers a little more fully with regard to importations in bond. The second is a somewhat important change In the law. It provides that any ship that is privileged to engage in the coasting trade, and that has repairs made in a foreign country, upon her arrival in Canada to engage in the coasting trade again, shall be liable to a duty on such repairs; and if she makes purchases of furniture or other articles in a foreign country, they shall be liable to duty at the rates
of duty imposed on such articles by the tariff. The last clause, providing for free transportation for our officers, is limited to steamboats and railways that are privileged to carry goods in bond. As this is a concession to the railways, we think it only fair and equitable that they should give free transportation to our officers while engaged in the discharge of their duties.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the provision with regard to vessels repaired in foreign ports intended to apply to vessels owned and registered in Canada?


William Paterson: Yes, to all that are engaged in the coasting trade.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason for that policy?


William Paterson: We think it is only fair that they should be subject to that regulation. We have in Canada facilities for making repairs to ships. In case of accident to a vessel, necessitating repairs to avoid danger or to enable her to reach her destination no duty is imposed; but the provision in the resolution is intended to cover cases in which deliberately and without any pressing necessity, a vessel instead of going for repairs to a Canadian shipyard, goes to a foreign shipyard.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Will this have any bearing on goods coming in under the British preference ?


William Paterson: No, this does not touch the question of goods in Great Britain at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the intention of the question is to ascertain whether repairs made in the British islands will be subject to the provisions respecting the preference to Great Britain.


William Paterson: Repairs made in Great Britain will not be dutiable at all; only those made in a foreign country.


Richard Blain: Is the minister under the second section making the regulation of Canada the same as that of the United States ?


William Paterson: It is almost word for word the same, except that where we place the duty at 25 per cent, they place it at 50 per cent.


Richard Blain: I am asking whether the law and regulations in the United States are similar to what the hon. gentleman is asking the House now to enact ?


William Paterson: Their requirements are even more strict than ours. They require absolute entry.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time and agreed to.

Mr. PATERSON1 moved for leave to Introduce Bill (No. 194) to amend the Customs Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER moved second reading of Bill (No. 189) to amend the Civil Service Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister not propose to make any further observations ?


Mr. FISHER.: Yes. In moving the second reading of this Bill, I venture to add a little to what I said when I explained the general scope of the amendments in the introduction of the Bill. I think that this is a Bill of quite sufficient importance, as a great reform in Canada, to justify my saying a few words with regard to its nature and what I hope will be brought about by it. The civil service is a very important factor in the administration and the economic life of the country. In all English speaking countries, in all self-governing countries, the character and the nature of the civil service is of the greatest importance as affecting the character of the administration. People hardly realize what a very important part in the government of the country is played by the civil service-by the men who are permanent in office under the government, and who consequently are continually employed in the transaction of public business. The governments and individual ministers may change, our party may come in and another go out, but the civil service is practically a permanent staff of men engaged in the daily administration of the government system. The character of the service is therefore all the more important. The functions of the civil servants, and their capacity are a very important element in the successful carrying on of the administration. This has been recognized from time immemorial in all English speaking and self-governing communities. In Canada it was acknowledged and appreciated long before confederation and put in a more particular and definite form immediately after confederation ; and from that time to this the civil service has continued, more or less changed in detail, but practically not changed at all in its essential elements.
I should not undertake to recapitulate civil service legislation in Canada, but would like to mention that civil service reform, in all the English speaking countries, has been modelled upon the progress of that reform in the motherland. In this, as in most other elements of constitutional government, the United Kingdom has taken the lead. I would like to refer shortly to the course of events in that country Mr. PATERSON.
regarding civil service reform. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) gave a little while ago a sketch of the history of civil service reform in Great Britain. That sketch was a very able, illuminative and concise history of what occurred, and while I shall not attempt to go over the same ground, I would like to point to one or two things which I think were of tremendous importance with regard to civil service reform in England. In the first place, in England there is no civil service law-no statute dealing with the civil service. The whole system is based on a series of orders in council. For our purposes we need not go back beyond 1853; but from that time to this, all the modifications, rules and regulations, all what we would call the law governing the civil service, is embodied in a series of Orders in Council. The reason of this was touched upon by my hon. friend from North Toronto. In 1853 when the appointments to the civil service were by nomination, the abuses were found so great that public opinion rebelled against the condition of affairs, and the government of the day feeling that perhaps they would not be able to pass a sufficiently drastic and complete reform by means of a Bill put through both Houses, took upon themselves to Institute the reforms they deemed necessary by Orders in Council.


George Eulas Foster: There was really an adverse vote of the House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. When the Queen's speech came down with the suggestion of this reform, there was actually an adverse vote in the House. That did not take place untl 1854 or 1855. The first initiative of reform was in 1853. In 1854 the speech from the Throne contained a paragraph stating:
The establishment required for the conduct of the civil service, and the arrangements bearing upon its conditions have recently been under review; and I shall direct a plan to be laid before you which will have for its object to improve the system of admission and thereby to increase the efficiency of the service.
It was in 1855, on the 21st of May, that an Order in Council was passed appointing commissioners for the civil service and directing an estimate for their remuneration to be laid before parliament. That Order in Council also made rules and regulations for entering into the service-a pretty elaborate system of rules and regulations. As my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has said, the House of Commons was not favourable and actually a resolution was passed adverse to the reform. In 1855, Lord Palmerston came into office, and realizing the importance of the reform took upon himself to put into force all these rules and regulations. I shall not igo into the details, but suffice to say that they are

very broad and general in their application. They gave to the control of an independent commission the carrying on of the examinations necessary for entrance into the service. They provided for an examination, not an open competitive examination, but an examination open to those who were nominated to the privilege of entering into the competition. In 1850. the commission recommended open competition, but that was not adopted them. In 1860 there was a report of the commission, making strong recommendations for a number of improvements and changes ; but it was not until 1870 that the great reform of open competition was adopted. Before that time, and up to 1S70, only those were privileged to write at the examinations who were nominated by certain privileged people to enter into the competition. From 1870 to the present time, the principle of open competitive examination has obtained, under an independent commission composed most of the time of three members; first of all, of three, then reduced to two, then restored to three, and now again to two. There have been a number of Orders in Council passed from time to time changing the regulations, in some cases withdrawing certain offices and certain services from the rules laid down, and returning them practically to the old system. But in a general way the progress has been pretty steady, and the result is that at the present time in England, much the larger number, I suppose roughly speaking, over 90 per cent out of all the civil service, is under the principle of open competitive examination, and under the management and control of an independent civil service commission.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister any evidence to show that not only in the civil service but in other branches in England, such as the educational examinations are fast going out of date '!


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1 think there is every evidence to show that the principle of competitive examination has gathered ground, and is to-day commonly accepted in England as the most complete method of obtaining the best results in the choice of candidates.


Samuel Hughes: It is almost entirely disappearing.
Mr. FISIIEIt. Well, my hon. friend will perhaps change his mind before I have completed my remarks. Now I have spoken of the history of affairs in England in a general way. As a result of the success ' of this system in Great Britain, the United States, in 1883, attempted also what is commonly called civil service reform. Under President Hays, a Mr. Eaton was sent to England to make a report on the result of the civil service reform there, and upon the working of the regulations. I have
under my hand the volume of his report, which I may say is accepted to-day, as it was after it was issued, as the best history, the best compendium, of the results of civil service reform in Great Britain which has ever been published. I am told to-day by those who have studied the question, Englishmen who have been interested in this question for years, that it is acknowledged as the standard work to-day upon the whole system of civil service administration in Great Britain. As a result of this report, which is extremely favourable to the English civil service system, the administration at Washington undertook to adopt civil service reform. The process went on there gradually, as it had done in England. I have here a complete history of that reform, and I may say that the people of the United States, like the people of Great Britain, were practically driven to civil service reform by the scandals that had occurred in the civil service, due to lack of proper system of entrance into the service, and an independent administration of the service. We find a record of the condition of affairs which, in ordinary parlance, has been called the spoils system of the United States, which is startling, even to those who have appreciated to a certain extent what that spoils system lias meant. There was evidence shown of the complete control of the whole civil service system of the United States for the purpose of political patronage and political assessment; that service was absolutely under the evils of political interference. The picture that was drawn of the civil service was indeed lamentable, and the administration of the United States, like the government of England in 1883, was fully convinced that a reform was necessary. We find that the same principle was adopted In the United States as in England, namely the establishment of an independent commission to carry on examinations, to make rules and regulations for those examinations, and for subjecting people who wished to enter the .service, to competitive examination. The United States civil service in an enormous machine. It comprises tens of thousands of people, taking the whole service throughout the union, and nobody could possibly frame an Act which would apply fairly and equally to the whole of that service at one swoop. The result was that the introduction of civil service reform into the United States was gradual. I have here a statement which shows to a certain extent how gradual it was. At first, in 1883, there were altogether 5,652 persons brought under the new rules. In 1884 there were 13,900, or more than double ; in 1889, there were about 27,000 persons ; in 1893, nearly 43,000 persons. In 1897 the number was slightly reduced, but it has gone on increasing since until at present there are over 83,000 persons in what is called the classified service, showing a gradual introduction into the

different departments and the different divisions, of the principle of civil service reform. I need not go into the details, nor undertake to show into which of the various branches of the service the principle was introduced. I have the evidence of many of the leading statesmen of the United States and the record of the results showing the great advantage of the changes-that the officeholders are more capable and are, on the whole, a higher class than before the introduction of this reform, that there has been an improvement in the service itself and its administration of affairs throughout the country, and, I believe, that it is also acknowledged to have had a certain effect upon the tone of the community at large in regard to responsibilities, duties and conscience.
I would like now to say a word or two with regard to the general importance of the introduction of civil service reform. I do not know that I can do better than


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. minister will excuse me. In making my statement about examinations, I did not wish to be understood as saying that the Civil Service Commission was not a success, but only that in all public bodies in England less attention is being paid to examinations and more to other matters which are considered as tending more to prove fitness than the mere passing of examinations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will deal with that matter in a few minutes. Speaking of the general importance of civil service reform,
I would like to refer to the remarks of great statesmen, those well qualified to judge, men whose words, consequently, will have weight with the House and the country. First, I wish to quote the remarks of a very distinguished man who is recognized in Canada as one of the greatest statesmen who has ever been in this country. Speaking in Canada on one occasion he said :
It is necessary that the civil service should be given a status regulated by their requirements, their personal qualifications, their capacity for rendering the country efficient service, and that neither their original appointment nor their subsequent advancement should in any way depend upon their political connections or opinions.
If you take my advice, you will never allow your civil service to be degraded into an instrument to subserve the ends and interests of any political party. . . .
Happily both the great political parties in this country have given in their adherence to this principle. . . . And I have no doubt that the anxiety manifested by our friends across the line to purge their own civil service of its political complexion will confirm every true Canadian in the convictions I have sought to impress upon you.
These words were uttered by Lord Duf-ferin in his farewell address to the people of Canada, an occasion when this great statesman, leaving Canada, felt himself im-
Mr. FTSTTFR
pelled to give advice to the people to guide them in the early years of their experiment in self-government. These words show the importance he attached to civil service reform when, in such an address, Lord Duf-ferin took pains to give utterance to this somewhat lengthy paragraph.
President Hayes, at the time of the introduction of the civil service reform in the United States, gave utterance, on various occasions and in messages to Congress, to his opinions of the importance and necessity for this reform. The first secretary of the Interior, under civil service reform, Mr. Carl Schurz, was an ardent friend of civil service reform in the United States, and on many occasions-one when I myself had the pleasure of listening to him in Boston- drew attention to civil service reform and pointed out the effect, not only upon the civil service itself, but upon the community at large, and of the introduction of merit as a cause of appointment to office and promotion in office and the removal of the public service from the evils then in existence in the United States and which had been in existence in Great Britain before the introduction of civil service reform. So far as Great Britain is concerned, I cannot give a better sketch of the conditions before the introduction of civil service reform than by quoting a note which appears in Mr. Eaton's book at the foot of page 161. He is Speaking of the merit system and of the system of appointment and promotion :
By the merit system I mean that theory of government (and the proper method of examinations and promotions through which it is applied, and the proper regulations for attaining economy and efficiency) which treats personal qualifications, rather than the political opinions of the partisan services of applicants for office, as the true and paramount basis for appointments; which regards office, including the appointing power, as a public trust and not as an official perquisite or a partisan agency for propagating political opinions or keeping a party in power.
He gives a short sketch of the course of events in England :
From the despotic system, under the Norman kings, through various spoils systems under arbitrary kings-through a sort of partisan system under Cromwell-through fearful corruption under James and Charles-through a sort of aristocratic spoils system under William and Anne-through a partisan spoils system under George I. and II., and a part of the reign of George III.-through the partisan system in its best estate in later years-we have traced the unsteady but generally ascending progress of British administration; and, in 1870, we shall find it to have reached a level at which office is treated as a trust and personal merit is the recognized criterion for selection for office. That was the inauguration of the merit system.
These words are a short but pithy and fair explanation of the progress of events

in England and of tlie great change which had come about from the original situation when office was in the gift of irresponsible kings before constitutional government was introduced in that country, until, at last, office came to be open to those who had shown by proper test the best qualifications for the work of office. I may say another word in regard to English feeling and English principles and English opinions in regard to them. When they came to adopt civil service reform in its entirety we find this condition of affairs-that neither the English ministry nor the English people fell into the error of regarding that reform as trifling which, though not at once very much affecting the higher offices, really controlled the doors of patronage and favouritism, and determined who, a few years hence, would fill nearly every high office except that of cabinet ministers. They seem to have comprehended that the adoption, even in a limited sphere of a principle by which partisan tyranny was condemned, was in itself no inconsiderable victory which would not fail to lead on to far greater triumphs in the same direction. Mr. Eaton says :
I have found nothing in the progress of this reform which has seemed to me a better evidence of a sound public opinion on the subject than this popular judgment. Wise methods steadily and faithfully applied, which educate public opinion at the same time that they close the fountain of mischief, and not sweeping, revolutionary proceedings, which assume that the moral tone of a nation's politics can be changed by an assault or au exhortation, were, in the opinion of the British public, the essential condition of all administrative reform.
Those, Sir, are the underlying feelings which pi-ompted the administration in Great Britain to adopt reform. The appeal to the common sense and judgment of the English people was successful and although at first the British government did not feel altogether that they could trust the members of parliament to help them In this reform, they were able to appeal to the people and the people supported them and from the day of the commencement until its almost full fruition at the present time the English people have stood behind reform in this respect as they have In most others, and have given an example to the world at large of the best application of the science of administration in their public affairs. I use the word ' science of administration ' incidentally but I want to say that.in Great Britain the science of administration has been advanced far more than in any other country in the world. There are on the continent of Europe peoples who in their methods and ideas are as scientific, (perhaps more so) as the British people but when it comes to the practical application of scientific methods to the ordinary every day affairs of life it is always found by those who have studied these great questions that in Great Britain and amongst the British people are the strongest evidences and the highest examples of the true science of administration and the best application of scientific methods to the ordinary affairs of life. That is one of the reasons no doubt why it is that in civil service reform as in so many other things the British people have taken the lead and afforded the best example to the world at large.
I submit that we cannot do better than take the model of the people on whose institutions our institutions are founded ; the people who have successfully shown to the world at large the success of the practical working out of these institutions, and I have therefore in the framing of this Bill, and even in its details, to a large extent followed the English model wherever it is possible . Where it was necessary to make a change in consequence of certain differences in conditions between Great Britain and this new country I have still tried to follow the principles which are to be found in the British system.
Let me say a word further In regard to reform, and reform of the civil service especially. Here is another picture of the difference between the civil service before reform and after :
In the beginning, a man was in the public service because a corrupt and arbitrary king wished him there; at the end, he was in that service because a fair test of his work gave him the place, as the best man to fill it.
These are the differences between the first and the last stage of the civil service in England :
It is plain, then, that the reform of the civil service in Great Britain has not been, and that nowhere should it be looked upon as being a mere device in procedure, a mere method in public business, or a mere collection of rules in the departments. But that it involves all this besides-a test and expression of the justice and moral tone of the nation's politics; a decision between the relative claims of worth and manhood, as weighed against official favouritism, and selfish interests, upon public confidence and respect; a theory of the true sphere of parties and of their best means of gaining the support of a free and intelligent people; a principle of duty and responsibility in official life; the character of political leadership-whether it should he by statesmen making their appeal upon principles and good administration, or by manipulators relying on patronage and management.
I would like to say something With regard to the position of the civil service in Canada. We early adopted the organization of the civil service. In 1855 there was an Act of the province of Canada for improving the organization and efficiency of the service. This was consolidated in 1859

and it is curious iu examining it to find that ill that Act there was practically laid down most of the general provisions of the present law. There have been a very considerable number of amendments ; there have been changes, for instance, In the scale of salaries although it is extraordinary that in these early days the salary scale was not very different from what it has been in the last few years. Immediately after confederation a Civil Service Act was passed and we have in Canada the advantage of the reports of no less than three civil service commissions ; one in 1880, one iu 1892, and one in 1908. I have studied these reports very carefully and I find that in a general way there is a consensus of opinion on general principles in the three of them. There are differences of detail but on general principles there is practically a consensus of opinion in the three reports. I feel therefore that basing our action in this Bill upon the procedure in England, and having the advantage of the experience in the United States and having the advantage of the deliberate opinion of three bodies of commissioners in Canada who know the conditions peculiar to this country; we have embodied in this Bill the general principles which are in accordance with experience, with facts, and with the opinions of these three different sources of inspiration. We find that the Civil Service Commission of 1892 found that the amendments lately introduced into our service were in a retrograde direction and that instead of improvement there had been actually retrogression. I regret to say that in consequence of the report of 1892 there was no practical amendment made to the Civil Service Act, and the result is that to-day we have to deal with the civil service more drastically than perhaps we would have to deal with it had that report of 1892 been acted upon and had it made a greater impression upon parliament and the country. In a general way the civil service to-day is based on the original acts with modifications in the details but not in the general principles. In the reports of the three commissions I have alluded to there is advised an independent civil service commission and open competitive examinations. The evils attendant upon the absence of these two great reforms are cited and inr-pressed upon parliament and the country. In this present Act we are adopting the recommendations of these commissions in that respect. In this Bill we adopt the principle of the appointment of an independent civil service commission and we are introducing the principle of open competitive examination for entering the public service. I think we are carrying out the views of those best calculated to understand the condition of affairs in Canada ; the necessities of the service and the ad-Mr. FISHEK.
vantages which will accrue to the whole country and especially to the administration of public affairs, by the introduction of these two great reforms. I am gratified personally that I am the instrument of the introduction of such a Bill into the parliament of Canada. I consider that the introduction of it is a measure of great reform in our administration, and that in many respects it will lead to greater reform in the future. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has spoken of the inefficiency of examinations to test the qualifications of candidiates. I think I will be able to show that the opinion of those who have had the greater experience is that open competitive examination is most likely to secure the best men for the public service, and that the result of its introduction into the civil service of other countries has been to improve the quality of the service. As I have said, all the reports of the commissions on the civil service have recommended the introduction of an independent commission to control entry into the service, and the rules and regulations under which the service shall work.


Samuel Hughes: I did not mean to say that there should not be some examination, but I do say that the experience of educational institutions in England in the last few years has led them to do away with the fad-as experience is teaching them to do away with it in Canada and the United States-of trusting entirely to examinations in order to measure efficiency.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend, but no doubt he will be able to quote examples from the universities and the public service wherein the system of examination has been done away with and another method deliberately adopted.


Samuel Hughes: It is done all over Ontario now.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But my hon. friend was speaking about England.


Samuel Hughes: And in England, too.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not aware that examinations have been done away with in England. In the English universities and great English schools the competitive examination test is the basis for awarding scholarships and prize. There is only one case I can remember in which a change has been made and that in the case of the mathematical trips in Cambridge. A few years ago Cambridge did away with that and adopted what it had already adopted in the other classification and what Oxford bad long had; a classification of 1st, 2nd and 3rd classes instead of actual order of merit. I am not aware of any other instances of the kind.


Samuel Hughes: That shows it is coming.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perhaps so, hot that system does not even do away with examinations or the principle that the best men are discovered and tested by proper examinations.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Speaker, when you left the chair I was speaking in regard to the principle of competitive examinations which by this Bill is introduced for entry into our civil service. I am well aware that-many people perhaps, especially in this country, are not fully seized of the value of competitive examinations. Some even may doubt the value of examinations at all. But all our educationists, all those who have examined economic questions in the course of the last century7, I think I may say-and it goes back very much further in many instances-have adopted the system of examination as the test of qualification and of knowledge on the part of those who are applying for a position or for an honour. In our school system, in our technical schools as well as our ordinary schools, in our universities, not only in Can ada, but in all the civilized countries of the world, and in some countries which up to recent times have been considered as uncivilized, such as China and Japan, the system of examinations has obtained, and has been held to be the proper and reliable and practically the only possible test of the qualification of those who come up for examination. In regard to the civil service, this system has been adopted in Great Britain, our model country ; it has been adopted in the United States; and while competitive examinations have not heretofore been adopted in Canada, a system of qualifying examinations has been in existence. I therefore think it is idle at this day for anybody to dispute the practical working of examinations to test the qualifications of aspirants. So far as the success of this system is concerned, I have one or two authorities which I propose to put before the House out of many-authorities which I think will be recognized as being of such a character that their dictum must be ac-[DOT] cepted. I will first take that of a great statesman-Lord Salisbury, a man of the highest education, the highest culture, of vast administrative experience, and who at the time he gave utterance to this opinion was in an administrative position where he had the best opportunity of judging of the effects of competitive examinations upon the civil service. What 1 am going to quote was his utterance in regard to the results of civil service examinations in India, where they were introduced many years before he made this statement, and 359
where consequently the results of the system were in a condition to be judged of. The Viceroy of India says this :
As regards the maintenance of free competition, I do not perceive that it has been challenged by any high authority and I do not think it necessary to discuss the subject.
He further says ;
In the first place, I should regret that any man should be debarred from entrance to the Indian civil service who possessed such energy and ability as to enable him in a humble position in life to succeed at the competitive examinations. Such a man it would be to the advantage of India that he should form one of the civil service.
Lord Salisbury, in a final instruction to the Viceroy and council of India, uses this language ;
With respect to the principle of competition itself, the evidence you have collected sufficiently shows that it cannot be disturbed without injury to the public service. The expression of opinion which I have received from competent judges in England led me to the same conclusion. Of its success as a mode of selecting persons fit to serve in the Indian civil service, there seems to be no reasonable doubt.
A member of the government of India, who had been hostile to the introduction into India of this system, says this in an official communication :
It is needless to state views in regard to the competitive system, as compared with that of nomination, because it is clear, in the present state of public feeling, it is out of all probability that competition could be abandoned; and, moreover, I confess, after careful perusal of these papers, I arrive at the conclusion that, on the whole, it has been more successful than I for one ever expected it to be.
I have here another authority which I think is one of the most important, and the value of which cannot be gainsaid. It is the opinion of the master of Baliol College at Oxford, the Rev. Mr. Jowett. I do not suppose that anybody here who knows the name at all will deny that Mr. Jowitt was one of the greatest educational authorities in England, that during the time that he was the headmaster of Baliol College, that college made a record and a name for itself in the character of the men it turned out for the public service and the public life of Great Britain which perhaps was without a parallel, for a few years at all events, in the history of any college in Great Britain. Mr. Jowett, in a letter addressed to Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was one of the Civil Service Commissioners who had made a report, said this :
I think two objections are likely to be made to the report you were so good as to show me on the ' Organization, of the permanent civil service.' First, that it is impossible to be assured of the moral character of persons elected by examination into the public ser-



vice; secondly, that it is impossible to carry on an examination in so great a variety of subjects as would be required, and with such numberless candidates; in other words, that the scheme, however excellent, is not practicable.
I am convinced that neither of these objections has any real foundation.
For the moral character of the candidates I should trust partly to the examination itself. University experience abundantly shows that in more than nineteen cases out of twenty, men of attainments are also men of character. The perseverance and self-discipline necessary for the acquirement of any considerable amount of knowledge are a great security that a young man has not led a dissolute life.
These are certainly words of wisdom which will commend themselves to any thoughtful man who studies this question. Speaking of the examinations, lie says :
The examination should consist both of paper and viva voce work. Where, as here, the object is to select a number of young men for practical life, the latter is of great importance. The aim in either should be to test general intelligence and power of thought and language, quite as much as knowledge of a particular subject.
I said the other day, speaking of the character of the examinations in England, that I had been struck by the nature of the questions and the character^ of the papers. A careful investigation impressed me more strongly with the fact that the papers were not those of men who had gone through a short cramming and had learnt their subjects by rote. On the contrary the general tenor of the questions put constituted a thorough test, not simply of general intelligence and capacity but of grasp of the particular subjects. They required an intimate knowledge of each subject in all its phases and the capacity to think out the proper answers. It is a test which precludes the idea that anybody can. by simply cramming or learning by rote, be successful in the competition. On the contrary, the man who really knows the subject is bound to come out ahead, and the subjects are chosen with special reference to the particular work he is expected to do. I might read another extract from Mr. Jowett's remarks :
The examination will relate to common things treated in a common sense way.
That no other means can be devised of getting rid of the evils of patronage.
A further objection may be made to the selection of candidates by a competing examination, this affords no' test of fitness for places of trust, for which also their youth seems to disqualify them. But places of trust would not be given to youths just entering the service, but to those whose characters were long tried in it.
In this class of public servants there would he at least as much security for high character as at present. They will have obtained their situations in an independent manner through their own merits. The sense of this Mr. FISHER.
cannot but induce self-respect, and diffuse a wholesome spirit among the lower no less than the higher classes of official men. Appointment by merit would not impair, but would rather increase the unity of the public service, while it would tend to take away from promotion by merit the appearance of being favouritism disguised.
Permit me to express, in conclusion, my earnest wishes for the success of the scheme. If carried out it will relieve public men from service ; it will give ail classes a common interest in maintaining its rank and efficiency. Though a subordinate aspect of it, I cannot help feeling, as a college tutor, its great importance to the xmiversity, supplying as it does, to well educated young men, a new opening for honourable distinction. The effect of it in giving a stimulus to the education of the lower classes can hardly be overestimated.
I shall not dwell longer on this point because I think the quotations I have read are sufficient to show that in the minds of those who have experience and knowledge in educational matters, who have had administrative experience and understand great public questions, both civil, administrative and economic, the opinion prevails that competitive examination is the best method of securing the best men and that the result of such competition has been eminently satisfactory.
Having dealt with that matter, I would like to say a few words on the Bill before the House. First, let me point out that it is an amending Bill to the present Civil Service Act. This plan was adopted as being more concise and simple and one which would enable us to get through the work better and more easily. In this connection I have had the Bill so printed, that in italics, at the end of each clause, there is a reference to the section of the present Act which it affects. I have also had a large number of copies of the present Act distributed, together with copies of the Bill, so that any one who takes the two will he able to understand the various amendments. Since this Bill was introduced, I have had a number of communications and representations made to me by individuals and by one or two bodies, chiefly of the civil service. An important memorial was presented me by the Civil Service Association of Ottawa, comprising the inside service and the service affected particularly by this Bill. I have also had various communications from bodies of the service outside of Ottawa. I notice that the chief point dealt with is the raise in salaries for this year-a subject which was dealt with by the Civil Service Commission last year. It will he noticed that there is no reference to that in this Bill. This Bill is an amendment to the Civil Service Act and will go on our statute-book as a permanent reform of the service. The increases of salary is a mere incident of this year's administration and ought not to be included in any statute to be placed on our

statute-book for years to come. Therefore, speaking with all deference to those who think It very important, in my opinion the salary question is a matter of temporary action. The additions, if additions are made especially this year, to the salaries of the public employees, will be additions which ought not to be put on the statute-book as a permanent enactment. Therefore to those who approached me on this subject, I said that it is one which this Bill does not deal with, and consequently I do not propose to discuss it now.
Speaking of the general details of the Bill, the first important point we come to is that of the division of the service into the inside and the outside service. The present Bill does not deal with what is called the outside service. It brings certain members of the outside service immediately under the operations of this amending Act, but those portions of the Civil Service Act which apply to the outside service are not touched by this Bill at all. The Bill does bring into the inside service, as affected by its amending clauses, all the departmental services in the city of Ottawa and also the experimental farm and the observatory just outside the city. The inside service is arranged in certain divisions which will take the place of the present classification. That rearrangement is made notable by one particular change in the principle of the classification. At the present time, the service is divided into classes, and there is a natural progress from one class to another in the service from the bottom to the top. In this Bill, we have recognized what is referred to and recommended, sometimes specifically, sometimes more generally,' by the Civil Service Commission here, and what is the condition of affairs in Great Britain, viz : That the service should be divided so that a considerable number of employees who are engaged in work of a routine character, work of a nature requiring no initiative and needing direct and close supervision of some superior officer, shall be set apart in a class by themselves, and, except under exceptional circumstances, which are here provided for, cannot, without further examination, rise into the other divisions. This is provided for by the establishment of the third division, for entry into which there is a special examination entirely different from the entrance examination into the second division. There is also in the second and in the first divisions a distribution of the employees, which indicates, in regard to the second division, that the work they will be put at and the character of qualifications required of them shall be such as would fit them for promotion into the higher division. The examinations for entry into that division are for direct entry and would be of a different character, more difficult, more particularly 3591
designed to test their fitness for the work which they would be put to in that division, and, having entered by these examinations, they will be eligible for promotion through that division into the first division, and so to the highest positions in the Civil Service of the country. That is one of the important changes in the classification. The classification is described in section 5. In sections 31, 32, 33 and 34 the salaries of the different classes are indicated. If comparison is made with the present Civil Service law, it will be found that, under the new classification, in a general way, the maximum salaries are made higher than those now in effect for the classes which about correspond in round terms with these proposed new divisions. In connection with that, and as a natural corollary, the minimum salaries are somewhat raised in most instances. The result is that, under this law, there is an opportunity given to the Civil Service of a very material financial-improvement in their status. The general result of the passing of this Act will be that the service, which to-day is to a certain extent hampered and confined to certain definite salaries of a lower amount, will be eligible for a series of salaries reaching higher and giving them a better financial position. I need not go into the details now; it will be proper to do that when we come to the consideration of the Bill clause by clause in committee.
The Bill as proposed brings in all the departmental services in Ottawa which to-day are not in the inside service. In round figures, there are some 1,400 or 1,500 civil servants in Ottawa belonging to what is called to-day the inside service ; there are something like 800 who are doing practically the same kind of work in the various departments, but who are paid, not out of votes for civil government, but out of votes made by parliament of lump sums partly for the payment of salaries and partly for other services. The instance which comes most naturally to my mind is one in my own department. In that department there is the dairy service. This is paid out of a lump vote. The salaries of employees here in Ottawa, salaries of men all over the country, whether temporarily or permanently engaged, are paid out of this vote; expenses of all kinds in connection with the service are paid out of the same vote ; incidental expenses, sometimes large, for printing. holding meetings, organization of associations. and things of that kind, are all paid out of the same vote. The vote as now taken does not indicate how much is provided for salaries and how much for other services connected with the administration of this branch. Under this Bill, it is proposed that employees in the outside service who are working at Ottawa, or whose headquarters are here, shall be brought into the inside service under the operation of this Act.


George Eulas Foster: Where will they be placed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the Inside service, according to tile salaries which they are now enjoying, and fitting them into the classifications established by this Act-that is, speaking in round terms. We have a precedent for this both in Great Britain and in the United States. In Great Britain, certain services were not brought under the operation of the Civil Service Act to begin with, but provision was afterwards made in the orders in council and regulations by which these services were brought under the operations of the Civil Service Act in sucli a way as to maintain the status as to position and remuneration of these engaged in them. In the United States, when, under the liroclamation of the president, various services and divisions are classified- as tlie term is there, that is, are brought under the operation of the Civil Service Act-tile rule has always been that those who were in the Civil Service at the time when tlie branch in which they are engaged is brought under Civil Service rules, are maintained in the service and have the advantages and disabilities which come to them by reason of their service being classified. We have adopted the same principle in this Bill. I think it is the only fair principle, the only right principle. While this class are subject to certain disabilities under this Bill, they are also getting advantages by being brought into the inside service, which advantages more than compensate them for the disabilities from which they may suffer. I think it is in the interest of the service, especially here in Ottawa, and incidentally in the interests of the whole service throughout the country, that there should not be in one department, sometimes even in one room, and working side by side, a certain class of officials and clerks who are under one set of rules and regulations, and who have opportunities of increase and advancement which other persons working with them do not possess. It is therefore important in the interest, not only of the service, but of efficiency and good feeling, that these people should be brought in.
Noxv in regard to the constitution of the commission. We propose to appoint a commission of two members. In this country we have people belonging to two different original races, and that fact will be recognized in the appointment of the commissioners. While the Bill does not definitely declare that one of the commissioners should be a French Canadian and another an English Canadian, I may say that it is the intention of the government to appoint one English speaking commissioner and one French speaking commissioner, and I cannot conceive that at any time in Canada under any government, one of the commissioners will not always be French speaking and the other English speaking.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The chief duties of the commission will be twofold. The first is to test the qualification of candidates to enter the service, and to give certificates of merit, or certificates of qualification in cases of promotion, or in cases of an exceptional increase of salary to those who are in the service. There is the additional duty placed upon the commission that, when, at any time the head of a department, through order in council asks for the services of the commission to examine into the management or tlie organization of his department, it shall be the duty of the commissioners, under an order in council passed for that purpose, to carry out that work and report to the Governor in Council upon the subject.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any provision for an annual report of the commissioners ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a provision for a regular report of the commissioners to the Secretary of State. There is also provision for reports to the commissioners, that is to say, that information should be supplied by tlie departments to the commission. I have already explained how entries to the service, under ordinary circumstances, shall be after competitive examination. There will be two series of examinations, one for entry into the third division, and one for entry into the second division. The character of these examinations will be somewhat different. The character of the examinations and the rules and regulations are to be determined by the commission, subject to approval by the Governor in Council. No person shall be admitted to the examination unless he is a natural born or naturalized British subject, and has been a resident in Canada for at least three years and is of the full age of eighteen years, and not more than thirty-five years.
Now as to the system by which men are supplied to the places after the examinations. The heads of the departments know what are the needs of the departments. The head of the department, through the deputy head, must inform the commission that within tlie next six months he will require so many clerks of such and such a character, whether they are for the third division or for the second division, and if they are for the second division, whether they require to have a certain technical knowledge. The commission, having received these applications and reports from the departments, and having reference to the fact that there may be somebody left over from the former examination who lias not been appointed, and having reference also to the possibility, which is practically universal, of the necessity of temporary clerks in the departments, will advertise how many clerks are required for the next examination. They will also advertise, if there are any special positions vacant, what the qualifications are for appointment thereto, and what emolument belongs to the

appointment. Then the applicants will inform the commission that they wish to compete in these examinations. Under the rules and regulations it is necessary that these examinations should be held all over Canada, much in the same way as at present, so as to give people all over the country an opportunity to attend and compete in the examination, at points within a reasonable distance of their own homes. That is the case at present, and it will be continued.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has not stated how long the left-overs are to continued on the list.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Intention is that the left-overs shall be employed as temporary clerks where they are needed, and that they shall have the first chance for appointment after another examination is held.


George Eulas Foster: Still the minister does not state how long he is to keep them on.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Supposing an examination was held to-morrow. Supposing the commissioners are asking for fifty ordinary clerks, they would advertise that fifty ordinary clerks were to be appointed. It might be that the applications from the different departments only amounted to forty-two, consequently eight of the applicants would be put upon the list who were not appointed. Perhaps some of them would be appointed to temporary clerkships before another examination took place ; but it would be understood by the commission that these men were still available, "and if fifty clerks were asked for the next time, instead of advertising for fifty, they would only advertise for the lesser number, because they would already have some men available for appointments. The consequence would be that practically no man would ever get on that list without receiving an appointment within six or eight months after he had passed the examination. Generally appointments will be made in the order of merit; but authority is given to the commission so that, when an appointment is asked for by a minister for a person of some special qualification, the commission may choose the candidate who seems to possess the best qualification for the particular post, even though another person might have obtained higher marks in the general examination.
Then all appointments are to be on probation. That is the rule to-day under our Civil Service Act, but the rule is practically ignored, and appointments to the civil service are generally considered by the appointees, the public and even the officers of the departments as permanent. The new Bill brings prominently forward the fact that the appointee is on probation for six months. This is perhaps more necessary in consequence of the entry into the service by competitive examination. While, as I have said, I believe the competitive examination to be the best way of gauging the merits of the individual for the position which he is seeking, exceptional cases may arise where an applicant who has passed a very successful examination may, for some reason or other, in practical work not be a success ; it is therefore provided that the officers of the department have an opportunity after two months' trial, and before six months are over, on a reasoned and stated ground, indicate to the commission that the clerk is not fit for the service to which he was appointed. If the ground alleged would lead the commission to believe that the clerk is not fit for any other service in the administration, they would strike his name off the list entirely. If, however, the reasons for bis rejection by the officers of one department would indicate that it was because of something peculiar in the department or in the work to which he was assigned, and that it was not any disability on his part, then the commission would have the authority and power to assign him to another vacancy. This, I think, would sufficiently safeguard the officers of the departments from having unsuitable appointees forced upon them.
While the provisions of the Act are definite and clear that entry to the civil service is by competitive examination, provi-S'on is made for exceptional circumstances, such as occasionally arise, where a man, by some special experience in life or other cause, has peculiar qualifications for appointment. Similar provision is made under the existing law and in the civil service systems of Great Britain and the United States. Where the deputy head of the department reports that a certain office requires special qualifications, a man may be appointed without the preliminary passing of an examination, but such appointee must receive a certificate of qualification from the commission, and the commissioners in such cases are allowed to judge how they are to secure the necessary information before granting the certificate.
We provide also for temporary clerks under two sections of the Act. One is for the employment of those who have passed the examinations and have been accepted by the commission, but who, for one reason or another, have not been supplied or assigned to permanent appointments. It is quite possible that in a department occasionally much work may be needed of a kind that could be performed by such people. Under such circumstances, the commission may assign one of these clerks, who have already proved themselves by examination, for temporary service, but a temporary clerk cannot remain in such service for more than six months in any one year. As a matter of fact before the end of the six months he will almost certainly be assigned to some permanent employment in the service as his turn comes.
We have also provided for another class

of temporary employment. In some departments there is a rush of work at certain seasons of the year, addressing a lot of envelopes, doing some little routine work that is of no special qualification or character, but which requires something just a little above the ordinary manual labour. We, therefore, make a provision that the commission may allow people who have passed no examination, but who, they are satisfied, have the proper health, character and suitability for that occupation, to be appointed, and those appointments must not be for more than four months in the year to any one individual.
This, I think, disposes practically of the question of appointment, In regard to promotions there is a very material change from the present Act. The present Act provides for what are called promotion examinations. These promotion examinations are somewhat of the character of the qualifying examinations for entry into the service. An employee of the service goes up for a promotion examination and passes it, but that does not necessarily mean that he will be promoted. I have found that in the general way promotion is not guarded by examination in the English or United States service. There are special cases where in both services it is done by competition and by examination, but those are fixed by the commissioners, and the general rule in both services is that promotion shall not be by competitive examination. We have agreed with these models, and have adopted in this Bill the idea of promotion on a certificate of qualification for the promotion from the commission, and we will leave to the commission


George Eulas Foster: That does not prohibit non-competitive examinations?
(Mr. FISHER. No. It will be left to the judgment of the commission how they will obtain the information in regard to the person proposed to be promoted, and if they choose they can exercise the right to have an examination. It is quite possible that the minister in proposing a promotion might apply to the commission and say that there are certain officers in his department any one of whom would probably be fitted for the promotion and if they had a competitive examination ffor that promotion he' would follow the report of the results of that examination. But that is all open to the minister and the commission to decide. Vacancies in the first division generally will be filled by promotions from the second; the vacancies in any subdivision of either division would be filled by promotions from the lower subdivisions. There is a provision for clerks in the third division being allowed to enter into competitive examination for entry into the second division when the commissioners believe it is advisable in the public interest that they should be allowed to do so. We thought'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: it well to place a safeguard around this because the majority of the clerks in the third division will not be of a character to fit them for promotion to the higher ranks. However, if any one of them should become fitted the commissioners may allow him, through the officers of the department, to enter into the open competition, and if he is able to attain to a higher position he will get it just the same as those who enter from the outside. It has been found that clerks .who are constantly striving to undertake promotion examinations are somewhat hindered in the proper discharge of their duties, and if the clerks in the third division were generally permitted to enter into open competition for the second division it might be detrimental to the public service. Hence the safeguard is provided that they shall not be allowed to enter into open competitive competition for promotion unless on the recommendation of the commission. In a general way the clerks begin at the salary of the bottom of their division and work up by the ordinary increments provided by the Act. As to the entry of those in the outside service into the inside service it is intended that the present salary shall in a general way govern the place they will occupy, but there is a provision by which if the character of their work indicates they should be in a subdivision higher than that which their salary would indicate, an order in council under the organization of the service in section 8 may so place them. There is an important and a new provision with regard to the conduct and efficiency of all officers below the first division. At present the reputation of the clerks in the service is largely dependent on the opinion their superior officers may entertain of them. The principle in the Bill is that merit shall rule for promotion, just as competence shall rule for entry into the service. We have thought that merit can best be shown by a continuous record of the employee and not by a momentary expression of opinion on the part of the superior officer. We provide for a regular record of the work of all employees in the service as shown by the reports furnished at least every three months to the deputy head of the department from the officer immediately over the clerks, and these reports shall be transmitted to the commission for their information and shall form a very important if not the most important influence in the determination of the commission with regard to the merit of an official.


George Eulas Foster: Is it indicated how these reports shall be made out; will there be forms or blanks to fill in ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would be a matter of regulation. There is one thing I thought it best to put in the Bill although at first I intended it should be included in the rules, and that is if a report Is unfavourable it shall be made known to the person respect-

iug whom it is made. I do not think any superior officer should be allowed to make an adverse report on one of the officials without having that report known. Then the Bill specifically forbids any employee to solicit or influence a member of the commission. We have already an order in council that civil servants shall not approach a member of parliament to interest him to get the influence of the minister in his favour. It is unfortunate that this rule is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. However as the commission will have so much power and as it should be entirely independent, we thought it proper to provide that any person who directly or indirectly solicits or endeavours to influence a member of the commission in favour of his appointment, promotion or an increase in his salary shall be deemed to be unworthy of employment, and if in the civil service shall be liable to immediate dismissal. Section 46 provides for the necessary appropriation by statute to meet the financial obligations incurred by this Bill.
I think, Sir, I have covered pretty well the ground with regard to the general principles of the Bill, with regard to the particular details proposed here, and with regard to the general necessity and the advisability in Canada of making this measure of civil service reform. I am very much gratified that I have been honoured with the charge of a Bill of such far-reaching character. I believe it to be in the interests of the country at large and of the civil service and of the effective and successful administration of Canada. It is a reform more drastic, more far-reaching, than anything that I have come across in the civil service legislation of the country. The Bill is a legitimate and proper sequence of the appointment of the Civil Service Commission last year by this government. Last year as now the civil service was talked of in the country. Last year the people of the country were expressing some views and opinions with regard to it. The civil servants themselves were desirous of having changes made in the civil service law and an amelioration of their own position in the country and under the administration. The government, appreciating the necessity of the case, did not wish to jump into legislation without special information. We therefore about thirteen months ago appointed a Civil Service Commission with the intention and object of getting information on points of this kind. This Bill to a very considerable extent follows the lines of the recommendations of that commission ; but, as I said in opening, we have also taken into consideration the reports of former Civil Service Commissions. We have taken into consideration the actual arrangements in other countries to which we might properly look for models ; we have taken
into consideration the actual experience and practice of these other countries, and have tried to follow the lines of their successes; and we have applied these principles and these recommendations to the actual state of affairs in Canada to-day. I think, Sir, that the result of this Bill, when it becomes law, will be in the first place to place our civil service on a sounder, safer and truer basis. It will remove from the influences of either personal favouritism or political patronage, a large portion of the civil service. It will give an opportunity to those who are best qualified for the duties of the service to enter it, having shown by their exertions that they are worthy of the positions which they seek. It will place the civil service of to-day, in so far as the city of Ottawa and its surroundings are concerned, on a more equal, a more permanent and a more satisfactory basis. It provides for material improvement in the financial position of those who are in the service to-day, and it gives an opportunity for greater financial reward to those who in the future, under the provisions of this Act, may enter the service. I think, therefore, that it is a measure which fills a need in all directions, which the people of this country will approve of, which the people of this country have perhaps been looking for from the government of the day ; and I trust, from the utterances that have already been made by hon. gentlemen opposite and in the country, that there will be no partisan or party spirit in the way in which this Bill and its provisions will be approached. I am glad to know that to a large extent the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and I think the hon. leader of the opposition also, have given utterance to expressions of opinion on the civil service which are largely within the lines of this Bill. I therefore anticipate their assistance and the assistance of every member of this House in putting it through in a practical, business-like 'way, so that it may become law and may accomplish the good purpose which we have in view.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I took the liberty of suggesting that there should be some further statement from the Minister of Agriculture, who is in charge of this Bill, before the second reading; but I trust that hon. gentlemen who declaim against obstruction will not hold me responsible for the length of his speech. I am rather sensitive on that point, and I desire to make that qualification before I begin my remarks. It was of course necessary for the hon. gentleman to speak at some length ; but inasmuch as we have already had the historical aspect of this subject thoroughly discussed in the House during the present session, it did seem to me that that portion of the hon. gentleman's speech might have been omitted with advantage at this stage of the session; J because everything he said had been said

already and said much more exhaustively, in a debate which we had on this subject not long ago.
There was nothing of a very controversal nature in my hon. friend's remarks ; and as to the general principle of the reform of the civil service along the lines of this Bill, I say now, as I said before, that we welcome the Bill, although perhaps it does not go as far as we woud ike. My hon. friend, in passing, referred to the report of the Civii Service Commission of 1892, remarking that that had not been acted upon up to the present year. I presume that was by way of apology for the twelve years that have elapsed during which my hon. friend and his friends have been in power without acting on that report. However, I do not desire to press that phase of the question at the present moment, because it is my sincere desire to assist the government, so far as I am capable of assisting them, in putting on the statute-book of this country a measure which will undoubtedly accomplish a considerable reform.
As I remarked upon the first reading of the Bill, I had expressed my opinion as far back as the month of August, 1907, that the time had come when we should have in this country a measure of civil service reform. I took the ground then, and I take it now, that it is proper that this should he accomplished by a system of competitive examinations. Some discussion lias taken place with regard to examinations ; but this Bill leaves it entirely open as to what the nature of the examinations shall be. The use of the word examination does not necessarily imply merely an examination of a literary character or a written one. The word examination is sufficiently comprehensive to enable the persons, appointed to carry out examinations, to take into consideration every possible qualification that may be possessed by any applicant for public office. Therefore, so far as that Is concerned, it seems to me that the measure is sufficiently comprehensive in the language that it uses.
Now, I do not desire to go at any length into what I consider to be certain omissions from this Bill. There are, however, two or three matters of some moment which I would like to touch upon vetv briefly. In the first place, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has referred to the proposed Civil Service Commission as an independent commission. It is not independent in the sense in which I would like to see it independent. Its members hold office during the pleasure of the government, not during good behaviour. Let me make that very plain. The judges of this country, under section 99 of the British North America Act, hold their office during good behaviour ; but they are subject to removal by the Governor in Council upon an address of the Senate and House of Commons. The Auditor General of this country, under section 28 of the Mt. R. L. BORDEN.
Audit Act, holds office during good behaviour; but he, like the judges, is subject to removal by the Governor in Council upon an address of the Senate and House of Commons. The tenure of these Civil Service Commissioners will not be of that character. Under section 9 of the Bill, they will hold office during pleasure. That is easily seen from the language of the section :
There shall be a commission to be called the Civil Service Commission, constituted of two members appointed by the Governor in Council. The rank, standing, salary and tenure of office of each commissioner shall be those of a head of a department.
If we examine the statute to see what is the tenure of office of a deputy head of a department, we find in section 52 of chapter 10 of the revised statutes of Canada, that the deputy heads of departments shall be appointed by tbe Governor in Council and hold office during pleasure, and that whenever such pleasure is exercised in the direction of removing a deputy head, a statement of the reasons shall be laid on the table of the House in the first fifteen days of the following session. This is not an independent commission in the sense I would he inclined to use the word. No one would be prepared to say that the deputy minister of any department is an independent'officer. He is an officer appointed for the purpose of carrying out the policy of the party in power for the time being. He is bound to carry out that policy, and the same rule prevails here as prevails in Great Britain in that regard. Speaking of the civil service, Mr. Anson, in his work on ' The Law and Custom of the Constitution ' uses this language :
The parliamentary chief for the time being personifies the department in the view of the public; hut the business of the country is done by the permanent officials. They are severed from political life not merely by the statutes which disable them from sitting in the House of Commons, but 'by the usage of the civil service, applicable to both Houses of parliament, which secures that the members of the service ' remain free to serve the government of the day without necessarily exposing themselves to public charges of inconsistency or insincerity.'' The parliamentary chief changes,, hut they are unaffected by the ebb and flow of political opinion. To this circumstance we owe several advantages.
And he goes on to enumerate them. It will not be contended that a judge would be independent, if subject to dismissal by the government of the day, although the grounds of his dismissal had to be laid before parliament during the next session. It would not be contended that the 'Auditor General would occupy the same independent position if subject to dismissal by the government of the day, and I greatly regret that the government have not so framed the provisions of this Bill as to declare that the members of this Civil Service Com-

mission shall hold office during good be-havious and be liable to removal only on an address of the Senate and House of Commons.
My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has referred to section 44. I shall not stop to consider that section very critically at present, but it seems to me extremely weak and not to go very far at all:
44. Any person who directly or indirectly solicits or endeavours to influence a member of the commission in favour of his appointment. promotion or increase of salary, shall he deemed to be unworthy of such appointment, promotion or increase, and it shall not be accorded him; and if he is employed in the civil service, he shall be liable to immediate dismissal. (Section 104.)
Not a word which would prevent any member of the government of the day, whether Liberal or Conservative, from exercising his influence upon any member of that commission, so far as that commission had the power to discriminate ; and in exercising that influence, the government would be exercising it on a person whom they could dismiss at pleasure. For that reason particularly under the conditions in this country, it would have been much wiser to have framed the measure so as to give the members of the Civil Service Commission an absolutely independent status similar to that enjoyed by the Auditor General.
I now come to the question of the outside service. Will my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture permit me to say that, so far as I understood his remarks, every argument he used to show that the exercise of patronage is injurious to the public service, was an argument against this Bill so far as it leaves the outside service untouched. If his argument were a good argument, and he quoted from various eminent authorities along that line, then the Civil Service Bill should include the outside as well as the inside service. The very report of the Civil Service Commission from which he has quoted shows that the worst exercise of patronage in this country is in respect of the outside and not of the inside service. If it be the intention and desire of the government to do away with the evils of patronage, they should have included the outside service, in respect of which the patronage system is more specially rampant. True, they have taken power to include the outside service within the provisions of this Bill ; but I have not gathered from my bon. friend that the government have arrived at any conclusion or that they are at present able to declare any policy in that respect.
One word more. With respect to salaries, the report of the Civil Service Commission at pages 17 and 45 deals with that subject very thoroughly. I have already quoted their remarks in that connection and shall not weary the House by quoting them again.
Suffice it to say that the commissioners report, especially in respect of some lower grades of the service, that the present system of salaries involves not only hardship but in some cases even cruelty. They 'brought that matter to the attention of the government ; they recommended an increase of fifteen per cent in the lower grades, twelve and a half per cent in the higher grades, and twenty-five to thirty per cent in the case of certain officials in the west. The present Bill does not deal with that subject except in so far as it may be dealt with in the lust section. I think it is one which should engage the attention of the government this session.
In that connection let me say a word or two about another subject which was touched upon by the Minister of Agriculture-the question of classification. This government has not seen fit to adopt the policy which has been adopted by the government of British Columbia. That policy provides for the appointment by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of that province of what is called a grading commissioner who shall assist for the purpose of grading the employees of each department, and that grading' shall take place on a certain day. The provision in this Bill is for a certain classification or reorganization by the head of a department. That seems likely to stereotype the present routine in some of the departments. No doubt some of the departments do specially require reorganization. There is enough money spent in the public departments in and outside of Ottawa, to furnish an effective and efficient civil service, provided the service be not overmanned and provided that every man is compelled to do a proper day's work. I do not say that by way of disparagement, because I believe our civil servants are as a rule diligent and attentive to their duty. But I have been told of some matters that transpire in some of the departments of this government-and departments that have not been criticised very much by the Civil Service Commission. I know a young man who has left, or is about to leave, the service, and who told me personally that one man sitting to his right hand in his office was engaged day after day in doing nothing but reading novels^ and the man on the other side was occupied in some other matter which no more concerned the public interest. You require reorganization in the departments ; you require to clean out a certain amount of deadwood. And you never can clean out that deadwood until you have a fair and proper system of superannuation. It is by means of getting rid of civil servants who are incompetent or who are past the age when they can discharge their duties, and getting rid of them without unfairness or hardship, that you can keep the civil service of this or any other country up to the mark. The minister, on the introduction of this Bill, gave

us to understand that some time later there might be a system of superannuation introduced as ancilliary to this measure. I hope that will be done. Every large corporation which has an organization at ail extensive makes provision for the old age of its servants, for the time when they become less capable of discharging their duties as servants of the corporation. And not only that, but many of them make provision for those who are dependent upon their servants, so that the servant performing his work for one of these corporations is assured that his old age will be provided for and also that those who are dependent upon him will be provided for during a certain period after he has passed away. I will not deal with that subject further at the present time, beyond expressing my view, as I have done-and I hold that it is a very important matter indeed in the interest of efficient public service-that old age allowances or retiring allowances should be provided for.
I regret that in the preparation of the Bill, the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission with regard to inspection of the departments has not been carried out. Every one knows that in any well organized bank or any corporation that has branches or departments there is a system of inspection. When the inspector of a bank visits a branch, he not only counts the cash, goes over the books, notes the character of the securities and considers the wisdom or unwisdom of making the current loans, but he also inquires into the discipline of the office, learns as to each employee whether he is faithful and efficient, prompt in his attendance and generally devoted to a line of conduct that wpuld justify his promotion in the near future. By some system of this kind, the government should be made acquainted with the manner iu which the public business is carried on in the various departments. I should be glad indeed if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) would introduce some amendment in the Bill which would carry this out. It seems that in the United States, under their Civil Service Act, the commission has power to institute inquiries of that kind. It would be a most salutary power. The difficulty in the public service of this or any other country is that matters are apt to get into a routine, or, if one may use the expression, into a rut. A great deal would depend upon the deputy head of the department. If the deputy head is not a very forceful and diligent person, if he is not a person possessing very considerable administrative capabilities, those under him will be inclined to become more and more lax in the performance of their duties. The public service in every department of government would be better off if periodically inspected, either by a Civil


Robert Laird Borden: Service Commission, or by some officer specially appointed for that purpose.
I do not know that at the present time I have anything further to say with regard to the Bill, except to make one suggestion. The parliament of this country, about three years ago, I think, passed unanimously a resolution moved by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), and accepted by the government of this country, that no civil servant should take an active or offensive part in the election of members to this parliament or any provincial legislature. If that jirinciple is worthy of being affirmed by unanimous resolution of this House, it seems also worthy of being embodied in the statute law of this country. If it were so embodied, I belive it would do much to redress certain evils of which we on this -side have had reason to complain on more than one occasion during the last eight or ten years.
These are what I regard as defects or omissions in the Bill. They do not in the least prevent .me from expressing my approval of the general principle of the Bill, although regretting that the matters to which I have alluded have not received the favourable consideration of the government and have not been embodied in the measure.


Mr. J. B. T. CARON (Ottawa).: As this Civil Service Bill concerns more the people of Ottawa than any other constituency in the whole Dominion, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. I quite agree with what the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) said in presenting the Bill. Of course, as a rule, we do agree with the hon. minister; but also-which is not so customary-I agree with a good many of the suggestions made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) as to this Bill. Of course, the Bill as it stands will certainly do a good deal of good to the civil service in Ottawa by classifying them and putting them in a position beyond political influence, leaving them to be treated according to merit under a commission which would be absolutely independent. There are a few sections of the Bill which,
I submit, may be modified with advantage to the civil service. But these are things of minor interest which may well be left to be dealt with when the Bill is discussed in Committee of the Whole. When the commission was appointed by this government to inquire into and make a report upon the condition of the civil service, they were given full power to make suggestions as to what should be done concerning the civil servants in Ottawa and throughout the Dominion, but more particularly those of the inside service whose work is carried on here in Ottawa. The commission, in its report laid before the House during the present session, in giving an outline of what should be done for the civil service,

made three suggestions that were of special importance. Of course, other minor suggestions were made. The first of these three was the creation of a commission that would place the civil service altogether beyond political influence. The second was the passing of a Superannuation Act that would give the civil servant who had passed his life !n the service of the country assurance that, when he had passed a certain age, he would be able to retire and be independent and also have what would be necessary to provide for those dependent upon him. And the third suggestion, one which the civil service, more especially of the city of Ottawa, seemed to be in expectation would be in force this session, was that immediate relief should be given to the civil service by increases in salary, which are made necessary by the great increase in the cost of living, especially within the last ten years. The civil service have presented to the commission a memorial, in which it was conclusively shown that the cost of living, more especially in the city of Ottawa- * but I understand this was shown with regard to the west, as can be seen by the report of the commission-the increase in the cost of living for the upper grades of the civil service was 2o to 30 per cent, and for the lower grades it was even greater, being 30 to 35 per cent. After considering the matter very carefully, the commission suggested that an increase of 15 per cent should be given to the lower grades and of 121 per cent to the higher grades, which, I believe, would not be an extravagant increase, and would be quite proper.
Now the commission has suggested that this relief should be granted immediately. That is one of the points on which the commission seems to have laid the most stress, and I think it is one in which the civil service of Ottawa is most deeply interested, and would like to see carried out. Perhaps when this Bill is in committee the Minister of Agriculture may suggest some modifications to meet that request, and I think that most of the members of this House will be disposed to agree that something should be done to help the civil servants by giving them the increase they pray for. 1 understand that according to this Bill those clerks who remain in their present class will receive no increase of salary until after the Act is passed. The new classification has to be made by the deputy head and approved by the Governor in Council; consequently no relief could be given to these men until after the passage of the Bill and until after they fall under the other clauses which provide for the yearly increase. It seems to me, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed relief to the civil servants should be granted at the earliest date possible, and during the present session. I
also desire to speak on behalf of the outside service at Ottawa, as well as for the rest of the Dominion, and to say that they should be granted the relief that it is proposed to grant to the civil service in the inside service at Ottawa. It appears there is a portion of the outside service which has not been advanced, in respect to promotion and salaries, as to so great an extent as the inside service. Take, for instance, the post office at Ottawa. The maximum of the first-class clerks will be $1,500 a year, whereas a man who may be doing work of less importance in the Ottawa post office, but who belongs to the Inside service, may reach a maximum of $1,900. I hope that this disparity will be done away with, and that when the outside service is brought under the regulations of the inside service, a more just classification will be made for them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In reply to the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Caron), I have already explained that this Bill does not propose directly to increase the salaries in the civil service. In regard to some opinions which are said to have obtained currency amongst the civil servants, I think I may take the memorandum which was presented to me by a delegation of those gentlemen the other day, as expressing their opinions. There are one or two points I may refer to in this memorandum, apart from the increase in salaries. This Bill is intended to carry out almost entirely what is proposed in this memorandum. In consequence of various representations which have been made to me since the Bill was drafted, and after further consultation with the Department of Justice, I shall have to propose in committee some verbal amendments which will make clear the points this memorandum refers to. I think, however, I will not say more upon that subject until the Bill reaches committee. In regard to the outside service, in the Departments in Ottawa, the Bill makes provision for bringing it under the operations of this amending Act. The Ottawa outside service is practically doing the same work, entirely so, as the clerks at Ottawa who are in the inside service, and consequently the rules which would apply to the inside service to-day can be immediately applied to the clerks who are to-day in the outside service in Ottawa. When, however, we come to deal with the vast body of the outside service scattered over Canada, it is a very different matter. There are provisions in the Bill to deal with these from time to time, as the head of any department may think necessary, and to bring them under the operation of these provisions. There are in Canada a great many officers in the outside service who are purely local in their character. Take, for instance, local postmasters, take for instance iocal custom house officers. A large num-

ber of postmasters, along with the work pertaining to their office, are doing other work in the ordinary walks of life. Customs officers of the higher grades are not in that position, but a large number of preventive officers and some others, are in that position. It would be impossible, without careful consideration by the head of the department, and without careful investigation, to bring that portion of the service under the operations of such a law as this. We make provision for doing so in the future, whenever the heads of departments may see fit and find it proper to do so. But to bring the service outside of Ottawa at once under the rules and regulations of the inside service, would not only be impossible, but it would be inadvisable. I would refer to the experience in the United States. It is true that in the beginning, certain divisions of the service in the United States were brought immediately under the operation of the new provisions in regard to classification. Gradually that was extended until to-day it includes a very large porportion of the civil service. If the whole service had been brought under the Act .in the beginning, an absolute failure would have resulted, which would have cast discredit on civil service reform, and would probably have necessitated retrograde steps, and have led to the defeat of civil service reform in that country for many years. If we had not made provision to bring these civil servants under the Act from time to time as might be expedient it might have been disastrous to the operations of this Bill. I therefore consider that the proposal of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition would be inadvisable and would not work out.
My hon. friend spoke of superannuation. That is a matter for future consideration. Under the old Act the Civil Service and Superannuation Acts were separate and I do not think it advisable to bring superannuation into this Bill.


Richard Blain: Do the different reports of the Civil Service Commissions suggest that the government should leave out the outside service ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not remember that that is specified, but my memory is that in some of those reports a gradual adoption of civil service reform has been recommended. In England and the United States the course has been gradual, and I think it wise to follow their example as their success was largely due to the fact that hastiness was avoided.
We have provided, as is done in the United States and the English Civil Service Act, that the commissioners may be called on to investigate and report upon any department of the service. That is covered by section 10.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Robert Laird Borden: The department most requiring insj)ection would be the one that would not demand it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so. I am satisfied that the heads of the departments wish efficiency in their departments, certainly an incoming minister, if he finds that his department is not working in a way to meet his desires, would be glad to appeal to a commission of this kind to investigate and report as to its efficiency. One of the greatest difficulties that a minister in Canada has in bringing about reforms in his department is the lack of time to properly investigate. The calls upon the time and the labour of a minister here in Canada are such that there is a great deal in connection with his administration which he really cannot find time to attend to personally. Owing to this cause we have been forced to the appointment of commissions to investigate things which the ministers themselves had not the time at their disposal and could not possibly investigate. My hon. friend has not had any experience in administration, he no doubt will in the future, but I can assure him, and the hon. member for North Toronto knows it from experience, that the calls on the time of a minister, partly administrative, partly political and all over the country, are such that he cannot get the time to do this work, even although he is a slave to his duty and his work as the ministers in Canada generally are.
There is no doubt that the condition of affairs which the leader of the opposition has described and which I hope will be to a large extent done away with, is due when it exists to one or other of two reasons, either that the inattentive and inefficient clerk whose services cannot be dispensed with has paid in to the superannuation fund so that it is practically impossible to dismiss him or that he has outside influence which prevents the head of the department or the deputy head doing what would be in the interest of the country. With the new provision for entry into the service I think that will be done away with.
My hon. friend spoke of the independence of the commission. We had thought that the independence of a deputy minister was quite sufficient for the independence of the commission, but if in the judgment of parliament it is thought better to make the commission more independent than that, giving them perhaps the status of a judge, the government will have no objection. The intention and object of the government was to make an independent commission. It is true that a deputy minister can be dismissed but I can recall only one case in the history of Canada where a deputy was dismissed. Sir John Macdonald dismissed a deputy immediately on attaining 'office in 1878. I have no doubt that the reasons were laid on the table according to

the provisions of the Act and were endorsed by the House. 1 can recall no other instance of such a dismissal, and yet we know that many of the deputy ministers have not been in political accord with the heads of their departments. In justice to the civil service and particularly to the deputy ministers, I wish to say that I believe there have been very few deputy ministers in the history of Canada who have shown anything but loyalty to their political chiefs. I say that from my observation during 12 years of administration and from my observation when I was in opposition ; the deputy ministers have been men who were civil * servants, servants of the country, whose duty was to the country-and they fulfilled that duty. They may have had their faults, they may have done things of which some people may not have approved, but I believe that in a general way, and largely if not altogether, any action of that kind was not actuated by any disloyalty to their chief or any political partisanship. We therefore thought the appointment of these Civil Service Commissioners with the status of a deputy minister was giving them absolute independence. If the House thinks that on the whole some greater safeguard should be thrown about it. I would be glad to consult with the chief of the government and to suggest perhaps that such greater safeguard may be provided. There will be some amendments proposed In committee, and I trust these amendments will meet some slight objections that have been taken. I therefore move the second reading of the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: I was very glad to hear the last remark of the minister. To my mind the position you give the commissioners is not properly independent so long as they have simply the status of a deputy minister. What the minister had said as to the relation between the minister and his deputy would be generally true, but there are other influences that can be brought to bear upon the commissioner who has only the status of a deputy than those emanating from the minister himself. We get some very insistent members of parliament occasionally (on both sides of the House, I suppose), with reference to certain persons they would like to see appointed or certain promotions they would like to have made, and I would like to have the commissioners absolutely independent of a threat or of an intimation given by a member of parliament that he could be removed from his positiou, and that he had better assent to the solicitations than run the risk of dismissal. If we have in view that the commissioner shall be absolutely independent it is important that they should be so in fact.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the intention.
Civil Service Act. If the minister will not assent I shall move in committee that the standing to be given to a commissioner shall be good behaviour subject to removal by the Governor General on an address of both Houses.


Mr. ROBERT STEWART (Ottawa).: I have an observation to make with regard to a question which I asked the minister when this Bill was first introduced. I wash to know what will be the improvement of the status of the civil servants regarding increase of salaries, and will the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission be carried out in that respect ? The commission was appointed in the first instance because of the contention of civil servants who reside in Ottawa that they were not adequately paid, and that the cost of necessaries of life had increased out of proportion to the increase in their salaries in recent years. The reason I make this observation is that I find the following in ' Hansard ' of April 24, 1907 (volume 4, page 7686) :


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understood there was a demand on the part of the civil servants [DOT] generally to have their salaries increased. What is the government going to do about that ?


William Stevens Fielding: In these items there are a few special cases which the ministers felt able to deal with at once, and in each case I think for good reasons. But it was found that to deal with the demands of the civil servants generally was quite impossible, because the ministers had no time to take up the matter in detail. In fact even if they had time. I am not sure it could be conveniently done, because one minister may have a different standard in his mind as to what salaries should' he paid, from what another minister would think proper. We hare thought it better that the whole question should be taken up by some gentlemen who could give ample time to it. An item will be found in another place to provide for the expenses of a commisison of gentlemen to inquire into the services and compensation of public officials generally.
We have not yet had an assurance from the Minister of Agriculture that the part of the Civil Service Commission with regard to increase of salaries will be acted upon. While this Civil Service Bill is a step in the right direction, yet it makes no provision for increasing the salary of the civil servant who to-day has attained some point between his minimum and maximum salary. For instance, a clerk who is receiving 8900 and who has not yet reached the maximum of the second class would remain at 8900 after this Bill takes effect. I would like to see provision made for carrying out the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission in this respect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a second time.
George Eulas Foster: The independence of .the Mr. FISHER. Before going into corn-commissioners is the basic principle of the mittee on the Bill, I would ask the House to

go into committee on the resolution having reference to the salaries provided for. X therefore move the House into committee on the resolution that was adopted this forenoon and in doing so I would like to say that the resolution having been framed in exact accordance with the provisions of the Bill, as there will ba some amendments to the Bill, there will necessarily be some slight amendments to the resolution. I have not given notice of these, but I will ask the consent of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: All right, go ahead.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I understand this has the assent of His Excellency?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister state what his proposed amendments are ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the resolution there are some differences made in the salaries of the deputy ministers. We wish to strike out all the exceptions, and leave the salaries of deputy ministers at $5,000 per annum. In regard to the salaries of messengers, porters, sorters, packers, &c., a mistake was made in putting the salaries at from $500 to $700 ; they ought to have been from $500 to $800. In all the other classes there was an increase, but in this class it was found that unfortunately there was no increase, and we wish to give to the messengers and others of that class the same consideration that we give to the other classes. Then, I want to change the provision in regard to the annual increase so that in the first division it shall be $100. The present Act provides for an annual increase of $50 all through the service, and the only change in the resolution is to provide that a further increase of $50 may be given in case of exceptional merit. We wish to leave that just as it is, with the provision that the increase in the second and third divisions shall be $50 and in the first division $100.


George Eulas Foster: What are the minister's reasons for that ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The reason is that $50 is a substantial increase on a small salary, but a very small increase on the salary of a man earning from $2,500 to $4,000 a year.


George Eulas Foster: On the other hand, he is getting a large amount of money.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is true, but he has got to that position through considerable length of service.


George Eulas Foster: It is a question that is arguable, and I would like to put another view of it. The period of difficulty is with the young man who enters the service at $500 or whatever the minimum salary is.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is not a mere boy when he comes, but is fairly mature ; he has to be of a certain age ; and as a rule he very soon makes a home for himself, or it would be better if he could. With the high expense of living, it is pretty hard scraping for a man on a salary ranging from $500 to $800 a year to run even a very small family in the city of Ottawa. So there is justice, I think, in allowing him a fair increase each year up to the time he gets his maximum. After that he has to prove himself whether he can get any higher or not, and take his chances on his merits. Now, take the man who has passed from the lower division into tlie higher division. He has had the advantage of having a comparatively large salary for a comparatively long time. He has had an opportunity of making a home for himself, furnishing his home, getting his comforts maybe, and generally laying by something, and so becoming a householder of substantial means. The expenses of living to him are not so onerous as they are to the man beginning with his family on a lower grade of salary. So I think there is a good deal to be said in favour of an increase which shall be proportionately more to the beginner in the service than to the man who has been twenty or twenty-five years in the service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have considered what my hon. friend has said, and there is no doubt a great deal of truth in it. The other aspect, I confess, has appealed to me rather more, and I would like to give my reasons for that. I am not wedded to either proposition, but the balance in my mind is in favour of what I am proposing. The increase of $50 on a salary ranging from $500 up to $1,200 is a very substantial increase, but on a considerably larger salary it amounts to very little. But there is another reason. In the third and second divisions an increase of $100 may be given in case of exceptional merit.


George Eulas Foster: That man earns that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, he earns that, and he gets it if he shows that he deserves it. We have had in the past a considerable number of instances of increases which were contrary to the present Civil Service Act. Hon. gentlemen opposite and others have complained of that. Sometimes there is no doubt those increases were unjustifiable ; in other cases, however, I think they were very justifiable. But in examining the matter I have found that most of those cases in which, instead of the usual increase of $50. an increase of $100 or in some cases of $200 has been given, have been those of men earning higher salaries-cases in which a man having shown his capacity and his fitness for his position and having had thrust upon him serious responsibilities in the public service, felt that if he did not get some special consideration of that kind, he could hardly

stay in the service. It is not the man receiving from $500 to $1,000 a year who is tempted out of the service, and if he were, we could get a hundred to take his place at any time. It is the man in the higher ranks of the service who is sometimes tempted to leave it and whom we sometimes have difficulty in keeping. Take a man who has been promoted from the second division into the first division. With an annual increase of $50 a year it would take him over thirty years to rise from $2,100 up to $4,000. That would he a very long and tedious process. An increase of $100 a year would be an additional induce-men to men who have proved themselves in the service, who have shown a capacity which would induce outside corporations to try to capture them. The evidence is twofold that such men have been tempted do leave the service, and that we have had to give exceptional increases contrary to the Civil Service Act in order to keep such men in the service. These are the grounds on which I support the change.


Mr.   POSTER@: Another point that occurs to me is this. In the civil service the tendency is to routine work at the loss of stimulus and effort. You may go into any class in any of the departments to-day- and I am not saying anything derogatory to the civil service-and you will find two men side by side. One man is distinctively aggressive, forceful, inventive, and is putting his vigour and his energy and his talent into his work. The other is satisfied to go along and do just the six or seven hours' work, get through with it as easily as possible, and go away to his home or his pleasures.	I like the idea of giving a
general advance to every man who does his duty, while holding out a special incentive to a man to put himself into his work, and I thought well of the clause as it was first framed. I thought that if there was special merit, a man might be rewarded for being diligent and keen by getting at once $100 increase instead of $50, and that we might trust to the department and the commission to bestow that extra increase fairly and well. That would not cause heart-burning. Every one would see the justice, provided it was fairly administered. Where the heart-burning comes in is where there are two men, each doing good work, and one man is taken and the other left, through favour or other influence than that of merit. On the whole, I would much rather see the $50 increase and then the power, in the case of extra ability or extra work, to receive an increase of $100.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: What induced the minister to put in different salaries for different deputy ministers? He says he is making the salaries now all alike. I understand there are certain deputy ministers who get more now than others, because of
their technical knowledge, and the proposal now is to make the salaries $5,000 each. It is possible there may be one or two we will not be able to retain.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The provisions in the Bill and the resolutions are very much those in the present Act. Under that Act a deputy minister got exceptional treatment under certain conditions-that is to say, if he had certain qualifications. We embodied those in the present Bill ; but after further consideration, as it is possible the deputy minister of any department might not have those special qualifications at any time, we thought it better to leave the salaries the same, and in case of special qualifications provide for that by special vote in the Supply Bill.


Uriah Wilson: You cannot have a Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals who has not technical knowledge. He must be an engineer, and the Deputy Minister of Justice must be a good deal above the ordinary man. These will not be satisfied with anything like $5,000. I am anxious to know why the change in that provision is made.


Robert Stewart: There may be something in what the Minister of Agriculture says about special qualifications. I have no fault to find if any deputy minister should receive extra compensation for filling some particular office, but it works against some in this way : There are two departments whose deputy ministers have perhaps more to do than those of any other department. I refer to the Post Office Department and the Department of the Interior. We all have occasion at times to go to these departments on business affecting our constituencies, and we must all realize that the Deputy Postmaster General and the Deputy Minister of the Interior have certainly very much more to do than the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Yet the latter gets $1,000 more than either of the others. The Post Office is a large and very important department and excellently managed by its present deputy head, Dr. Coulter. Dr. Coulter conducts his department without allowing political interference or anything of that kind to influence him, yet he gets a smaller salary than the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. I am not finding any fault with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, but it is hardly fair that these others should be paid smaller salaries when their work is much more arduous and important. Then, when you talk of technical qualifications, the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs is a barrister of more than ten years' standing. He manages a large department and controls the expenditure of a very large amount of money, yet no addition is given to him because he is a barrister. It seems to me that, except in the case of the chief engineer of Railways and 1 Canals and the Deputy Minister of Justice,

who might very well he paid a larger amount, the others should he paid equally.


Robert Laird Borden: It certainly would seem an anomaly, under any system of government, that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture should receive $1,000 extra because he happens to be a lawyer. That is explained, I suppose, by the fact that through some curious system,- the origin of which I do not know, all the work in connection with patents, trade-marks and copyright belongs to the Department of Agriculture, and I suppose for that reason the deputy 'minister should be a lawyer of some experience. As a matter of fact, all matters pertaining to these three subjects should be attached to the Department of Trade and Commerce, or some other department of the government, because they do not seem to have any connection with the usual business of a Department oi Agriculture. Am I to understand from the minister that all the deputy ministers are to be put on the same level with regard to salaries?
Mr. FISHER As far as the Bill is concerned.


Robert Laird Borden: You cannot change that except by special vote each year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman did not hear what I said in reply to the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Uriah Wilson). As my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) sees in the Bill the present law is largely followed. The present law provides for certain extra emoluments to certain deputy ministers. The Bill followed that idea. But we thought that, as the reason for that apparent discrimination was a particular qualification, which might or might not exist in the case of any particular deputy minister, it was better to make the statute treat them all alike, and that when any such differences did exist it should be dealt with by a vote in supply.


George Eulas Foster: Each year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not sure how that would be. I should think that if it -was voted to an individual minister, as long as he was in that position he would be entitled to It, and that it would go as a matter of course. I am not prepared to speak as to the practice of the House in such a matter. In drafting the Bill originally -we followed the present Act in specifying certain deputy ministers -who, we believed, were entitled to further special consideration. But, on further reflection, we thought it better not to put it into the statute but to leave it to be dealt with in the case of these deputy ministers that had the qualifications here described. It will be noticed that in the Bill the deputy Minister of Justice, if, when appointed, he is a barrister of at least ten years standing, shall be paid $6,000 instead of $5,000 We now propose Mr. STEWART.
to arrange that any extra pay that may be given to the deputy Minister of Justice if he is a barrister of at least ten years standing shall be a special vote in Supply. If, at any time, the deputy Minister of Justice did not happen to be a barrister of at least ten years standing-not a likely thing, I admit-we need not vote the special consideration in Supply.


George Eulas Foster: The trouble with that is that you have to break your law every year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, you would.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, I am not prepared to give an opinion on that. If the vote had to be given every year, when once voted to an individual deputy minister, it would go as a matter of course.


George Eulas Foster: But in the Supply Bill every year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Possibly. But at the same time I think it would go as a matter of course if the same individual occupied the same place year after year. Here it is statutory ; there it is done in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the individual. That is the reason of the change. I would say to my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Stewart) who made a special contention as to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and in reply to the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture has to be, according to my view, and according to the work he has to do, a lawyer of high standing ; not because he is deputy Minister of Agriculture but because he is deputy commissioner of patents and has to deal with the patent law in which he has to exercise judicial functions of a high class, such functions as would be exercised by a superior court judge ; and also has to deal with the trade marks, copyrights and Designs Acts, in the administration of all of which there are constantly being brought up intricate questions of law'. There is not a week goes by that the deputy Minister of Agriculture has not a conflict of interests, sometimes involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, brought before him for decision on trade marks, copyright or patent questions.


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of fact does not the deputy Minister of Agriculture refer to the Minister of Justice ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, in practice he does not. If he were not a lawyer he would have to refer everything to the Minister of Justice. But, as a matter of fact, in nine cases out of ten-I believe in nineteen cases out of twenty-the claimants accept his decision.


George Eulas Foster: If the patents were under the Minister of Justice you would have a department thoroughly furnished.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: True, but they have always been under the Minister of Agriculture, and so have trade marks and copyrights. I am not going to try to go hack to the beginning and say why that was.


George Eulas Foster: It was an odd lot, I suppose.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) knows that in the old days, the Department of Agriculture was of very little consequence from an agricultural point of view


George Eulas Foster: And now the hon. minister thinks it of very grave consequence.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do. And the farmers of the country certainly take the same view. I should be sorry indeed to minimize the importance of the Department of Agriculture. But while I have experts dealing with some questions of agriculture, the administration of the whole department is under the control and management of the deputy minister ; and, in addition to that, the deputy minister, especially as deputy commissioner of patents, which is a special title and which means that special work is assigned to him entirely outside his office of deputy Minister of Agriculture, has to he a lawyer of high standing to he able to deal with important legal questions. When I came into office, in addition to the deputy Minister of Agriculture, there was a deputy commissioner of patents who had a salary of $2,800. When the deputy commissioner of patents died, I thought we could manage without a successor, and the deputy Minister of Agriculture has been doing both works ever since. I think, especially in view of the fact that within the last three or four years since there has been an important amendment of the law which requires much more important work for the deputy commissioner of patents, it is only just and fair that his status and his position as deputy commissioner of patents should be recognized by extra payment. My colleagues agreed with that, and that is the reason the deputy Minister of Agriculture is proposed to have an extra $1,000. Personally, I should be glad if as good reasons prevailed in regard to every deputy minister as these I have mentioned, but I have to deal with the proposals as they are before me.


John Gillanders Turriff: May I ask the minister if the deputy Minister of Agriculture at the present time is receiving any extra salary ?	'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


John Gillanders Turriff: I feel satisfied that, if the government decides to pay the deputy Minister of Agriculture an extra $1,000 on account of being commissioner of patents, they are going to sow the seeds of dissatisfaction and discord in the service at once. There are other deputy ministers who, as has been pointed out by my hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Stewart) no doubt, do as much work and as important work as the deputy Minister of Agriculture. I do not wish to be understood as trying to reduce any payment the government may desire to give him, but I wish to point out that others are as deserving as he. Take, for instance, the deputy superintendent general of Indian Affairs. He is a barrister of ten years standing. When, a few years ago, the law clerk of that department resigned, it was not thought necessary to appoint a new law clerk because the deputy minister was a lawyer in good standing, and an able lawyer ; and he has been doing the work for years thus saving the department $2,400 a year. If one deputy minister is picked out and given an extra salary on account of being a lawyer, why does it not apply all round ? Take the deputy Minister of the Interior-nobody will say that he has not as much work to do as any deputy minister in the service of the government. He has to look after the lands service in all its different branches, the immigration and the administration of the Yukon. If you-pay $1,000 a year extra for every one of the branches he has to deal with, you would pay him a salary higher than is paid to the minister. So, you are going to make distinctions that cannot work out satisfactorily. If one deputy minister is entitled to an extra $1,000 because he has charge of another branch outside of what might be called the work particularly appertaining to his, then let the same principle apply all round.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be a fitting complement to the principle that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture must be a lawyer, if we wTere to declare that the Deputy Minister of Justice must be a farmer of at least ten years experience. But we have not gone that far at the present time. I think that all questions affecting patents and copyrights should be attached to some other department. I do not agree with the Minister of Agriculture that the deputy minister of his department must be a lawyer. I think there have been times in the administration of that department wffien he was not a lawyer. Sir John Thompson used to sit with the deputy Minister of Agriculture in patent cases, and he sat as legal assessor to pronounce an opinion upon questions of law.


William Stevens Fielding: At that time we had a commissioner of patents.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, whose duties are now performed by the deputy Minister



1136C
of Agriculture. However, I do not approve of the principle which the government are adopting with regard to deputy ministers. I am inclined to believe that the responsibilities and duties of the deputy ministers vary a great deal, and that the necessity for high qualifications which exists in some departments does not exist in other departments. That has been recognized In the present statute. The deputies of three of the departments are entitled under the law to certain higher salaries. Without discussing the question of expediency in that regard, I do say that if any difference is to be made between the deputies of the different departments, it should be made in the statute, and should not depend upon the bringing down each year of an item in the estimates. You cannot do that without departing from the present Civil Service Act. Besides that, it does not tend to independence in the deputy if the salary to which he may think himself entitled in any year is to depend upon whether the government chose to put in the estimates for that year a certain amount as additional remuneration for him. It is not a good principle. If we are to have any difference in the salaries of the deputy ministers, it should be fixed by statute.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a personal side to the matter as well. It sometimes happens that the salary does not go entirely to the office, but sometimes, to a certain extent, to tire gentleman who occupies that office, by reason perhaps of long service or of special qualifications. For example, take the case of the deputy Minister of Railways and Canals. An hon. gentleman speaking a little while ago said that he must be an engineer. That is a mistake. Some hon. gentlemen think that the business of engineering is one thing, and the business of the deputy is another. It might toe, possibly, that the deputy would not be an engineer. In former years the two offices were separate. They were joined together in the case of an eminent engineer, Mr. Schrieber, and have been continued joined together under the present able engineer, Mr. Butler. But suppose Mr. Butler were to cease to be deputy minister and engineer, and a deputy was appointed who was not the chief engineer ; it might not be deemed desirable to give him the same salary as we are giving Mr. Butler, whose salary I think at present is $7,500. So there is a personal element that might enter into consideration. Would it not be better to fix the standard for the office, and then have the extra sum which seems to be called for in the case of a combination, and in the special conditions of Mr. Butler ? The same might be said perhaps with regard to Mr. Newcombe, who has been in his office a very long time, and is recognized as a very able member of his profession. It might be that in case of the appointment of Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
a much younger man, a man without his experience, the government would not want to give him so large a salary as it gives to a gentleman of the long experience of Mr. Newcombe. But personal considerations do enter into the fixing af the salary sometimes, and that was what was in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture in framing this provision, that for the present there should be a standard salary for a deputy minister, and that there should be annual votes of money, whatever appropriation might be deemed necessary in view of special qualifications. I do not know how much force there is in the argument, but it was an argument which weighed in the minds of the government.


Uriah Wilson: The Minister of Agriculture in his speech convinced me that you require men of certain ability to fill these offices, and therefore I thought it was better to fix the salary by statute instead of bringing down an estimate every year to be passed by this House. I still think that the salary should go to the office, because I think that the government ought to be very particular in these appointments and not appoint men to these important offices unless they have the necessary qualifications. I think it will be difficult in a country like ours to get men who are well qualified to fill all these offices.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did I understand the Minister of Agriculture correctly to say that in his classification of the employees he is including all the employees of the Senate and the House of Commons ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, it is intended that they shall come under the Act.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is a matter we [DOT]will discuss later on, but I may say here that I think it would be departing altogether from the practice that has prevailed ever since confederation. Then I understand that it is the intention of the hon. gentleman to put all the employees of the Senate and the House of Commons on the civil service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the intention of the Bill.


Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY.: As I understand it, by the resolution as it is framed each deputy minister is to receive the same amount, $5,000. It seems to be the consensus of opinion that it is better to leave the deputy ministers at a fixed salary of $5,000, and thereby have uniformity. I am a strong advocate of uniformity. Even if it were to lead in some departments to what might be termed a little extravagance, to give some of the deputy ministers a little more than they would be entitled to, having regard to the large amount of work other deputy ministers do, it would only cause heart-burnings, it would only cause

trouble in the service, and I for one would think it better to say, as we do in the case of ministers, that they should receive the same pay. When you enter upon the realm of discrimination as between deputy ministers you enter upon a realm that will cause difficulty, trouble and heart-burning in the service and in the minds of the men who have control of the service in their respective departments. I see the difficulty where the deputy ministers are expert officials such as the deputy Minister of Railways and Canals and the deputy Minister of Justice who, of necessity, must be a man of considerable standing in his profession and the salary of $5,000 does not adequately pay him. At the same time it would be much better if these officials must be dealt with in this way, to avoid doing it by statutory enactment; this would cause less heartburning. I therefore support the resolution which makes in the first instance the statutory enactment uniform in reference to the salaries of deputies.


Mr. BARR.: The fact that there is a greater volume of work in a department is not necessarily a strong argument in favour of a larger salary to the deputy as in such a case he usually has more assistance in his office and therefore his responsibility is no greater and his work, perhaps, is not as great. Under those circumstances I quite agree with the last speaker that we would be setting a dangerous precedent by giving larger salaries to some deputies than to others ; it would be useless to lay that down as a law.


Mr. LENNOX.: I am unable to agree with the two hon. gentlemen who have last spoken. We must recognize that, for instance, in the ease of the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, we have at present the offices of deputy minister and chief engineer combined. There would he no difficulty in defining in the statute that when the Deputy Minister of Railways is also chief engineer of the department he shall receive a salary of whatever amount it is to be, say $8,000. Then again we have to recognize that it requires a man of very-high professional standing to take the position of Deputy Minister of Justice, and if we are to say now that it is necessary to pay, say $6,000 to the Deputy Minister of Justice, I think we also realize that we will at all times require some one who will adequately fill that position, that he must be a man of prominence, speaking from the legal standpoint, and a man of very considerable ability.- We can also provide, if we see fit, that if it is recognized that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture requires to be a lawyer of good standing professionally, where the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is a lawyer of ten years' standing he shall have a salary of whatever is agreed on, say $6,000. I believe it is absolutely necessary.
360i


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Why not deal with the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs in the same way ?


Haughton Lennox: In any case where the salary should be more than $5,000 we should specify it. I do not think, as the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) suggested, that in order to level the matter up we should in some instances possibly give more than we are proposing to give. - Let the ordinary salary be, say $5,000, but let us provide in the statute for any case in which we think the salary should be more and let us not adopt the expedient we have been employing from year to year of making exceptions when the estimates are brought down and letting each one of these officials depend upon the good feeling of the minister or the grace of parliament from time to time, to obtain his salary. I think we should certainly make the matter definite now and provide for the deputy ministers such salaries as we think reasonable. If it is thought necessary to fortify ourselves by providing that when the deputy minister shall hold a double position, such as that of Deputy Minister of Railways and chief engineer, his salary shall be a certain definite amount, we can do so.
Resolution, as amended, reported, read a first and second time, and agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fisher, the House went into committee on the Bill.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 2-definitions.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have found that there is a possible doubt as to the exact meaning of this clause. I therefore wish to move that clauses (b) and (c) be amended so as to read as follows :
(b)	Deputy head includes, in addition to the officers mentioned in paragraph (b) of section 2 of the Civil Service Act, the clerks of both Houses and the librarians of parliament.
(c)	Head of a department includes, in addition to the ministers mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 2 of the Civil Service Act, the Speakers of both Houses.


Mr. FOWLER.: I wish to ask the minister if the object of including the librarians and the clerks of both Houses is to remove these officers from the control of parliament and to include them in the ordinary civil service. I understand that certain officers are now under the direct control of parliament. If you include these officers in this Act, will that not have the effect of bringing them under the control of the Civil Service Commission and out of the control of parliament ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The intention was not to remove these officers from the control of parliament, but it was to subject them to the rules of the civil service ; so that they would be under this Act with regard to entrance into the service, promotion, and so on. They would be in the same position with reference to the Speaker of the House that the officers of my department are with reference to me. The clerk of the House would be in the same position with regard to the other officers of the House as my deputy is with regard to the other officers of my department. I think that is really the condition of affairs today for all practical purposes ; but at present the officers of the House, with.regard to promotion, salaries and everything of that kind, are a law unto themselves, so to speak, and there is no control over them as there is over the rest of the civil service. The idea of the Bill is that they will be subject to the rules of the civil service the same as the clerks of the departments.


George William Fowler: It strikes me that it will have the effect I speak of, of removing these officials from the control of parliament and putting them under the control of this Civil Service Commission. It is a radical departure, and I do not see any necessity or reason for it. The service, with these officers directly under the control of parliament, seems to have worked very well, and unless some good reasons are given for the change, I think it had better be left as it is.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The reason for the change is that we find this condition of affairs today, that there is no rule or regulation as to appointments, increases of salary or promotions. The ideas of the powers that be, prevail without any restriction. The Civil Service Act defines and restricts such action in all the other departments of the government. A clerk of the House of Commons may be given an increase of $200 or $300 without any restriction, while a clerk doing exactly the same work and under the same conditions in a department is subject to the restrictions of the Civil Service? Act. We considered that, and thought it advisable, after the experience of a good many years in watching the operations in regard to the employees of the Houses of Parliament and the library, to bring them under the Act.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Perhaps it may be expected that I should say a word or two about this. I have discussed the matter with some of the leading officials of the House, and as far as I could gather, the regular officials of the House are quite prepared to come under the scope of this Act, without any exception so far as I have heard, if provision is made for the employment of sessional clerks, messengers, pages and other temporary employees during the Mr. FOWLER.
session outside of the scope of the Bill. The regular officials are rather disposed to think that the bringing of them under the scope of the Act will give them a more settled status and make more definite provision for promotions and all that sort of thing.


George William Fowler: If that is the desire of the officials of the House, I have nothing to say.
On section 3,
The civil service shall he divided into two divisions, namely: the inside service, which shall consist of that part of the service in or under the several departments of the executive government of Canada and in the office of the Auditor General,, employed at the city of Ottawa, or at the experimental farm station or the Dominion astronomical observatory near Ottawa, and shall include the officers, clerks and employees of both Houses of parliament ; and
The outside service, which shall consist of the rest of the civil service.


George William Fowler: That does not provide for the condition which Mr. Speaker referred to.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have some amendments which I will propose, making the section read as follows :
3. The civil service shall he divided into two divisions, namely: the inside service, which shall consist of that part of the service in or under the several departments of the executive government of Canada and in the offices of the Auditor General, the clerk of the Privy Council and the military secretary of the Governor General, employed at the city of Ottawa, or at the experimental farm station or the Dominion astronomical observatory near Ottawa, and shall include the officers, clerks and employees of both Houses of parliament and of the library of parliament; and
The outside service, which shall consist of the rest of the civil service.


George William Fowler: That takes in messengers and sessional clerks?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have suggested to the clerk to draft an amendment to make an exception of these.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I had intended to propose another clause to deal with the sessional messengers and clerks. Perhaps it will be better to amend this clause so that there shall be no conflict. I am willing that the section should stand over for that purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not do to insert the word ' permanent ' ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think very likely. That would be between the word ' the ' and the word ' officers,' making it read ' the permanent officers, clerks and employees.'


George William Fowler: I question whether that would cover it. There are messengers who have been here long enough to be considered permanent.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand, some are permanent, but some are sessional messengers or clerks.


George William Fowler: Would you not need a definition of permanent?


Robert Laird Borden: It is an expression that is understood, I think. These officers are engaged at the beginning of a session, but their employment ceases at the end of a session.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite so. The amendment of the leader of the opposition would not include the sessional clerks and messengers, who are here only part of the year. During recess they are not employed or paid.


Mr.   I@: ' BORDEN. I am assuming that they are employed for each session, and that their employment ceases at the end of the session. If that is correct, the insertion of the word ' permanent ' would answer.


Uriah Wilson: The minister may have explained why he did not bring in the outside service, but I did not understand.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Some of those now in the outside service are specifically brought under the Bill. The others will remain of the outside service as before.	*


Uriah Wilson: Do you not give these others increases of salary the same as the inside service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This Bill does not give an increase of salary directly to anybody. Higher salaries are attached to the divisions of the service. The divisions of the service made by this Bill do not apply to the outside service.


Uriah Wilson: Can you give us a reason?
Mr. FISHER, It does not come up, perhaps, under this section, but I will explain again. I stated this afternoon that the reason why this Bill applies only to what will be tire inside service after the Bill becomes law is that the inside service at Ottawa is practically homogeneous, whether it is called the ' outside ' or ' inside ' service. There are many employees at the capital in the different departments of the government who are now in the outside service, but their work is exactly the same as that of the inside service ; their necessary qualifications are the same ; their surroundings are the same-in many eases they work in the same room, and even at the' same table. We think that these people ought to be put on the inside service, and put on the same plane as the old inside service at Ottawa.


Uriah Wilson: What do you mean by ' homogeneous ' ?
Mr. FISHER, I mean that the qualifications of the people and the character of their work are the same for both classes.
Mr. srROULE. Would not the customs collectors be ' homogeneous ' ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No ; I would not say that a customs collector outside was the same as a clerk in the Customs Department at Ottawa. His work, the character of his services and his qualifications may be entirely different. There is no particular analogy. But there is an analogy between the customs collector at Ottawa and the customs collector in Montreal, Hamilton or Winnipeg. And the city customs office in Ottawa is not, by this Bill, brought into the inside service. This Bill refers to the departmental officers who have to deal with the departmental work, which is not the same as that of the different offices all over the country. I think it would be inadvisable at the present time to bring these officers under the same regulations as the inside service. We do provide a machinery by which, whenever it is deemed advisable and whenever the minister can work out a scheme by which it can be done, they can be brought under these regulations. But until that is done, I do not think It would be advisable, and therefore this Bill is not supposed to apply to any part of the outside service except such outside employees as are engaged in departmental work in the city of Ottawa.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no great homogeneousness that I can see.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are homogeneous when two men are working at the same thing, under the same rules and regulations, but one is called the inside and the other the outside service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not follow that they are homogeneous unless they all work on the inside. Is it intended to do anything with regard to the salaries of the outside'service, such as the customs and inland revenue.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman is speaking of a general increase of the inside and outside service for this special year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am referring to the members of the staff in connection with the customs and inland revenue branches. I have had inquiries asking if it is intended to give those any increase when this Bill is passed. Is it intended to increase the salaries ten or fifteen per cent all round, including the collector of customs and the sub-collectors of customs and inland revenue ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This Bill does not deal with that at all. That is a matter for settlement when the government come to deal with it, and I cannot give any information

as to any special increase in any part of tlie service.


Mr. LAKE.: There is another class of officials outside of Ottawa whose duties are almost precisely similar to those in Ottawa. I refer to the different land offices under the Department of the Interior. It would be most desirable that they should come under the provisions of this Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The clause which permits of any portion of a department or the whole of any department outside being brought in, would permit the Minister of the Interior to do that. That is a matter for him to deal with.


George Taylor: The hon. minister is making provision for the permanent staff employed on the Ottawa experimental farm. Why not include all the experimental farms ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can do so. Clause 3 provides that the inside service shall include the experimental farm stations or the Dominion astronomical observatory near Ottawa, when an order in council to that effect is passed. The experimental farm happens to be outside the limits of the city although, for all practical purposes, it is part of the headquarters. That is the only reason why it is mentioned along with the meteorological survey. The other experimental farms could be dealt with just as any other outside service.


John Barr: The experimental farm, although outside Ottawa, is included in the Bill, but the other experimental farms are not. I do not know why the experimental farm near Ottawa should be selected as the bright particular spot to get all that is coming. If you extend the Bill to the Ottawa experimental farm, you ought to extend it to all the others, otherwise you will create friction and jealousy and with reason.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I appreciate the tribute my hon. friend pays to the Bill. No doubt he speaks on behalf of the civil servants, and I am gratified at this expression of his appreciation of the value of this Bill to the service. As far as I am personally concerned, I would be disposed, as soon as possible after the passage of this Bill, to bring the outside farms also under its purview, and the Bill provides that we can do that.


Mr. HERRON.: I do not know whether it would be of any great advantage to the outside service to be brought under this Bill or not; but if it is, I would like to see it brought under the Bill because I consider that the bulk of the outside service are not sufficiently paid. They are certainly not paid in proportion to the work done, compared with the inside service. I know of a customs officer at a sub-agency, who has been in the emplov of the govern-Mr. FISHER.
ment for twenty years, and whose salary has not yet reached $900 a year. His whole time is taken up with the work, and I do not think that is sufficient salary in the west. I could name many others who have been long in the service and who are paid about the same salary. If there is anything to be gained by it, they should be brought under this Bill.


Richard Blain: Will all the employees at the experimental farm near Ottawa come under the scope of this Bill ? I am not referring to the workmen on the farm but to those who have been engaged some fifteen or twenty years. I am informed that some of them are not on the civil service list at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hardly any of them.


John Herron: And therefore they will not come under the provisions of this Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They will come under this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I do not think so.
On section 4,-sections applicable to inside service.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might say what effect the repeal of all those section's has ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Most of those sections are repealed in order to permit the substitution of the sections contained in this Act. For instance, sections 4, 16 to 26, both inclusive, relate to examinations. Those sections are repealed because this Act substitutes new' arrangements. Section 4 is repealed because this Act will provide new' divisions of the service. Sections 32 to 37 relate to appointments to the service ; 40 regards graduates of the military college, and 41, vacancies in the Auditor General's staff. 43 relates to promotions, 46 also to promotions ; Cl to 78 inclusive relate to classifications and grades ; 80 to salaries of messengers ; 82 to salaries ; 84 to salaries in excess of the minimum ; 85 to differences or degrees in salaries ; 90 to extra salary or remuneration, which is provided for more stringently in this Act; 91 to status of clerks which is preserved ; 94 to temporary employment, which is provided for in this Act ; 97, 98 and 99 to remu-| neration of temporary clerks and increases l to temporary clerks and messengers. Then

I shall propose that schedule A of the old Act be repealed.
On section 5,-classification of inside service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has been noticed that in subdivision B of the first division, where it says ' including the chief clerks now holding office,' some of those called chief clerks in the civil government list are really entitled, and by the description in subdivision A, ought to be put into subdivision A of the first division. I have consulted with the law officers, and they say that the addition of the following words after the word ' office ' in the 16th line, will remove any doubt as to whether some of the chief clerks ought to be put into subdivision A. I propose to add after the word ' office ' in the sixteenth line the words ' including chief clerks now holding office and not eligible for subdivision (a).' My hon. friend will notice that subdivision <a) besides including certain officers says :
* The principal technical, administrative and executive officers.' Some of those who are really principal officers of that character are now in the service and are called chief clerks. If these words were not included the law officers think it might be doubtful whether those chief clerks could be put into subdivision (a).


George Eulas Foster: The words 1 principal technical, administrative and executive officers' do not explain themselves. Should there not be some rule to guide the man who comes to make the division ? What is the rule in the minister's opinion ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My opinion would be that the head of a branch or division would come under that wording. One example is the assistant chief engineer of the Public Works Department who is certainly a principal technical officer. The definition or dividing line would have to be determined by the organization of the department as carried out under section 8 of this Bill. My own Intention and idea had been that those principal technical, administrative and executive officers would be the chief officers of a division of a department or a branch of a department.


George Eulas Foster: The trouble I see will be that the head of each department might take a different view as to what officers are to be included in this class, so that men occupying positions of equal responsibility and difficulty in different departments would be treated differently in this respect. I would think you should have some uniform authority, first a basis upon which you are to act and then a uniform authority which shall guide the head of every department in the arrangement of his department. Otherwise you will have all kinds of inconsistencies and will commence with a sense of injustice as between two departments which
is not desirable in an organization of this kind.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The organization will have to be by order in council and the members of council, being themselves heads of other departments will, it is to be expected, try to control and see that the organization of any department is not carried out In the way my hon. friend has outlined. I grant that there might be a tendency in that direction, but on examining the rules and regulations of the English and American services I find that it is pretty well laid down that there is no authority outside of the department which can so well define the organization of the department as the officers of that department.	-


George Eulas Foster: The theoretical organization ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. To give any outside authority absolutely despotic power over the organization of a department is not likely to work satisfactorily. The deputy minister and the chief officers of the department are likely to be able to give the head of the department better advice in that than the commission or any outside authority. I think we will have to trust to a very large extent to their integrity and good Sense, that the order will have to go through council and be subject to the scrutiny of the other ministers, who at the same time or about the same time are putting through the orders governing their own organization.	*


George Eulas Foster: That will be some check upon it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it is about the greatest check we can provide and that was the idea of leaving the organization in the hands of council; we did not think the other was necessary.


George William Fowler: Perhaps they will have some difficulty in the Department of Public Works as there are many technical officers there. There are twelve architects and the Minister of Public Works will probably wish to make them all deputy heads of departments. The minister will have to keep a strict line on the Minister of Public Works.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I also wish to add a few words to section 3. It will be noted that in subdivision (b) and in subdivision (a) of the first division the words 'technical, administrative and executive office' are used. I think the second division should also have those words in, so it would read :
The second division shall consist of certain other clerks, having technical, administrative, executive or other duties which are such as may qualify them for holding positions in the first division.


George Eulas Foster: What do you really mean by that last phrase ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Those clerks In the second division will enter that division subject to such an examination as will test them as to whether they are ever going, by education and training and personal characteristics, to be able to reach a higher position in the civil service. It is not expected or intended that the clerks in the third division shall reach the highest positions in the service.


George Eulas Foster: Why ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because the clerks in the third division will be doing routine work which will always be under direction and will not have any responsibility-or initiative. There is a provision however, by which the clerks in that division will be able under certain conditions to compete for the second division.


George William Fowler: That is very undemocratic. You post over the door of the men in the third division, 'Abandon hope all ye who enter here.' I do not think that is right or fair. Why should not every man have an opportunity to rise when he has the ability.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend misunderstood me. Under section 28 the clerks in the third division shall be permitted to enter for the open competitive examination of the second division after a term of service and such other conditions as are determined by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the commission. The clerks in the third division pass a very easy examination and they can only get promotion by taking their chances in open competitive examination for the second division.


George William Fowler: That is not what the minister said at first.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A clerk who goes into the third division partly because his education has not fitted him for the harder examination and partly perhaps because of lack of ambition, is not likely in most instances to take the trouble to fit himself for the secoud division.


George William Fowler: That is very different from what you said at first.


George Eulas Foster: Then you do not put any ban upon a man who enters the third division making his way up to the top if he has got it in him ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly not.


George William Fowler: That is perfectly satisfactory.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the minister made an estimate of the total extra cost this Bill will entail.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it would be impossible without going into the status of every individual civil servant to make anything like a correct estimate, but there will be a very


George Eulas Foster: considerable increase in the cost. A large number of clerks who at present are at the maximum of their class and cannot get an increase will in future be able to get their increments by roughly speaking from $100 to $200 more than they can now. In some other instances clerks who come under the new classification may get an increase.


George Eulas Foster: Subsection 3 is very unhappily expressed. It says :
The second division shall consist of certain other clerks whose duties shall be such as to qualify them for holding positions in the first division.
That would give the clerks in the second division an impression that they were only temporarily in that division and that it was not a worthy division.
Mr. FIS'HER. I have an amendment to that section. The idea is that the duties of the clerks in that division would be such as to prepare them to occupy positions in the first division.


George Eulas Foster: The language of this section would give the clerks of the second division the idea that there was no honour in it, and they must wiggle through it as quickly as possible to get into an honourable position. This second division is just as honourable as the one above it and its duties are very important, and the honourable discharge of a necessary duty entitles the man who performs it to honour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what position would those who have now passed the civil service examination be under this Bill ? If a man has passed the qualifying examination can lie enter the service without another examination ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: His examination would be of no use to him whatever.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The passing of the old qualifying examination would not take the place of the examination provided in the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Or of any of the examinations ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is there any provision in the Act fixing an age limit for entry into these three different divisions ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is an age limit. The present Act provides that persons entering the service must be between the age of 18 and 35 ; there is no change in that respect.


Richard Stuart Lake: In either the third division or the second ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In either the one or the other.


Richard Stuart Lake: Then a boy of 18 may pass directly into the second division of the service ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. I sympathize with my hou. friend from North Toronto, and I 'would like to invent some words that would define that provision a little better.


George Eulas Foster: You had better let that stand, then.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite williug to let it stand.
Section 5 allowed to stand.
On section 6-second and third division.


George William Fowler: Are there any exemptions from examination by reason of an applicant being a graduate of any university or college ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not in that form ; but section 21 makes provision for that.


George William Fowler: That is a very peculiar section.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is practically the same as the present law. It is taken verbatim from the English law.


George William Fowler: That is not conclusive.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is not conclusive of course ; but at the same time we think it is an absolutely necessary provision, and its terms are more stringent than are those of the present law, because the present law requires no certificate at all. The commission may give a certificate because the individual has a university degree.


George William Fowler: They may give it off their own bat ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They may give it because they know that the person has passed some other examination which they are willing to accept.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that is giving them very great power. A man may not be a graduate of any university or school of engineering or school of science, and yet the commission may, on its own motion and purely from favouritism, give him a certificate.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: At present the Governor in Council can do it, and in England also the Governor in Council can do it. I think it is necessary.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: As I understand this section, it provides for the automatic-


George Eulas Foster: And mechanical.
Mr. RALPH SMITH-the automatic placing of the civil service exactly where it is to-day by the authority of the deputy head. It practically means that all the officials will hold the positions they hold to-day, though the very reason for this Bill
is to improve the condition of the present service. If this legislation is to have any good results, it seems to me that we ought to lay the foundation properly, and that the present civil service ought to come under investigation and classification by the commission. I think it would be a great mistake to legislate simply for the future of the service. The great object of this legislation should be to make the service what it ought to be at the present time ; yet according to my interpretation of this section it will leave it entirely as it is now.


George Eulas Foster: That touches a most important question, which has reference both to this section and to one or two subsequent sections. It is simply, as my hon. friend says, an automatic and, as I suggested, a mechanical distribution. It happens that a man now in the service has a certain salary ; it happens that a man is in a certain place. He may be an efficient man or he may be a thoroughly inefficient man. It makes no difference whether he is efficient or thoroughly inefficient, he goes plump to the new place and goes right ahead. That is not at all in conformity with the idea of this new Bill. The object of the Bill is to produce efficiency. And there is this other point in this connection. I have a very abiding conviction that the civil service ;to-day is over-manned-how far I am not going to say ; but I believe that in most of the departments there are more than are necessary to do the work. The Civil Service Commission referred to that, saying plainly that the service has if anything retrograded, that its present efficiency is not up to what it formerly was. Not taking any partisan view of the matter, my own knowledge and what I hear and the report of the commission and reasoning from what is liable to take place, I am convinced that the service is to-day overmanned and that there are more or less inefficients in it. Considering that on the whole it is a good service, in character, in morals, in habits and in work, there are yet amongst it men who ought not to be there, because of habits of life-say inebriety or taking too much intoxicating liquor. In a service consisting of 2,500 men it would be odd if it were not so. But the fact is that it is so-I am not saying how many. You have men there who do not do one solid day's work, I was going to say from the month's beginning to the month's ending. You find men there who are making the service a resting or roosting place. They have been put there and are kept there, and are doing as little as possible to get a living by the sweat of their brow or the work of their hands. If you want efficiency, is it not an absurd pell-mell rule of some kind, just to put

these men automatically and mechanically into this new improved civil service without putting them through the sieve at all. Other reformers besides the Minister of Agriculture had to meet that state of things but they grappled with it. The other day I mentioned the case of Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin went to work in 1905, finding the same disadvantages that we have found, and that the United States have experienced, and remoddled their civil service law, and they now have a very excellent law. If any man will read it through and read the report of the Civil Service Commission on that Act, he will find what advance has been made by that State in civil service reform. They came plump | against this very thing and they met it in this way. Here is the clause of the Act:
The commission shall require of all officers or employees at present in the civil service, falling within the provisions of this Act as well as all persons appointed after the passage of this Act and before the rules shall take effect, except officers or employees of the several state reformatories, charitable and penal institutions, a non-competitive examination as a condition of continuing in the service longer than six months after the adoption of the rules provided for in this section. Reasonable notice of examination shall be given such officers and employees.
That was the general power given under the Act. The commissioners worked out that clause in a very sensible and reasonable way. As my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said this afternoon, the examination does not simply mean setting a man down and making him answer a certain set of questions on literary matters. That does not account for a great deal. These men went to work and made themselves thoroughly acquainted, through the heads of the departments, with the records of these men, inquiring into their habits and everything of that kind, and they worked out a system of examinations in which the literary part was the least important and the record or experimental part the largest, and they weeded out the service and started thoroughly well on the road to improvement and reform. Nobody who had merit and was doing his duty, even though he did not do it up to the very highest standard, suffered by that. But what the commissioners did accomplish was to take out a number of inefficients and incapables, which was a great thing to accomplish. I have received a letter from one who knows our civil service by experience, protesting very strongly against saddling the country at the start with that class of persons at present in the service and without having some discriminating process applied by which to weed out those who are largely incapable and inefficient.
It seems to me that if you get two reasonably level-headed men as commissioners, they could, aided by the heads and deputy


George Eulas Foster: heads of the various departments, perform a similar service, so that in six or twelve months there should be that discriminating inspection-we will call it that instead of examination-by which the purpose effected by the Wisconsin commissioners may be measurably carried out here. I commend that to the very serious attention of the minister and the government, not because I think our service is worse than others under like condition, but because I think it is unfair to the country and to go6d men in the service, and unfair to those who may come in afterwards, to have the places filled up with any considerable number of inefficients and Incapables.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: You will have to eliminate the age question. Suppose, by reason of age, a man becomes inefficient?


Mr.   POSTER@: That is the least troublesome form of inefficiency.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: You would have to eliminate that.


Mr.   POSTER@: My view would be the one I expressed this afternoon, and that is that the state should make some provision for that class ; but I want that class to be entirely taken out of the scope of my remarks. I would not for the world say a word against a man who is inefficient to-day because he has been thirty or forty years in the service, and after having given it his youth and the best of his manhood finds himself, by reason of old age, incapable of doing the same amount of work and yet no provision made for his superannuation,


Ralph Smith: This section is the first in the Bill that struck my attention. You may have men in high grades in the service to-day whom you automatically continue there by this section, but who, if they were brought under selection and examination, might be placed in a more suitable service where they would be more useful to the state. At present, according to their placement, they may be very inefficient but be honest, and they might be placed, after classification, in the service where they might do useful work. It strikes me that unless you do something of that kind you will be building your residence on a rotten foundation. The condition of the service at present is the cause of this legislation ; and if you propose to automatically leave the present service where it now is, you cannot have any hope that the edifice will be improved. The whole thing depends on having the service placed on a correct foundation ; and if you take the service as it is and continue it in that position and then build an edifice on top of that, you will make a serious mistake. Surely the service should come under classification and examination if you are

to establish it on a correct foundation. Suppose any private employer had a very serious objection to the system under which his employees were working and wanted to operate a new system, he would not think of not disturbing the basis, but would find out the weakness in the system and seek to remove the cause of that weakness. But we are leaving the fundamental cause for the necessity of this reform untouched unless we classify the present service. That would be my objection to section 6.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister allow me to read what I intended reading, and that is an extract from the report of the W'/isconsin Civil Service Commission, to show how their system worked out :
One exceptional feature was incorporated in the Wisconsin Act. We refer to the provision requiring a non-competitive examination of the employees in the service at the time the law was passed. The accompanying table (part 3) shows the results of this examination. The examination was required of all employees in the competitive class as a condition for continuing in the service of the state longer than June 14, 1906. Naturally, great weight was given to the judgment of the heads of the various departments under whom the employees served. In fact this formed the main element in determining the right of the old employee to continue in the service. The commission felt that a failure to pass a written examination ought not to disqualify an employee whose work, in the judgment of his superiors, was thoroughly satisfactory. In marking the papers of the original employees the rule of law governing promotional examinations was applied. This rule provides that promotion shall he based upon merit and fitness, with due consideration for seniority and experience.
Guided by this rule which seemed to indicate clearly the legislative intent with reference to the examination of persons in the service at the time the civil service law was passed, the heads of departments were required to indicate the standing of their employees as to conduct, habits, initiative, quality and quantity of work, punctuality, obedience and attendance.	[DOT]
I think that is a pretty good list.
In some instances these reports of the heads of departments were not discriminating and, consequently, of little value to the commission. For instance, one department reported all employees as perfect. And yet, in the main, it is true that where the heads of departments presented satisfactory evidence of faithful work, the commission did not retire the employee because he failed to pass the written examination. Retirements were made only in those cases where the report of the heads of departments indicated a neglect of duty or incompetency on the part of the employee.
Then follow's a table which shows the result.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The long list of the subjects in which candidates were to be examined indicates an almost ideal effort to find just exactly what were the qualifications, capabilities and possibilities of each individual civil servant. I do not think that a system of that kind would work here altogether, because the civil service is to-day established on certain lines ; the men who have entered the civil service have entered it on certain conditions and are entitled to the consideration due to those who are in the place which they have attained to under certain laws, rules and regulations. We are proposing a new and more difficult entrance to the civil service, but we have to recognize the rights of those who are to-day in the service. It may be that occasionally there are such individuals as are described, who are of no use, who have not done a day's work in the course of a month for years back-some such people may exist in the service, who, by their habits are such as not to do credit to the service or are not to be able to do efficient work. If they do so continue in the service, however, their being there is in contradiction to the ordinary decencies of the service in times past, as in the present, and, I am sure, in times to come. The dismissal of any totally inefficient or disreputable servant is possible, the power to dismiss such a person has been in existence some years back, is now, and I hope will always continue. We are proposing two or three changes in the law by which, I think, the civil service of to-day will be induced to improve, if they have been guilty of such conduct as is described by my hon. friend from North Toronto. We are, in the first place, trying to create a tone in the service which will be due to the stimulus of the better class of people coming into the service in consequence of the more severe examination tests which will prevail under this new law and of their entry by their own merit and not by favour. In the second place, we are providing a reward for those of exceptional merit by the possible doubling of their increase of salary, provided they get a certificate of merit from the commission. In this way, I think we are, to a very considerable extent, in a good way to remove any such blots upon the service as have been described and which may possibly exist today, though to a very limited extent. I do not see how we can very well help putting the present service into the new classification. We have had a number of amendments to the Civil Service Act at various times in the history of Canada ; and I think I am safe in saying that in all these amendments the principle has been adopted that no man shall be degraded in the service or given a lower salary, in consequence of the changes of the law, than he is enjoying at the time that change is made. We have also had amendments to the Civil Service Act of various kinds, changing in some minor degree the classification, and we have

the rule that a civil servant may be transferred from one department or one branch of a department to another, but always with observance of the rule that he shall not be given a position with a lower salary, but shall enjoy the same advantages which he has had before he was so removed. The suggestion that the whole of the present civil service should have to undergo a careful examination and inspection and selection, and that those who do not come up to a certain standard should be dismissed from the service, I tell my bon. friend frankly I do not think is practicable. I think we shall have to take the service as it is, we shall have to continue the service under rules which will, by this Act, induce greater efficiency, and give greater incentive at all events to efficiency on the part of those who may not be desirous of efficiency, and they will be held to greater rewards and promotion for merit and induce the civil service generally to do their very best so that they may get that promotion for their merit and for their endeavour. Section 6 is simply the carrying out of the transference of the present civil service into the new classification. I do not know any other way in which it can be done. If any practical suggestion could be made by which it can be done otherwise, I am ready to consider it, but until then, the principle I have laid down will have to obtain.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that one difficulty which confronts the government in working out this scheme is that they are making altogether too many divisions. That brings up exactly the obstacle that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) referred to just now. We have three different divisions, and each of these divided again, so that altogether you have six divisions.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Practically, yes.


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: In England, they have an upper division and a secondary division, but no more, as I understand. When you have only two divisions, you do not have so many questions arising as to what the minister terms ' degradation in tile service.' It is undesirable, of course, that a man who has a certain status now should have a lower status under the new arrangement. In British Columbia, by the Act which was passed at the recent session, they seem to have dealt with that subject in a rather sensible way. They have made provision for the appointment of what they call a Grading Commission, who, as independent advisers, shall assist the heads of the department in grading the service. The grading is to take place on March 31, 1909. They take into consideration the salary received for the month ending 31st March, 1909, but also the ability and efficiency for the work required, and they appoint the officer to the work for which he is best Mr. FISHER.
qualified. They accompany that with another provision that in no erase shall the salary of any officer be less than he enjoys when the system comes into effect. If you could have some such method as that, it would be better. I acknowledge the practical difficulty that confronts the government to-day. But there may be serious injustice under the method the minister proposes. I have a memorandum which gives one illustration, which illustration leads to the conclusion that men who owe their positions and promotions not so much to merit as to political influence- the effect of which the minister will not deny-will be graded, by reason of that political influence, under the provisions of this Bill, above men who have passed examinations which could not, perhaps, have been passed by the men graded above them. Here is one instance :
In November, 1906, two young men tried the civil service examination. A passed with honours, B failed in at least two subjects. In April, 1907, A was appointed a third-class clerk, has proved his worth in the service, and is now drawing a salary of $550 per year. B used his influence with certain persons, and was appointed a temporary clerk at $750 a year, with a promise of promotion. If the present Bill passes with the provisions set forth, B will be brought into the /'permanent service at a higher grade than that held by A, although B failed to pass the examination. Then you can see the result, because the minister will observe that the following section, which says :
All persons now employed in the inside service, including temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies, shall, upon the coming into force of this Act, be classified according to their salaries under this Act.
So the man who passed the examination with honours and now receives a salary of $550, will be graded below the man who failed to pass that examination, and who now, as temporary clerk, is receiving a salary of $750. I acknowledge there are difficulties in the way of framing provisions to meet all cases, but you must beware of doing an injustice. As I said this afternoon, I do not think you can ever deal thoroughly with this subject until you make a provision for superannuation, so as to get rid of some of these persons who are no longer suitable to be employed in the pub-lice service. I would not for a moment advocate any hardship or injustice, I would not say their salaries should be reduced, but I would say that officers ought to be selected for the work for which they are suited. I do not think it would be a hardship to any man in the service who has been tested for a sufficient length of time, to be placed in the grade for which he is suited and in no other grade. His rights will be sufficiently preserved if the salary which he holds at the present time is

preserved to him ; and even if the public were paying out in respect to such person a little more than they ought, we must have regard to certain other considerations, and see that no man is reduced in salary toy a reform of this kind.


George William Fowler: It seems to me the minister, in his reply to the point brought forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith), and modified by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), has lost sight of the main consideration, and that is the interest of the people of Canada. Now it is primarily in the interest of the people of Canada that the civil service should be as perfect as possible, and it is in the interest, not only of the people of Canada but of the civil service as well, that if there are undesirables they should be weeded out, because an undesirable is not only not doing his duty by the people who are paying him, but he is in point of fact infecting the whole service. If a man who wants to do his duty and earn the money paid him, and who takes an interest in his work, sees another who takes absolutely no interest in his work and pays no attention to it, who is deficient in every particular-sees him getting the same advantages that he gets who is industrious, earnest and honest, what encouragement is there for him to be industrious, earnest and honest ? So you see you are infecting the whole civil service by retaining undesirables, or at least by promotiong them as you propose to do by this section. This section does not reform the service, because it confers an advantage on these very persons whose inattention to duty, whose malfeas-ence in office, if you like, has caused this public outcry against the civil service, which has become so strong that the government were compelled to appoint a commission to examine into the subject, and that commission made a report which is certainly strongly condemnatory of the civil service to-day. And the innocent will suffer with the guilty; men who are doing their duty as the great majority are doing in all the departments, will suffer with the men who have failed to do their duty, and who still fail. Therefore it seems to me that the government owes It to the public, and owes it to the civil service as well, that this commission should not only look after the value but should look after the person, and should, by some such system as was adopted in the case referred to by my hon. friend from North Toronto, and also by some such system as has been formed in British Columbia, make an effort to provide that those persons who go into these various classes set out in section 6, shall be efficient men, and men who will do their duty in the service. It might be possible to make a time limit, giving six months or a year before this qualifying examination takes place, so that the men who are not
doing their duty may wake up and do it, and thereby be entitled to go into these grades. Something like that might be done. But I do not think a man who is employed in the public service and who is paid by the people, is deserving of a great deal of consideration if he does not do his duty and is inefficient. I would not place any literary examination of a severe character, because men who have been out of school for twenty or twenty-five years, while they may be thoroughly well grounded in educational subjects, yet might not be able to pass an examination with the same ease and facility of the man who is fresh from school, although they might he far more efficient for the public service than a young man fresh from school. But let that examination be along the lines of their work, to see whether they are qualified for the work they are to perform. That could be done by the commission. Now if you give a time limit, six months, a year, or two years, if you like, it seems to me you would do away with any hardship there might be, and would give thq person who has not been doing his duty an opportunity to reform.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The practical result of the suggestions made by lion, members who have spoken is the same. Authority must be given to some one to go over the service which is governed by this commission, and inspect and examine it, and say to the man subjected to the examination ; You are efficient or inefficient. If you are inefficient, you must stand aside. So we could then deal with inefficiency, either from want of mental capacity, or from inattention to work caused by laziness, or inebriety, or other causes that might be suggested. " Now is it the suggestion of hon. gentleman that that authority, or that power, should be placed in this commission to take the civil service as it stands to-day, go over it from top to bottom, and see whether, if you are employed in the class to which you belong under this classification, you are unfit and inefficient, and to say : You must stand aside, no matter how long you may have been employed ? That is a drastic measure, if you reduce it to its legitimate consequences.


George William Fowler: Why ?


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. There are a great many human considerations which occur to me. One would hesitate in his own business before cutting off the head of a' man who had been any length of time in his employ, in that harsh and hard way. I am not saying that if you want to take your pound of flesh you should not take it. But is that the suggestion ? It seems to be that or nothing. You may confer that power but you may give a discretionary power if you like. I suppose one could argue that "if this service is to be removed from every political influence that power

must be given to the commission and the commission alone must be in that independent position. Are we .to hand over the service in its present plight and condition to this commission, giving them absolute discretion to go over the service and cast out any employees they see fit ? A man may have spent ten or twenty years in that service, the commission will have his record, I do not know how they will get the record, I suppose they must take evidence and that spiteful persons may give false evidence before them, so that a man may be deprived of his livelihood after spending a lifetime in the service of the department. If that is the suggestion, I will not say I will oppose it, but I think we should consider well before placing in the hands of any commission such large discretionary powers, which practically do not exist in any court or any sphere I know of.


George William Fowler: You place the future of the service in the hands of this commission. It is by their report that increases of salary are granted or withheld. Surely the government propose to appoint men who will do their duty, and I cannot understand or believe that there would be this subornation of false testimony that the hon. member for North Simcoe hints at, nor does it follow that the persons who are inefficient shall be thrown into the street. But it would be better to pension these people if there are any such in the service, than to continue them in their present evil course.
I cannot believe that men will come forward and give evidence that other men are inefficient or have been acting improperly. What object would they have ? It would not benefit themselves. We are, in fact, giving as wide powers to this commission as they would have under the suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. R. Smith).


Ralph Smith: My hon. friend has found a most extreme remedy for the evil that has been pointed out. There is a moderate and reasonable remedy. It does not follow that because we find an evil we are to go to the furthest and most logical conclusions and provide the most extreme remedy. Under section 5, authority for the creation of divisions is given to the deputy head. There is a reasonable remedy. The deputies are carrying on the business of the country in these departments, they are acquainted with the employees in the service to-day. If they have to place them in the separate divisions as provided for in section 6 why not give them some discriminating powers, place the men in the same department according to their experience and knowledge ? Surely that would not be an unreasonable proposal. The deputies are acquainted with these officers and according to this section the deputy heads have authority to determine the divisions.
Mr. l. g. McCarthy.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The divisions are determined by the Act.


Ralph Smith: The deputy head creates a division under authority of the Governor in Council.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Ralph Smith: Then I have misunderstood the section. What I mean to point out is that it would be a reasonable provision that the deputies who are accustomed to these men and acquainted with their work in the service, might be given some authority in investigating and classifying them. If not, you are simply restoring the service as it is now seems to me that for many years to come it will be impossible to develop an efficient service.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: From my reading and also from my experience with the service in Ottawa, I am inclined to believe that the deputy minister should have very strong discretionary powers. There is a great deal said in the country and in the newspapers about the civil service. I want to give my practical experience. I came here a number of years ago, green and unsophisticated as far as the civil service is concerned. I must say I never met more courtesy anywhere, than I have met in the civil service in the different departments. They were always willing to tell what should be done and to help you in every possible way, and from the deputies down I never experienced anything but the greatest possible courtesy. I assume that the deputy minister must have the running of his department. By this change you are possibly taking out the very fibre of your civil service, because you place in the hands of men who I might say have no sympathy with the service, very wide powers. I would say to give as far as possible discretionary powers to the deputy head. I wish to- pay this tribute to the civil service in Ottawa ; I believe it is as good a service as can be found anywhere, and I wish to raise my voice in protest against much that has been said throughout the country by newspapers and speakers about reform of the civil service. The civil service as a rule are much superior possibly to the people who appoint them. I doubt very much if there are many men in the service who have proved recreant to their trust after their appointment.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not understand what my hon. friends from Nanaimo and Vancouver mean by saying that this Bill takes any power out of the hands of the deputy minister. As a matter of fact if the provisions of the Act are carefully considered we find that the Governor in Council, the head of the department, must act on the report of his deputy minister, practically all through. The reports of the records of. the civil servants must be made by the deputy
JUjSTE 25, 1908
minister, the representations of the deputy minister are required to state that the appointment is needed or that there should be a promotion or an increase of salary or anything of that kind. It is true that the entrance to the service and the management of the examinations and the appointment of those who are successful in the examinations to the different departments are entrusted to the Civil Service Commission. That is a necessary concomitant and sequence of the system which has been adopted and the deputy heads receive those people just as to-day they receive the appointments made by a minister on the nomination of a member or any one else. As far as the recommendations and the control of tile service are concerned, this Bill rather increases than decreases the prestige and authority of the deputy minister, because so much is dependent on the reports of the deputy ministers in regard to the servants under them.
I agree with the leader of the opposition that by reason of the passage of this Bill, no clerk should receive a less salary than he has to-day. That principle has been always affirmed in Canada, in the United States and in England, in similar Bills for the reform of the civil service. We propose that the clerks shall be put into classes as nearly as possible the same as they now occupy. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) wants the qualification of each clerk examined to see whether he has done his work in the past and is capable of doing his work in the future. I can safely say that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the clerks occupy their present positions by reason of the reports of their deputy ministers as to their qualifications. It is rare indeed that promotion has been given by any minister in the last ten years except on a definite report from his deputy minister recommending promotion. I believe, too, that such was the case before the change of government. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the minister depends on the judgment, integrity and good-will of his deputy minister to guide him in promotions and increase of salary. A minister who has parliamentary work to do, who has to deal with great questions in the cabinet council, who has to travel all over the country and come in contact with the people, and who has to attend to his departmental duties, cannot afford time to inquire into the qualifications of the different clerks in his department, and he must rely on his deputy. I believe the deputy ministers of Canada have always been loyal to their chiefs, have discharged their duty faithfully, and have given just reports as to the qualification of the clerks. I do not know how we could classify under the new Bill except to state, as is provided, that the first-class clerks of to-day shall go into subdivision A of the second division, which corresponds with the present first-class clerkship and so on.


Ralph Smith: Under section 6, could a deputy minister, for any reason place a clerk who is now in the second division in the third division?
Mr. FISHER, No. I agree with the leader of the opposition that it would not be fair, in making these changes in the service, to degrade clerks who have now attained a certain salary and position under the law under which they entered the service. It would not be fair to degrade these men who have, to some extent, vested rights in the service.


Ralph Smith: The minister has told us that the determination of the present position of the clerks is due to the intelligence and good sense of the deputies.
Mr. FISHER, Quite so.


Ralph Smith: Then, how could clerks who have attained their present status on the recommendation of the deputy ministers be put in a lower position under this Act?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the clerks have attained a certain position in consequence of the reports of the deputy ministers, why should we bother to have a new report from the deputy upon these clerks, and ask the deputy to degrade some of them whom he has already reported for promotion? I am going to ask the committee to add, as subsection 5, the following :
Provided that upon the organization of the department under section 8 of this Act the Governor in Council may upon the special report of the deputy head, concurred in by the head of the department for reasons set forth in such report, place any such clerk in a subdivision higher than that to which he is assigned hy this section.


Mr. CONMEE.: I do not understand the idea of my hon. friend (Mr. Ralph Smith) to go further than this, that if, on the report of the head of the department, it is found that the place of a clerk could be filled by a more competent person, he should be given other employment. It is not a question of degrading a clerk. But let me ask this : After the service is divided into the divisions the Bill provides for, how are promotions made? I understand that they are by competitive examinations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. Section 26 and following sections show how promotions are made. I may say that there is already provision in the Civil Service Act for the transfer of a clerk from one department or one branch to another, provided he is not given a salary lower than the one he is then enjoying. So that without reducing his salary a clerk may be put at work for which he is more suited. We do not interfere with that provision.


James Conmee: I do not see in the Bill a provision for changing a man from one

department to another. In the English service, if I am not mistaken, it is stipulated that men must he changed from one department to another. I think that is a very good thing. It tends to make men more efficient, giving them a wider range of knowledge, and making them of greater value to the State and also to themselves. It seems to me that that principle should he embodied in this Bill. I think it works well in the English service, and I do not see why it should not work well here. Another principle I think should be Introduced. I am not altogether in favour of the principle embodied in this Bill for entrance to the civil service. I would like to see in the working of the service the selection of men with regard to their capacity for certain work, something after the English practice. I have my doubts as to the wisdom of placing the power as regards entrance into the service altogether in the hands of the two men who have been spoken of. Of course, a great deal may be accomplished in the selection of those men. No doubt they will be men of advanced education and of the very highest integrity, and competent in every respect. A good deal is said in the newspapers and on the floor of this House about political influence. I do not believe there is much political Influence secured as regards the civil service in this country. We have never had the spoils system in Canada. A good deal of the slang about political Influence that is thrown at the public service and at public men generally was coined in another country. I do not believe there is inefficiency in the Canadian civil service. I believe the civil service to-day is well manned. There may be a few men, I dare say there are, whose places might be better filled ; but I submit that even with this Bill in operation the same condition of things will probably exist. My objection on that score is to some extent weakened by the provision in the Bill that it does not involve the outside service. I think it is wise for the government to go slow in this matter, until experience will teach us wiiether the step is a wise one or otherwise. It is more or less an experiment. If the competitive principle is to guide, then it seems to me that we ought to make promotions from competitive tests for promotion within the service. After men enter the service, it is a case of the survival of the fittest, and I would like to see that principle embodied In the Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say to my hon. friend that section 50 of the present Civil Service Act, which is not repealed by this Act, makes special provision for the exchange of officers between the different departments. I cannot say that that is at all the practice in this country. It is not; and it is news to me that it is the practice Mr. CONMEE.
in England to move officers generally around from one department or one branch to another. As far as comjietitive examinations for promotion are concerned, there is the difference between them and the examinations for entry. In the latter case, the individual is entirely unknown. But after lie once gets in, Ills record is there and there is a judgment with regard to his suitability for promotion from the superior officers of the department ; and in this Bill we provide for the necessity of a certificate of merit and qualification from the commissioners. I think that serves the purpose better than competitive examination.


Robert Laird Borden: We are, under section 10, to have promotions made on the report of the commission. The ordinary rule of promotion, as contained in section 20 is that promotion shall be made on merit, on a recommendation of the head of the department, based on a report of the deputy head and accompanied by a certificate of qualification by the commission. I do not quite understand why you should have one system of promotion on the organization of the department and another afterwards.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The reason is that this action is expected to take place very soon after the coming into force of this Bill, and the commission will then have no means of knowing what the former conduct and qualifications of the clerk wTere, whereas the deputy head knows all about him, and he will be applied to for the reason for his recommendation, and we thought it would be proper for the action to take place on the part of the deputy head.


George Eulas Foster: I wish the minister had not introduced that amendment. He has been arguing for the creation of this commission with all the powers that could lie given them, but now he proposes that before we get that necessary and beneficent commission, the government will hurry up all they possibly can and make as many promotions as possible before the commission gets to work. There is nothing to prevent promotions, after this Bill comes into force, by the method provided in it. The minister says the deputy head is the man who knows. Well, he is not going to be translated to heaven or prohibited from having any communication with the commissioners, and before the commissioners undertake to make any promotion, they must confer with the deputy head of the department particularly concerned. If there be any man deserving promotion, he will not be kept out of his desserts by any reasonable commission, but by this amendment you will be, just on the eve of that commission getting to work, rushing a lot of promotions under the old and ineffective system which you are now doing away with. All I am concerned in is, to get the best conditions possible for the civil service and

1 shall be sorry to see the minister persist in this amendment.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I recognize the desire of the hon. gentleman to have the Bill as good as possible and I appreciate the consideration which has been given to it by hon. gentlemen opposite. I confess that this was not in the original Bill, but the law officers thought that some such clause might he necessary to meet certain individual cases.
I do not mean that they mentioned any individual case, but in certain cases, hardship might result if. section 6 were to be worked out as a hard and fast rule. I therefore accepted their suggestion that this amendment should go in. But in deference to my hon. friend's views, I shall be glad to let it stand and see whether it is absolutely necessary.


Mr. J. T. SCHELL.: When this Bill comes Into force, will the salaries of all the civil service be raised to a higher level?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not immediately. The possibility of their being raised is contained in this Bill. The maximum of the different divisions is made higher than the present maximum, and consequently there will be a general improvement in the financial position of the civil service. But there is no provision for an immediate special increase this year.


Jacob Thomas Schell: There will be no decrease ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Let section 6 stand.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McKenzie).: Stand
On section 7,
Except as herein otherwise provided, all persons now employed in the inside service, including temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies shall, upon the coming into force of this Act, be classified according to their salaries under this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Will that have the effect of converting temporary clerks-temporary in the real sense-into permanent clerks ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What are called ' temporary clerks ' under civil government.


Robert Laird Borden: They are all permanently employed ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Ninety-nine out of a hundred of them.


George Eulas Foster: Are there not temporary clerks now employed and paid out of civil government contingencies who have not passed the qualifying examination V


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That could not be, under the law : they must have passed the qualifying examination.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose a temporary clerk, who was appointed, say, in the De-36-1
partment of the Interior yesterday, at so much a year


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He could only be put on at $500 a year.


George Eulas Foster: But we pass some lump votes which apply to salaries as well as to other things.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But this applies to those paid out of civil government contingencies.


George Eulas Foster: So, this section would not apply to these others ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


George Eulas Foster: That removes some of the strong objections I would otherwise have to it. There are no temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies who have not passed the examination ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, that cannot be, under the law


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that the minister's view of the meaning of the words * inside service ' is quite accurate. I think that ' inside service ' in this section would mean ' inside service ' as difined in section 3.


George Eulas Foster: That is the way I took it.


Robert Laird Borden: In the first place, the Civil Service Act does not refer to the inside service by that name, but declares that the service shall be divided into two divisions, 1 the first, or inside departmental division '-I refer to section 4. This expression is not used here. But, in any case, I think that the words in section 7 would be construed as they are taken in section 3, unless you express the contrary. The proper expression would be ' employed in the first or inside departmental division in the Act hereby amended.'
Mr. FISHER, That is a legal point on which I would not undertake to give an opinion, especially in opposition to my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden), who is a lawyer. But this was drafted by the officer in charge of that service. I know that the meaning intended to be expressed is clear. I will consult the law officer. Meantime, let the section stand.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Stand.
On section 8,
As soon as practicable after the coming into force of the Act, the head of each department shall cause the organization of his department to be determined and defined by order in council.	.
2. The order in council shall give the names of the several branches or divisions of the department. with the number and character of the offices, clerkships and other positions in each and the title and salaries thereafter to pertain thereto.



3. After being so determined and defined, tbe organization of a department shall not be changed except by order in council.
i.	Copies of such orders in council shall be sent to the commission.


Frederick William Borden: I think the use of the word ' divisions ' is unfortunate. You have already provided for six divisions-i or, at least, three divisions with two subdivisions each. And now you speak of departmental divisions besides.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should almost think that ' branches ' alone would be sufficient. I think that under the present Act and present administration, the departments are, in some eases, divided into branches and in some into divisions. But, as my hon. friend says, the word ' divisions ' applies to the classification of the service, and that is not the intention of the word here.


Robert Laird Borden: When you reorganize, you can call them all branches.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Strike out the word ' or divisions.'


James Conmee: In subsection 2 it speaks of the number and character of the offices, clerkships and other positions in each and the titles and the salaries thereafter to pertain thereto. The first subsection provides that the head of the department shall cause the organization of his department to be determined and defined by order in council. That in connection with the language in subsection 2 seems to me to fix permanently the salaries and would make, if I am not mistaken, more important the passage of the motion which was held over a few minutes ago. Under this I do not know that other salaries could be increased.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My own interpretation of that is that the present civil servant under section 6, will go into any classification as defined under this Act. Then, as soon as possible, the head of the department shall define the organization of his department. In doing -that, he will state how many branches of his department and in each branch what will be the standing of the officer at the head of that branch, how many officers under him in each branch would be in the first division, how many in the second and how many in the third.


George Eulas Foster: In fact, that is an arrangement of the nomenclature of the department.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, not of the individuals but of the offices.


James Conmee: But it says 'and salaries.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, it must be so, because in the case of some of these clerks it may be found that they are half way up tbe division in which they will be put. The idea is the salary shall be to each office of Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
the branch. In one case, under subdivision A, the office will be worth $3,000, in another case $3,500, and in another, $4,000.


James Conmee: The point is that once the salary is fixed it must remain permanent. I understood the minister to say that he contemplated that the increase should take place soon after the Bill passed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No ; what I said was that in consequence of the increase of salaries, the maximum salaries of classes or divisions, there was more room for increase than there is to-day.


James Conmee: Then is the salary here spoken of to be the maximum salary?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not say it is the maximum, it would be the salary of the position, and then that salary would indicate in what classification the office would be, and it would be subject to the ordinary increments pertaining to that division.


Jacob Thomas Schell: That brings up the point I was referring to. When they come in under this new organization, any person to-day drawing $2,200, will he start at $2,200, or are you raising the minimum of all the salaries?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, any person who is drawing $2,200 when this Act passes will continue to draw $2,200 just the same.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me this section is open to criticism. It provides for what is called an organization of each department, but it does not seem to provide for any real or effective organization. The proposed organization seems to be concerned altogether with the titles and salaries. The salaries are not to be changed. It is concerned with the titles of the officers and the number and character of the offices. Should it not contain some provision declaring that the order in council shall specify the duties to be performed by each of the officers? That would look more like a real organization than is contemplated here. Any organization to be effective must accomplish something along that line.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the words * number and character of the offices ' would give that definition, the number and character of the offices. Now, I will give an instance of what I had in mind. Take my own department, with which I am most familiar. I have there a dairying and cold storage division. That division has at the present time, at the head of it, a commissioner.


Robert Laird Borden: Would there be any objection to inserting the word ' duties ' before the word ' titles ' ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I see no objection to that.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Clause A reads ' As soon as practicable after coming into force of the Act, the head of each department.'

But in clause 2 you say ' branches or divisions of the department.' Now, if the words ' or divisions ' are eliminated, then it will read ' branches of the department.' That will cover the objection of the leader of the opposition. That defines those in each department or each individual branch.


Frederick William Borden: That would not cover my objection. The insertion of the word ' duties ' before the word ' titles ' would meet it.
Mi-. BAKE. 1 think you have to use the word ' branch ' or * sub-division.' Might I suggest the word ' section ' ? The minister spoke just now of a dairying division. I suppose he has branches in that division?
Mi-. FISHER. I am not very strong on titles. I find sometimes they are troublesome things.


Mr.   BAKE@: Say sections or subsections.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Branches or sections. I would prefer to let the leader of the opposition draft the proper terms.
Mi-. R. B. BORDEN. I would suggest that ' sub-branches ' would be better ; keep the one term, ' branches.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We will pass the section, and we can decide this point later.
work just as well as more, we thought two were sufficient. We did not wish to multiply the offices. Two is the number of the English commission. The reasons which I advanced this afternoon decided us in favour of two.


George Eulas Foster: The Civil Service Commission in the United States are paid $3,500 each and their expenses.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are three of them.


George Eulas Foster: You place these on the same basis as a deputy head, at $5,000 each. There seems to be a large disparity between this and the American system. The United States commissioners are eminent men, their whole time is taken up and they have a very wide kingdom. It strikes me at first sight that this would be a large salary.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We did not wish to xilace them on a lower grade than deputy ministers. We thought their services as valuable as those of deputy ministers and did not see how we could give them the rank without the salary.


Haughton Lennox: Is there anything saying that they shall devote their whole time to their duties as commissioners ?
On section 9-Civil Service Commission constituted, and its duties.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I propose to move an amendment to the second part of that section, making the tenure of office that of a judge.


George Eulas Foster: I will read what I had drawn up as an amendment. After the word ' council ' insert the words :
Who shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor in Council on an address of the Senate and House of Commons.
That is exactly the wording used in the case of the Auditor General.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I propose to change the section to the following effect. Now it deals with the salary, rank and standing, which I would leave the same.
The rank, standing and salary of each commissioner shall be those of a deputy head of a department and each commissioner shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor in Council on address of the Senate and House of Commons.


George Eulas Foster: That is the same thing.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the minister considered having three commissioners instead of two and not having the salaries quite so large as they are ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The question of the number of commissioners was considered and, partly for purposes of economy, partly because we thought two men could do the ?61i


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The next clause, No. 3, provides for that.


Haughton Lennox: That is only indirectly. It is not as specific as the language which we used a few years ago in relation to the judges.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My recollection is that the language is very much the same. Certainly it is clearly understood that they are to devote their entire time to this work.
On section 10-duties of commission.
Mr. FOSTER, The duties here set forth do not seem to embrace everything that should be specifically included. Of course you have a clause after those assigning the two principal duties that they shall do anything else which the Governor in Council asks them to do. But are there not some duties that should be made specific and laid down in the Act itself other than those here set forth ? For instance it is proposed that they shall go further than passing upon the qualifications of candidates for admission because they take an important part in the promotion as well. Why -should that not be specifically stated ? In the United States Act eight principles are laid down to be carried out by the commission, and these are elaborated by the rules and regulations passed by the Civil Service Commission afterwards in conjunction with the president. It is perhaps as well to make their prominent duties statutory so that they will have all the prominence and force that can be given them as part of the statute law.

, I would like them to have a little more power with respect to the inspection of departments than is here given. The commission were strong on the inspection of the departments by the commissioners but they are limited here to investigation and report upon anything the Governor in Council wishes them to do. I think it would be a good thing if it were made one of their specific duties under the statute that they should investigate and report, being given powers similar to those of the United States commission which are broad and general; the American commission is given power, of its own motion, to look into, examine and report upon everything connected with the workings of the civil service rules and regulations and into the performance of duties under those regulations. This section limits it to a special report on the request of the head of the department. Of course that could be included under subsection (c) ' such other duties as are assigned to it by the Governor in Council.'
I would like to see another duty assigned to it in addition to the clause forbidding a candidate for office, entrance or promotion from bothering the commissioners, and trying to influence them. That is very mild. The trouble comes in where members of parliament and Senators use their influence with the commission in order to facilitate, if possible, entrance and more particularly promotions, getting the good will of the commissioners enlisted for some person in whom they have an interest. By the United States civil service law that is absolutely forbidden and the commissioners are removed from any importunities of that kind entirely.
Again what is very important is that the civil servant shall not be liable to any influence or coercion used upon him by any officer of the department to get him to perform or contribute to any political service. That is that the non-partisan character of the service shall be guaranteed and that the civil servant will be absolutely independent and have only his duties to perform under his officers. He will not consider that any man superior to him has a right to suggest that he shall work for or contribute to the party in power. Then, that the Civil Service Commission shall have the right to examine into any case where that is violated by such coercion or such influence being used or such partisan action taken. The purpose of the minister is, he stated, to place the service beyond the reach of political influence and in that I thoroughly agree. That would necessitate the opening up of the duties of the commission and I have some amendments to offer but unfortunately I have to leave now.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The clause can stand. Some of the suggestions made by the hon. gentleman I consider to be practicable and Mr. FOSTER.
advisable, but in framing the provisions of the Act I have rather taken the model of the mother country, and I think my hon. friends suggestions are based on the American system. What was called the assessment system in political organizations was a crying evil in the United States but I do not believe it has ever existed in this country to any appreciable extent.


George Eulas Foster: Not in the inside service but somewhat in the outside service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have never heard of it in Canada. I will not say it has never occurred in instances here and there, but there certainly has never been any system of the kind in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Not as compared with the United States.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think there is necessity for any special provision against it. The whole tenor of this Bill forbids anything of the kind. The object of the Bill is that the civil servant is to be treated on his merits, and he is in an independent position and if any outside politician comes to coerce him he can simply tell him to go. The suggestion of my hon. friend that the commission should not be approached by members of parliament must be looked upon with some delicacy. I hardly think it would do to forbid such a thing by statute. It never entered into my head to pass such an enactment untitl my hon. friend suggested it now. It would be practically a confession that we were in the habit of doing that kind of thing and needed a law to stop us. To forbid it by enactment would not be consistent with the dignity or good sense of the members of either Chamber. Then, the idea that the commission should have authority to go into a department without the approval of the Governor in Council and deal with matters in the department does not strike me as advisable, but still I am quite willing to consider it and I will let the clause stand until such time as my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has an opportunity of moving his amendments.


Richard Stuart Lake: The Bill seems to provide that the head of the department shall make the selection of a clerk from the list of successful competitors presented to him by the commission.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no.


Richard Stuart Lake: It should be specifically stated that one of the duties of the commission is to supply competent persons to fill the offices.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the intention.


Richard Stuart Lake: It does not seem to me to be clearly expressed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It can be made clear if it is found necessary.
On section 13-competitive admission examinations.


Haughton Lennox: At present there are regular stated examinations, are there not ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, one a year, in the month of November.


Haughton Lennox: And these examinations are not directed to any particular branch of the sei'vice ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Haughton Lennox: Now is it intended that these examinations shall have application to a particular department ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not so much to a particular department as to the particular clerkships or positions that are to be filled in one department or another.


George William Fowler: In the literary examination, why should not a diploma from a chartered university be sufficient ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not see how that could be adopted with competition.
On section 14-qualifications of candidates.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this intended to meet the case of a man who had not been a resident in Canada for three years immediately prior to his appointment ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, the section just as it reads provides that the person must have resided at least three years in Canada before he comes up for examination.


William Humphrey Bennett: Assuming that he had lived in Canada three years, and then ceased to live in Canada, and returned after an absence of years, would he be eligible.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think so. He could come up for examination.


Richard Stuart Lake: Does not the minister think that the age of thirty-five years is rather late in life for a man to enter the civil service ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To tell my hon. friend the truth, I do ; but at the same time, that is the present law, and while I would prefer to reduce it to a lower age, I have found a good deal of opposition on the part of many to that suggestion.


George William Fowler: Why do you oblige a man to be a resident of Canada for three years before examination?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The intention was to take real residents of Canada into the service. But for this provision, a person might come here ' on spec,' just to go up for the examination.


William Humphrey Bennett: Why not make it immediately prior to the date of his appointment ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A person who had been bom and bred in Canada might have gone away and come back again, and then want to have an opportunity of entering the service ; and it would be rather hard perhaps to say that he could not do so until he had been back here three years.


James Conmee: Suppose in the meantime he had become a citizen of the United States, he would require to be naturalized in Canada before he could compete ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and to do that he would have to reside here three years.


Richard Stuart Lake: It seems to me that putting the age as high as thirty-five at which a man may enter the service is throwing a difficulty in the way of a proper superannuation Act. The older a man enters, the more difficult it will be to provide a suitable superannuation for him. Then, although eighteen is a very suitable age for a young man to enter the lowest grade of the service, it is rather young for a man to take the more responsible position of the second division. My recollection of the English service is that for the junior rank of the service the age was from seventeen to twenty-one, and for the senior branch from eighteen or twenty to twenty-four.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the competition will regulate that. In the second division, with the severer examinations, I do not think it is likely that a boy of eighteen would be successful in the competition. I think those of from twenty to twenty-two are most likely to succeed ; and, speaking from memory, I think my hon. friend is not correct as to the English law.


Richard Stuart Lake: I am speaking of many years ago.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the limit for the lower division is from seventeen to nineteen and for the upper division from eighteen to twenty-four. With regard to the age limit of thirty-five years, I think the competition will largely regulate the matter. I dcubt very much if men of thirty or more will be as likely to succeed in competition with men of from twenty-two to twenty-four. At the same time, I do not feel like .proposing a change in the present age limit, which has worked very satisfactorily. Under it the great mass of the men who have come into the service have been under the age of thirty, and under the competive principle that will be still more likely to be the case. With regard to superannuation. Of course I appreciate that if a larger number of people came in over thirty, they would be superannuated sooner, but they would not get so large a superannuation allowance.


James Conmee: It does not seem to me to be very consistent to adopt the competitive principle for entrance, and not for promotion. Where it serves its best pur-

pose in the English system, if I am not mistaken, is in the promotions within the departments.
On section 15,
15. Before holding any such examination, the commission shall require each head of a department to furnish it with the number of permanent officers or clerks likely to be required in the department within the next six months.
2.	On this basis, and having regard also to the requirements of the several departments for temporary services, a competition shall be made by the commission of the number of competitors to be selected at the next ensuing examination.
3.	If there remain from the previous examination successful competitors who have not received appointments their number shall be deducted in making the computation.


George William Fowler: Suppose there are vacancies for ten men, and twenty men pass the examination ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The highest would be selected, and those who remained over but who had come up to the standard would be given priority in the next batch of vacancies to be filled. The commissioners would know from the requirements in the several departments, what number of appointments would have to be made in the next six months. There would also be demands in the departments for temporary services. Suppose the commissioners advertised for eighty and that number came up to a standard which would justify their appointment, every time that a minister asked for a clerk, he would have one assigned to him from the top of the list. There might only be sixty vacancies actually and then there would be ten out of the eighty who would still be in hand. The ten left would be utilized for temporary service, and it is possible that X or some other minister might want two or three more than we thought and those left over woull be available for that purpose. When another examination came on, there might be three or four of those who came up to the standard on the previous examination left and they would stand first.


Haughton Lennox: Would they stand at the top of the new appointment ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They would have the priority having passed the examination before.


Haughton Lennox: But those who were ieft over from the last examination and who had come up to the standard required, might still not be equal to some of those who passed the second examination and yet they would have priority.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The commissioners will have to exercise their judgment, and after some experience they will know how many are required, and there will not probably be Mr. CONMEE.
very much margin between the man at the top and the man who only came up to the standard.
On section 17-list of successful competitors.


William Humphrey Bennett: This section gives the commission a wide option.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is an exact transcription of the English law. I do not think it would be advisable to restrict the commissioners to following the list absolutely according to merit. For instance, I might ask for a clerk for my accounting branch ; the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) might ask for a clerk for the correspondence branch or the filing branch. In the examination, one of the competitors might show special aptitude in mathematical subjects. It would be best for him to be appointed to my accounting branch. He might be inferior in his composition and indexing, and though higher in general terms than any other man, yet not be as good a man for my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) as for me. The commission ought to be allowed some latitude. That is the case in England and the United States.


George William Fowler: That seems a fair argument. Still, this may open quite a door for favouritism and politics. And I understand that the object is to exclude these. However, I see the force of the hon. gentleman's remarks.
On section 18-subsection 5,
5. No clerk supplied for temporary duty shall be so employed for more than six months in any year.


William Humphrey Bennett: Under that, he might be employed for six months one year, then laid -off, and taken on for six months another year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under the arrangements I indicated a few minutes ago, in answer to my hon. friend from Simcoe, that would be impossible for the examination would occur again and the clerks not appointed permanently would be at the head of the list and would be appointed.


Robert Laird Borden: What is meant by the word ' year ' in this subsection 7 ?-fiscal year or calendar year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should say it means he shall not be employed for more than six months within the twelve months commencing from his appointment as temporary clerk.
On section 19-subsection 1,
The head of the department, on the report of the deputy head, may, at any time after two months from the date of assignment and before the expiration of six months reject any person assigned to his department.


Haughton Lennox: We have something of this principle under the old Act. But there

is no provision that this report shall be in writing. That ought to be provided, so that parliament may have the opportunity of knowing exactly what took place.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was the intention, and if it was not provided in this case It was intended to be provided by rules and regulations. There is no objection to it being put into the Act. Make it read * On the report in writing of the deputy head.'


William Humphrey Bennett: What would happen if the two commissioners differed as to the fitness of the person ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We can only hope that they would come to an agreement.
On section 19, subsection 2.
2. The cause of the rejection shall be reported by the deputy head to the commission, who shall thereupon select another person to take the place of the one rejected, and decide whether the latter shall be struck off the list or allowed a trial in another department.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has been constructing it all through that there is continuity of the list. He explained that if half a dozen persons were left over from a previous examination and the number required for which another examination was called were thirty, they would take from the half dozen in the first. But I do not see any provision for that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know that there is a specific provision. But subsection 3 of section 15 would indicate it, because it says ' if there remain from a previous examination successful competitors who have not received appointments, their number shall be deducted in making the computation ' of the number to be selected at the next examination. I grant that there is no definite statement of a permanent list.


Robert Laird Borden: There is not. Section 17 provides for making out a list of the successful competitors, but it does not say that those who have passed a previous examination are to be included in the list at nil.	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will look into that. I think It might be done in this way. Beginning section 18 ' from the list so made up and including the names of any competitors left over from a former examination.'


Richard Stuart Lake: Make it read ' From the said list until it is exhausted.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will try to provide an amendment to section 18 to indicate what the list is.
On section 21-professional and specially qualified officers.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that in ,the English Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that there should be some grounds on which the commission would issue the certificate here provided for. How are they going to know whether the person possesses the necessary skill ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We thought we had better leave it to the judgment of the commission how they would learn that. They might require the person to pass an examination, or they might find he had a diploma or a degree from a university, in science for instance, or in modern languages-if the office to be filled happened to be that of translator. We though it was better to leave that to the commission themselves.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it not dependent on the report of the deputy head?
Mr. FISHER, No ; the fact that the office requires certain qualifications is what the deputy head reports on, not on the individual.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN Is there any general provision as to the health of persons to be appointed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was intended to provide for that in the rules and regulations made for those who come up for examination. Under the present civil service law, persons who come up for examination are required to produce a certificate of character and of health. We intend to leave that to be provided for by the commissioners In the rules and regulations which they may frame.


George William Fowler: There is another point as to this, there is no limit as to age. Now, how would that affect the superannuation? [DOT]Supposing an individual were 60 years of age, would he rank in the superannuation?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think according to our present Superannuation Act nobody can come under it beyond a certain age. But *that would be a matter for a Superannuation Act and not for a Civil Service Act.


William Stevens Fielding: A new man coming in would not come under the Superannuation Act, but if he is already under the Superannuation Act, this would not take him out of it.


George William Fowler: Supposing he had never been in before?


William Stevens Fielding: Then he cannot come in. A new appointment cannot come under the Superannuation Act until the Act is further* amended.


George William Fowler: How does a man now come under the Superannuation Act?


William Stevens Fielding: A new appointee does not now come under the Superannuation Act. The existing law applies to the older officials of former years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under the present Act a man coming into the service does not come under the Superannuation Act. There would have to be a new Superannuation Act to cover appointees under this Act. The present Act is something like a Compulsory Savings Bank Act, to which every employee is obliged to contribute a certain amount yearly, which he gets back when he leaves the service.
On section 22-messengers, porters, sorters and packers.


Haughton Lennox: These, I presume, would be political appointments ; these would not have to pass a competitive examination?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. They have to get a certificate of qualification as to age, health and character.


Mr. LBMIEUX.: Every appointment is made subject to the approval of the postmaster where the appointee is to serve. In every appointment I make I always say : ' Subject to the approval of the Deputy Postmaster General.' He makes an examination of the subject, and if he finds him fit for the position the appointment is made.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In addition to that, he must get from the commission a certificate as to age, health, character and habits.


Haughton Lennox: There is a difference in this section from section 21. In section 21 the appointment is made without examination and without reference to the age limit; whereas in section 22 the appointment must be accompanied by a certificate of qualification from the commission, given upon evidence satisfactory to it that the person applying for the appointment possesses the requisite knowledge and ability, and so forth. Why is the language made stronger in section 22 than in section 21?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think myself it might be made the same in both sections.


Haughton Lennox: You better have 21 made as strong as the other at least.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no objection to that.
On section 28,-special provisions for certain second-class clerks.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To-day there are a number of junior second-class clerks some of whom have passed the promotion examinations which would enable them to pass into the second or first class. Some have not passed it but would be entitled t6 that promotion under their present status or standing. We thought it would be unfair to those clerks if they were shut out of the promotion which they would have received, and we thought it proper and right that such of them as are deserving might be passed into the second division without Mr. FIELDING.
being compelled to undergo the open competition.
Progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George William Fowler: What business will be taken to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Land Bill of the Minister of the Interior and if we reach Supply the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.

Feidat, June 26, 1908.