Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-by Mr. Sproule- asked :
1. Is the government aware that in a rifle practice on the Rock 1 iffo ranges recently a de-

fective cartridge shell in a Boss rifle is said to have exploded?
2.	Does the government instruct the militia force in the effect of exposing cordite cartridges to heat?
3.	Are the riflemen instructed that a cartridge at 100 degrees temperature has a very much greater explosive force than one at 60?
4.	Was the rifle injured bv the reported explosion referred to?
5.	How many times are the Canadian cartridge shells capable of being reloaded?
6.	How many times must the United States cartridge shells stand reloading?
7.	Is the government aware that it was reported regarding the foregoing defective cartridge shell that a Boss rifle had exploded?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	An accident to a Ross rifle in the hands of Private Fields, A.S.C., has Ween reported to the department, which the officer commanding No. 5 Company, A.S.C. states, he believes was due to a defective or overloaded cartridge.
2.	Musketry Regulations, 1905, state that ammunition is not to be exposed to extreme heat or cold, and this fact is impressed on all musketry instructors.
3.	Answered in No. 2.
4.	The damage is reported as follows :
' The extractor was blown out-bolt cover slightly damaged and stock slightly checked.'
5.	Canadian shells are capable of being reloaded as many times as any other shells loaded with same materials. They are not, however, reloaded for service ammunition at all, nor are service cartridges reloaded by any European power.
6.	For testing purposes United States cartridges are required to stand reloading twenty times, and they will actually stand It twenty-fie times, but all cartridges issued for service are made with new cases.
7.	The newspaper reports to that effect are on file in the Department. The matter will be further investigated.


MR. CHARLAN, TOBACCO EXPERT.
Mr. CLEMENTS asked :: What salary is paid by the government to Mr. Charlan, tobacco expert, and what was the total amount of his expenses paid by the government, including salary, for the last fiscal year ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: Mr. Charlan's present salary
is Sl,800.
Salary, 1907-8	$1,700 00
Travelling, 1907-8	 1,137 26


$2,837 26 TIMBER PERMITS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Are settlers permitted to cut timber in township 39, range 11, west of the second meridian?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: 2.	What licenses or permits to cut timber have been issued in respect of township 39, range 11, west of the second meridian?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: >
1.	Yes.
2.	None.


WHITEHORSE TOWNSITE.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What quantity of land was comprised in the townsite of Whitehorse?
2.	What part of this has been sold, to whom, at what date and for what price?
3.	What part has the government retained, and how is it divided?
1. Is it the intention of the government to dispose of the portion retained by it other than in lots?
5. What is the size of the lots as subdivided?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	The subdivided portions of lots 1, 2. 3 and 4 in group 5 of the Yukon Territory;, comprising an area of 40 acres each, or 160 acres in all.
2.	Lot No 1 (40 acres) sold to W. W. B. Mclnnes, 3rd March, 1900 at $10 per acre. Lot No. 2 (40 acres) sold to Geo. W. Mitchell, 3rd March, 1900, at $10 per acre. Lot No. 3 (40 acres) sold to C. F. Mclsaac, 3rd March, 1900 at $10 per acre. Lot No. 4 (40 acres) sold to Duncan O. Fraser, 3rd March, 1900 at $10 per acre.
3.	Government retains one-third of the blocks of lots in the subdivided townsite, comprising blocks 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 23, 26, 29, 34, 37, 40, 44, 37 and 57.
4.	No.
5.	Size of town lots as subdivided 30 by 100 feet, 44 by 100 feet, 50 by 100 feet.
Attached is a plan of the townsite in question, showing the subdivision, the government blocks, and the size of lots.


DREDGING AT OROMOCTO SHOALS.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Has a contract been made for dredging at Oromocto shoals, New Brunswick? If so, with whom and at what price?
2.	Who were the tenderers and what were the offers ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1 and 2. No contract has yet -been let for dredging at Oromocto Shoals ; the following tender was received from Maritime Dredging and Construction Co :	Scow
measurement, rock $17, other material 50 cents ; material cast over, rock, $19, other materials 50 cents.


DREDGING CONTRACTS IN NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: Works made with G. S. Mayes of that city, when were these contracts made, and what is the contract price in each case?
2.	Were tenders called for? If so, who were the tenderers and what were the prices?
3.	What payments have been made to Mr. Mayes ?
4.	What quantity of various materials has he removed under each contract?


Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works :
1.	(a) Dredging at Sand Point and Rodney Slips, (b) First contract signed 30tli September, 1905 ; second contract, 21st September, 190G.	(c) contract prices for
Sand Point :
Class 1-Solid rock or boulders .. . .$8 60
Class 2-Other materials	 0 55
For Rodney Slip :
Class 1-Solid rock	19 90
Class 2-Stones less than 2 years, not
less than half a yard	 5 60
Class 3-Other materials	 0 90
2. (a) Yes. (b) For Sand Point:		
	Class 1.	Class 2.
G. S. Mayes	..$8 60	$0 55Haney & Miller	.. 3 25	1 00For Rodney Slip :	Class 1,	Class 2.	Class 3.G. S. Mayes . .$19 90	$5 t)0	$0 903.	On first contract	$227,790 00
On second contract, including
400 foot extension	 201,512 00
On contract between Mayes and city of St. John, afterwards assumed by the department.. 25,000 00 On all these contracts 10 per cent is still withheld by the department.
4.	First contract:
Cub. Yds.
Class 1	 1,345
Class 2	439,159
Second contract :
Class 1	 788
Class 2	 HI
Class 3	138,410
400 foot extension :	Class 1, 14 cub.
yds.; Class 2, 3 cub. yds.; Class 3, 91,933*.
DREDGES REGISTERED IN CANADA. Mr. BENNETT asked :
Was it a condition in calling for tenders for dredging at St. John, New Brunswick, harbour in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, that only dredges could be employed which were registered in Canada at the time of filing the tenders ?


William Pugsley: For St. John, no ; for other harbours, yes.
PAYMENTS TO FOG SIGNAL COMPANY. Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Bennett-asked :
1.	How much has been paid by the Department of Marine and Fisheries to the Canadian Fog Signal Company, of Toronto, in each fiscal year from 1902 to date?
2.	How much has been paid by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in each fiscal
year from 1902 to the International and Marine Signal Company for gas buoys and other appliances ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.
1903-4	$ 16,600 00
1904-	5	
428,298	121905-	6	
46,900	711906-	7	
55,015	201907-	8	
59,648	211906-	7	
238,283	711907-	8	
198,921	311908-	9	
3,700	49


PAYMENTS TO THOMAS L. WILLSON AND OTTAWA CARBIDE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	How much has been paid by the Marine
and Fisheries Department to Thomas L. Willson, of Ottawa, for gas buoys and other aids to navigation in each fiscal year from 1902 to date?	_	,
2.	How much has been paid by the Marine and Fisheries Department to the Ottawa Carbide Company in each fiscal year from 1902 to date?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	1904-5,	$192,500 ; 1905-6,	$336,104.65 ;
1906-7, $14,341.63.
2.	1902-3, $616.70 ; 1903-4, $5,464.19 ; 1904-5 $11,088.43 [DOT] 1905-6, $14,346.39 ; 1906-7, $19,117.27; 1907-8, $23,431.41; 1908-9, $6,388.65.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-MR. RICARD.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Blain-asked :
Is Mr. Ricard still-mail conductor between Nicolet and Montreal ?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: Mr. Ricard. while still in the service is not actually performing the duties of a railway mail clerk.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-MR. JOHN O'SH AU GHNESS Y.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	Has Mr. John O'Shaughnessy, of Nicolet, a pass to travel on the Intercolonial Railway?
2.	Has he any permission to travel either in the express or in the mail car?
Rodolphe Lemieux: 1 and 2. No permission has been given any such party to travel in mail car.


NEW POST OFFICE AT NICOLET.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Is the new post office at Nicolet finished?
2.	If so, is it open to the public, and since
when ?	.
3.	Who is the postmaster at Nicolet, and is the present incumbent permanent?
4.	Have requests been recently made to have the present postmaster replaced; by whom
[Stage Direction]
were such requests made; whom did they recommend; and what were the answers to such requests?
5.	Was a request made to allow the registrar to occupy the upper part of the new post office, and what was the answer thereto?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster Geuei'al) :: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Miss Margaret Chillas.
4.	Yes. Verbal requests to that effect have been made by several citizens, who recommended Mr. Narcisse Jutras for that office. Under consideration.
5.	(a) Yres. (b) Permission was refused on the ground that the building is intended exclusively for federal purposes.
(b) Tenders received for Digby :


CONTRACTS POR DREDGING AT YARMOUTH-DREDGING WEYMOUTH, N.S.
William Humphrey Bennett: 
William Pugsley: Tenders have been accepted and contracts will be immediately entered into, for Digby, with Maritime Dredging and Construction Company, for Yarmouth, with Dominion Dredging Company, Limited.
Price per cubic yard.
Maritime Dredging and Construction Co., Ltd.
Dominion Dredging Co., Ltd	
W. J. Poupore Co., Ltd	
H. A. Drury & Co	
Scow measurement.
Rock.
[DOT]$ cts.
17 00 5 CO
5 5u 27 00
Other mate rials.
cts.
0 50 0 GO 0 05 0 82%
Material cast over.
Rock.
$ cts.
19 00 5 00 5 00 15 00
Other
materials.
cts.
0 50 0 40 0 20 0 72
For Yarmouth :				
Dominion Dredging Co., Ltd	5 00	0 50 0 50	5 00 19 00	
Maritime Dredging and Construction Co., Ltd	17 00			
W. J. Poupore Co., Ltd		5 50 19 00 27 00			0 20
G. S. Mayes 					
H. A. Drury & Co. ...				0 64
				
Following tenders have been received for Weymouth but no contract has been let.
Maritime Dredging and Construction Co., Ltd
Dominion Dredging Co., Ltd	
W. J. Poupore Co., Ltd	
H, A. Drurv & Co


OTTAWA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: ![DOT] What amount of money has been expended to January 1, 1908, by the Ottawa Improvement Commission, and from what sources was this money derived?
2.	What is the estimate of the commission to complete the work now projected?
3.	What was expended during the last calendar year for maintenance and repairs?
4.	What is the estimate made by the commission of the yearly amount required for


Mr. BERGERON.: 17 00	0 50	19 00	0 505 00	0 70	5 00	0 505 50	0 75	5 00	0 2027 00	0 821	15 00	0 72maintenance and repairs when the works have been completed ?	'
5. What portion of the work has been already completed, and what additional new work is at present proposed to complete the improvements?


Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) ;	.
Total expenditure to January 1, 1908, $787,377.87. Sources from which money was derived : Government grant, $510,000 ; Sale of debentures, $270,373.39 ; Bank in-

terest, $1,330.31. Miscellaneous :	Public
Works Department, work and material, $1,778.26; Department of Militia and Defence, for work done, $436.50; Town of Shawville, for road roller, $299.05; City of Ottawa, for Bronson park, $1,000 ; Refreshment privilege. Rockliffe park, $140 ; Sundries, $90.93, $3,744.74 ; Total, $785,448.44.
The overdraft of $1,929.43 was covered on the 2nd January, 1908, by the quarterly instalment of $15,000 of the annual grant,
2.	$10,000 to complete Rockliffe park ; $2" 000 to complete National park ; $5,000 to complete Clemow avenue; $5,000 to complete Monkland avenue; $22,000 to complete Patterson's creek parks.
3.	Maintenance and repairs :	Strathcona
park, $1,133.31 ; Rockliffe park, $2,140.28 ; King Edward avenue, $1,857.83 ; Somerset street park, $616.97 : Rideau canal driveway $9,326.18 ; Minto bridge. $150 ; King Edward avenue park, $476,23; Total, $15,700.80.
4.	$20,000.
5.	Works completed :	Princess Louise
Vista, Minto bridges, Canada Atlantic Railway subway, Dow's lake causeway, Rideau canal driveway, King Edward avenue park, King Edward avenue, Somerset street park, Strathcona park.
No new works other than those mentioned in answer to No, 2 have been approved.


COMMISSION FOR RENEWAL OP LOAN.
George Eulas Foster: What commission and to whom was it paid for the renewal in 1904 and 1907, respectively, cf the 1874 loan?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: 
SATURDAY SITTINGS.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved :: That when this House adjourns on Tuesday nest it stand adjourned to Thursday next.
That when this House adjourns on Friday next and on subsequent Fridays, to the end of the session, it stand adjourned to the following day at eleven, a.m., and the government orders have precedence after routine business.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Perhaps it might be well to add after ' routine business ' the words ' and questions.' Has the right hon. gentleman any objection to that ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No objection.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called :
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise
to a question of privilege. There has appeared lately in the city of Montreal a pamphlet which is now being circulated- whether it is authentic or not I do not know-addressed by Rev. Mr. Dumesnil, priest of the diocese of St. Hyacinthe to His Excellency the Papal Ablegate, Monseigneur Sbaretti. This letter is supposed to contain explanations concerning the old religious feuds in the province of Quebec. I have nothing to say about the letter, as I have said I do not know whether it is authentic or not, but the pamphlet is prefaced by a letter anonymously signed ' P.M.G.' This preface presents the letter to the public. I have been asked by several parties if the cabalistic letters 'P.M.G.' means Postmater General. I have received myself this morning a bundle of these papers. I do not think the letter was intended for circulation as it is a private memorandum written by the Rev. Mr. Dumesnil to the papal ablegate. I am quite positive it was not meant for publication and evidently the letter has been stolen in some way or another and is now published with the intention of doing harm. It is a confidential document and I wish to at once declare that neither directly nor indirectly have I lent my name to any such publication and I wish to add that the letters ' P.M.G.' should not convey the impression that the letter has been published with my authority .



DOMINION LANDS ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on (Bill 181) to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the Public Lands of the Dominion.-My. Oliver.
On section 76-powers of the Governor in Council.
Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE.: This section provides the authority which the Governor in Council may have in setting apart land. I would like to add a clause to this section providing for the setting apart of some land for the purposes of higher education which is not now provided for although we have disposed of all the lands, practically speaking, under the various sections of this Bill. We in the two western prairie provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are in identically the same position as they were in the province of Manitoba, the Land Act operating similarly in the three provinces. Manitoba has had set apart for it a portion of the public domain for the maintenance of its university. In the province of Alberta a university has already been established. It is expected to be in operation next fall, but no provision has been made for a fund for its maintenance. The province of Saskatchewan has already pledged itself to the policy of establishing a university and has taken the initial steps to do so.' I would therefore move the addition of a subsection (m) to provide that the Governor in Council may:

Set apart and provide lands to be sold for the purpose of maintaining a fund to be used for the encouragement of higher education in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Frank Oliver: This motion is one that I would hardly think could be fairly or reasonably dealt with at the present time and in the consideration of the Bill as it is before the House. This Bill purports to deal with the administration of lands for settlement. That is the purpose of the Bill and it is to achieve that purpose that the revision and amendments have been made. The question of setting apart lands in aid of higher education or of any special purpose in any province is necessarily a matter of general policy which may and should, in my judgment, be dealt with as a separate question, a question of first importance that is entitled to consideration on its merits and not as a matter of the administration of the lands of the country for settlement. There is a provision in this section that covers the point, permitting the Governor in Council to withdraw lands from settlement for that or any other purpose. Subsection (e) provides :
Withdrawing from disposal under this Act any tract or tracts of land, provided that the reason for withdrawal shall be set forth in the order effecting the withdrawal.
That is to say the Governor in Council may, under the provisions of the Act as it stands, at such time as that policy is decided on, if it is decided on, withdraw lands for the purpose which the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. W. McIntyre) has suggested, That, I think, covers all that is necessary to be covered in the present Bill, and I would think it would not be warranted to, at the present time, enlarge the present provisions of the Bill or precipitate a discussion in regard to this important question at this stage of the session. The Bill as it stands and for the purpose for which it is introduced is certainly sufficiently important and sufficiently cumbersome without introducing this further question of importance. I repeat that in my estimation the matter which my hon. friend has suggested might and should be dealt with as a separate question as a matter of policy decided on by parliament after full and due consideration and discussion with the various provinces interested, and in the meantime the provisions of the Bill under subsection 3 of this section are sufficient.


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of fact has there been any reservation for the purpose of higher education or are the only reservations of land those that are commonly called school lands ?


Frank Oliver: There is no reservation for the purpose of education in Saskatchewan and Alberta except the school lands which are intended as an aid to primary schools ; but in Manitoba there is a reservation made by reason of some arrangement Mr. W. McINTYRE.
with the provincial government which, of course, would be just as necessary in the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan if it were to be made. That is higher education is on the responsibility of the provinces and any grant of land would be made on some sort of an agreement or understanding with the provinces.


George Eulas Foster: To be utilized by the provinces under agreement?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Mr. HERRON.: I hope the minister will be able to carry out the principle of the resolution. It is on the line which the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) and myself have been advocating for two sessions of parliament. I think it is very important to the future welfare of the provinces and I hope the provision is made amply clear, as suggested by the minister.


George Eulas Foster: My sympathies are entirely with the idea of setting aside this land for the purpose of higher education. The arrangements that were made at an early period in the provision for the school lands have resulted in an excellent provision for common school purposes; but it rather seems a pity that with such a wealth of lands In such sparsely settled dominions and where the difficulties of pioneer work will be great for many, many years, a portion of those lands have not been reserved for the purposes of higher education. That is the kind of education that in new countries, developing as ours is, requires some extraordinary aid. Circumstances of living and the like of that tend to draw the attention and the energies of the people upon what is at first absolutely necessary and in that category, of course, we place common school education. That would leave the higher school education, the universities, &e., rather unprovided for and in the natural course of development, it would be the last which would be provided for. These lands will increase greatly in value as the country fills up and a million or so of acres of fairly good lands set apart for the purposes of higher education might, in the course of twenty-five or thirty or forty years be a most valuable endowment for those purposes. I know that in the United States some of the finest of their educational institutions have been started and are to-day sustained upon the provisions made by the setting aside of public lands. I do not see why the policy could not be carried out here nor why these lands should not be ear-marked. The minister says they have the authority under that subsection. That is true but it is not specified, and public attention is therefore not called to it, nor is that idea impressed by it on the government. The government might do it and it might not ; tile government might set aside these lands for any purpose and if that purpose were carried out by a reservation of a good, gen-

erous area of our unappropriated public lands for the purposes that have been indicated in the amendment of the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. W. McIntyre). I have always been in favour of that and have advocated it in the House and I should say the time has come when we ought to embody that provision in the Act because our lands are passing away and the sooner we hold out an inducement of that kind and nail the government to such a policy the better it will be for the country and it will also be a great advertisement for the country.


Mr. LAKE.: I would strongly urge upon the minister that this is the time to set apart a grant of land as an endowment for higher educational purposes. This matter was brought to the minister's attention by the hon. member for Calgary when the Lands Bill was introduced last year. In my humble judgment full provisions should now be made, the principle should be settled and embodied in this Bill. The minister must remember that the lands of the Northwest, at any rate those available in the prairie country, are rapidly being disposed of and in a very short time it will be a rather difficult matter to lay aside any tract of really first-class land in that portion of the country as an endowment for university purposes. This is not the first time that this matter has been brought to the attention of this government.
Five years ago the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories in passing an Act for the establishment of a university, asked that there should be a grant of land set apart as an endownment for university purposes. And although the minister says that it is possible for the government to lay apart a certain amount of land, under the subclauses of this section, as such endowment, still it is not likely they will do so without special sanction, and this is the time parliament should give its sanction for the laying aside of land for this specific purpose. The Minister again made the argument that a question such as this should not be dealt with on this particular Bill. In my opinion this is the Bill on which this question should be decided. There can be nothing in the minister's contention that at this stage of the session, there is not sufficient time to discuss this matter. It is the minister's own fault that this Bill was not brought down and dealt with very much earlier. It was promised in the speech from the Throne more than seven months ago and was not presented until we had been in session some six montjjs. There can be no excuse on his part therefore for delaying dealing with a question of this character because of the lateness in the session. I trust he will embody in this Bill a clause providing that a satisfactory portion of the public land be
set apart as an endowment for higher education. If these provinces had possession, as they should, of their own public domain, they would already have done so beyond doubt.


George Eulas Foster: If lands are set apart, there are of course two ways in which that could be done. They could be set apart in large tracts or in sections. A far better plan would be not to put large tracts in reserve but set apart sections of land not sold or unappropriated.


Wilbert McIntyre: I simply made the suggestion that the Governor in Council may set apart land, and I am fully seized with the fact that the details would be left to a later date.


Frank Oliver: I would much prefer that the amendment should not be passed, for the treason that necessarily any arrangement which has to be made, or anything which has to be done, must be done subject to an arrangement with the provinces concerned. It would be very much better to leave the government absolutely free to come to such arrangements as may be found desirable or necessary with the provinces. We have the power to make reservations under the provisions of the Bill; and that being the case, until some understanding is arrived at with the provinces, I think the government should not be further directed in the matter.


George Eulas Foster: This is a very dilatory government.
On section 76-powers of Governor in Council.


Richard Stuart Lake: I hope there will be a provision for publishing the order in council in ihe ' Gazette.'


Frank Oliver: When the different sections are passed, if my hon. friend will call attention to that matter, we shall probably come to an agreement and draft a clause.


Richard Stuart Lake: The last clause which gives the minister power to deal with special cases should require publication in the ' Gazette.'


Frank Oliver: That can be done when framing a section as suggested by my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: Do you appoint the Commissioner of Dominion Lands a deputy commissioner and local agents under subsection 1. Are any new appointments contemplated ?


Frank Oliver: This is to show that the officers mentioned in the paragraph shall be appointed by order in council while the subordinate officers will be appointed by the minister.


George Eulas Foster: With reference to subsection F, that is a pretty large clause to

put into tlie hands of the government without restriction :
Authorize an exchange of land with any province, corporation or person provided the reason for such exchange shall be set forth in the order.
Suppose that in a time of dire political necessity the government should he told that if they would make an exchange of half a million acres of land, not very desirable, owned by a company, and give the company a good square deal, it might be to their benefit. There is nothing to prevent the government doing that under this section. This is a change from what parliament lias authorized and from what is actually carried out, and which parliament might not authorize if it knew from the first the full effect of the change. The minister knows what I mean. You bring down an Act making an appropriation of land ; this appropriation is defined within certain limits. Then the government can go to work, under this section, and absolutely change the allocation. If this only referred to small areas such as a quarter-section, I can see where it has to be done very often, but it is not limited to small transactions. If a man has squatted on an Indian reserve, you may want to give him an exchange of land so as ito get him off the reserve, and it is right the government should have the power to do that. But this goes much further. It is proper and right, you must have the power; but we cannot lose sight of the fact that it may go into those very large transactions. I should think that the power could be in some way restricted.


Frank Oliver: No doubt, there is an absolute necessity for the provision in order to meet the small cases the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) has mentioned. There was a provision under the revised statutes to provide for exchanges with the province of Manitoba, but no other provision, though We have found it necessary to go on and make exchanges, I presume, without the full sanction of the statute, but under the assumption that we have the right to do it. I do not know how an effective provision could be framed limiting the authority and still effective, because, if the government is to have authority to transfer one quarter-section, of course they could merely multiply the quarter-section to cover any area that might be desired. However, I think that if my hon. friend studies the Act minutely, he will find many cases throughout the Act where there is technical authority in the Governor in Council to make large disposition of the public domain. Perhaps, it should not be so theoretically, but, in administration, it seems necessary. And, not only is it absolutely necessary, but so far as administration has gone yet, the responsibility of the government has, I think, been sufficient to guard Mr. POSTER.
the rights of parliament in the matter. 1 do not imagine that, in any case, the government, or anybody would undertake, under the provisions of this subsection, to make large and unwarranted dispositions of the public domain, because they have always their accountability to parliament.


George Eulas Foster: But then the mischief is done. And the majority is solid.


Frank Oliver: But if it is mischief, I am sure, my hon. friend sitting where he is, could not wish anything more than the government should do that thing, because he would then be in a position to claim that there should be a change of sides in the House. I think, whatever government is in power, unless it is far beyond anything we can reasonably expect the electors of Canada to choose, we may be satisfied that the merely political consideration, such as I have suggested, will be sufficient to restrain them, even if we throw aside altogether the ordinary and proper responsibility of office and every intent in the passing of the statute.


Mr. FOWLER.: But we do not always find it work out as the minister suggests. Not in his own department, but in the Department of Public Works, there was an exchange made greatly to the disadvantage of the country. A portion of land at Bonaven-ture station in the city of Montreal was by that department exchanged for land on a back street that could not possibly be of advantage to the public. Instead of selling the land as they should have done, they exchanged it for land on a back street. So, it is a dangerous thing to put such power in the hands of the government as is provided by this section of the Bill.


Frank Oliver: The technical danger must be admitted. And, certainly, if the government is not seized of its responsibility, it may certainly do harm to the country. But, as I have said, I do not think my hon. friends on the other side could wish for anything better than that the government should do what is palpably wrong, and thereby cause their being thrown from power which is the only remedy for such cases.


George William Fowler: Surely, he does not think the opposition is actuated by such motives as he suggests. We take politics more seriously. This is not merely a game of the ins and the outs. We are charged with responsibilities to the people of the country, and we recognize that fact and try to legislate along that line. I am sorry that a responsible minister of the Crown should give utterance to such an idea as that we should let this legislation go through on the ground that, if the government does misuse the power we put in their hands, it would be to our party advantage. I think that the minister, on reflection, will change his mind with regard to that.	,


Frank Oliver: I have only declared the fundamental principle of responsible government, that is all.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know about that,
I think that after the declaration of the Minister of the Interior, we ought to be still more chary about putting this large power in his hands. He seems to think that public trust amounts to nothing, that this is a mere game of politics, and that, provided you gain a political advantage over your opponent, it makes no difference that what parliament is doing is alienating absolutely a very valuable franchise from the people. You cannot alienate the public domain without getting authority from parliament. The case cited is equivalent to alienation. If by means of transfer, you exchange a valuable piece of territory for a piece of territory which is worth comparatively nothing, it is a real alienation of the public domain. You give away value that the country held and you secure for the country little or no advantage in return. It has been shown that party advantage is a very sweet thing to the party at present in power, and has covered up a multitude of what you would think might be sequential damages to acts of this kind. But the government seeking a present political advantage, feeling that it can gain it by a certain transaction, is apt to confide in the majority behind it and to feel that, when the thing is done it can depend upon the jjatient and docile following. And feeling this, it will take the chances and fight it out with the people afterwards, secure in the advantage that it gains for the present. Suppose, for instance, that the minister found the government were in a position where they could gain the support of a very large corporation in the west if they would help that corporation to get rid of certain lands they have had which were of lesser value and put in their place lands of very much more value. That would be a temptation to the government, and I am very doubtful if this government is strong enough to withstand that temptation. When they give away the public funds, as they have done in the Moncton and Halifax land deals, and in many others, great party advantage through some such transaction might appeal so strongly to them that they would forget the disadvantage to the country. Through the temporary advantage gained by such transactions, they might come back with a large majority, then they would appeal io that majority to see them through, which the majority seem inclined to do in the case of this government at least. Therefore I think this is a very dangerous clause. I doubt if you can find in constitutionally governed countries any such large power as that given to the government. Recollect, the power is large in its scope because the government has the whole of the public domain in its hands. Millions upon millions of acres are covered by this. They have so absolute a
power over this public domain that to let them deal with it by order in council, is,
I think, a pretty drastic piece of legislation, and you have to have almost superhuman faith in the government to grant it. There might be some restrictive words put in-
' Authorize an exchange of land with any province, corporation or person.' I acknowledge the government has to have a power for these small transactions, but they might be restricted as to large transactions.


Robert Laird Borden: You could make a restriction in respect to an exchange with any corporation or person toy confining it to a certain number of acres.


Frank Oliver: That would be rather difficult at times ; for instance, in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway grants. They own a large area of lands spread over a large part of the Northwest. As their land has been brought under survey from time to time, people have been found in occupation of that land, and we have had to make exchanges with them in order to safeguard the rights of these people. If you allowed the area that has already been exchanged in that way with the Canadian Pacific Railway, you would be allowing a very large area, and yet these are all transactions with the one company.


George Eulas Foster: Can't you reduce it to small or individual transactions?


Frank Oliver: If that would be any safeguard I am willing to accept it. I do not wish the government to be in the position of being able to handle transactions of a magnitude that should properly be sanctioned toy parliament. I recognize that it is necessary that we should have the power of exchange, and that it should be sufficiently flexible to enable us to arrive at an equitable adjustment without serious difficulty. Unlimited power is given to the government in many particulars. In section 32, sale of agricultural lands ; section 33, grazing, hay and marsh lands ; section 34, irrigation ; section 35, water-power ; section 36, lands reserved for the protection of any water supply; section 37, mineral lands ; section 38, quarriable stone-all these are at the discretion of the Governor General in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: There is one difference ; under section 33, 34 and 35, the Governor General is authorized to make regulations, and in section 77 every such regulation remains in force only until the last day of the then next session of parliament. There is a distinction made in section 77 in that regard; the orders in council do not seem to be subject to that restriction, in other words, general regulations under the sections to which the minister has alluded, remain in force only until the last day of the next session of parliament; but this does not apply to orders in council. Thus, if you take an individual instance where the

object to be attained is effected by a special order in council, that order in council is not subject to any qualification of that kind. Perhaps the minister might think it advisable to amend section 77 in that regard. Then you would have this condition of affairs: Within certain limits the minister may dispose of lands by homestead entries, and so forth, but where the Governor in Council, under the provisions of the Act, disposes of lands in large quantities, or where he makes general regulations for the purpose of disposing of lands in larger quantities, the orders and regulations as well should remain in force only until the end of the next session of parliament. I do not see why the principle applied to the regulations should not equally apply to orders.


Frank Oliver: An order is a specific and complete transaction. Transactions under the regulations which have been passed by the Governor in Council would not be vitiated by subsequent legislation by the House. So an order, which, is a complete transaction, if it is to be of any value, must stand, otherwise every transaction must await completion until-the House sat and until it was approvied-that would be a cumbersome method of transacting this particular kind of business, the essence of which is that it should be transacted within a short time. It would be a hardship on the settler to delay him in transacting this particular kind of business, the essence of which is that it should be transacted within a short time. It would be a hardship on the settler to delay him in securing an adjustment of his property until the order is approved of. Then if the adjustment were a finality upon the order being issued, of course parliament would have no approval to give except the approval of the action of the government under the system of (responsible government, declaring that the government had acted improperly.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the minister is right as to the effect of my proposed amendment in regard to the order, postponing the operation of the order until parliament had approved. Would not that be a proper course to take in respect to large transactions ?


Frank Oliver: In large transactions undoubtedly.


Robert Laird Borden: Then why not say in section 77 :
Every such regulation and every such order in council disposing of lands in a quantity exceeding so many acres, shall remain in force only until the end of the session of parliament.
That would make the minister absoultely free in respect of small transactions, the validity of the transaction would not be dependent on the approval of parliament, but in respect of large transactions involv-


Robert Laird Borden: ing enormous quantities of land, it would undoubtedly hold up the transactions until parliament had an opportunity of passing upon it.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest words like these to be put in clause 77 :
To authorize an exchange of lands made necessary under existing Acts with any province, corporation or person, provided the exchange is restricted to current and individual transactions, and the reason for such exchange shall be set forth in the order.
Would that allow it to be worked ?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid ' current and individual transactions ' would not limit the magnitude of the transactions.


George Eulas Foster: Can't you make an arrangement with a large corporation for a wholesale exchange ?


Frank Oliver: I would be inclined to favour the suggestion of the leader of the opposition as to an amendment to section 77. I agree that the government do not want to assume authority to make large-transactions without the sanction of parlia- * ment; that is a doubtful policy from any point of view. But small transactions should be made with all promptitude and should be closed on the responsibility of the government. Probably in section 77 there could be inserted the words that would be necessary to embody the idea that my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle has been discussing on several occasions. Let section 77 stand for the present, go on with the other sections and possibly we can during the noon hour draft some amendment.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 79-administration.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would again call the minister's attention to the position that he occupies in this matter. He might find it necessary to exchange school lands for other lands, and he is the sole arbiter again as between these two branches, dealing with Dominion lands and school lands. In one ease he is administering a trust fund and in the other he is administering the lands for the government. It is a very difficult position to be put in. I should think it very desireable that the school lands should' be under the control of the .provincial authorities so that there could be negotiations between two separate authorities when school lands are being exchanged.


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate the advantage of being relieved from responsibility in the matter, but I am dealing with the Bill from the point of view of the administration of the land for the settler,, leaving aside these other matters, which are necessarily matters of negotiation between the Dominion government and the government of the provinces, or the Dominion government and the Hudson Bay Company, as the case may be.

On section 80-reservation of certain lands.


Richard Stuart Lake: I think that the power of reservation or the removal of reservation ought to be in the hands of the Governor in Counlcil and not the minister. The benefit which would be derived from having the Governor in Council deal with these matters rather' than the minister would be the publicity which would be given. If it is the minister there would really be no means of giving the general public notice as to what lands are being reserved for this purpose, and again as to what lands have been withdrawn from the reservation and once more thrown open to the public. If it is done by order in council the order in council is published in the ' Gazette ' and full notice is given to the public.


George Eulas Foster: Outside of the question of notice, I think the minister will be well advised if he puts that responsibility on council. The different members of the government have to bear the responsibility of anything that is done, and we have had instances heretofore in which, in the administration of the department, the minister took extraordinary powers to himself, using them in a verv bad way, in a way in which I am quite certain they would not have been used if council had had the decision of the matter in their own hands. In such an important matter I think it is well that the power should be vested in the government and not held by a certain minister.


Frank Oliver: The purpose of the section giving the minister authority is to meet this condition : Information is received that it is necessary in the public interest that there should be a reservation from settlement. If that authority is in the hands of the minister that reservation can be made forthwith, but if it is not in the hands of the minister there are times when there might be days and weeks elapse before it is possible to have the matter dealt with by council. During the interval very great complications may arise. No public interest can possibly suffer by having this authority of reservation in the hands of the minister, while the public interest may suffer very seriously if the right of reservation is in hands which prevent the authority from being exercised at the moment, because, while it may be that people in occupation have no rights .except those which are given them in administration, my hon. friend knows very well that there is nothing more difficult, or disadvantageous, or more distasteful, from every point of view, than to deal with people who have entered into occupation without any notice that the land was reserved. I would urge very strongly that this section be left in this way, because there is no desire to make an undue reservation or to interfere in
any way with the public interest, but the object is that if there be a reservation there should be authority to make it promptly so as to prevent further complication. Of course, it is just as right that the authority that makes the reservation shall also have the power to withdraw it. The Governor in Council has the authority to dispose of these lands, but the power of reservation should be so placed that it would be possible to exercise it with promptitude.


George Eulas Foster: I give all possible weight to the argument as to the necessity of administering matters by the government promptly. Of course, you could not carry that to extremes, because it would make government by council impossible. But I do not think there would be any great difficulty in getting a meeting of council for the purpose of approving of a recommendation of the minister. There are not many seasons of the year during which it is impossible to get a quorum of the council together, and it is a pretty wide power to put in the minister's hands. I do not say that my hon. friend would abuse it, but I say it is capable of being abused, and it is this possibility of abuse that we should guard against, provided we do not thereby unduly hamper the operations of government.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend will consider the matter carefully, I think he will see that there is no possibility of abuse, or that the public interest will suffer, while there is a possibility of the public interest suffering very seriously if the power is not exercised promptly. So long as the right to dispose of such land ns may be reserved is in the hands of the Governor in Council, or in the hands of parliament, no public interest can possibly suffer by the reservation of this land being made by the minister for the purpose of securing promptitude of action.


Richard Stuart Lake: The latter part of the section made me think it was advisable that this power should be in the Governor in Council. The public interest might suffer if there was not sufficient publicity as to the throwing open of these lands after they had been temporarily reserved by the minister. I have known men to apply for lands which had been reserved for wood or hay purposes, but others got the entry subsequently simply because the fact that the reservation had been withdrawn was unknown to the first applicants.


George Eulas Foster: The minister is correct with reference to the reservation, but still there is some question as to the notice that ought to be given.


Frank Oliver: There is something to be said in favour of the suggestion as to opening a reservation by order in council, but

it seems contrary to the natural precedent to say that the minister may make a reservation and only the Governor in Council can withdraw it. I think the notice is dealt with sufficiently in the present reservation, but we might insert that the reservation shall only be withdrawn after due notice has been given.


Mr.   POSTER@: That would perhaps do. We could insert the words ' after due notice being given.'


Frank Oliver: I would be agreeable to that.


Richard Stuart Lake: The notice should be given in the official ' Gazette.'


Frank Oliver: Wherever else it is given it should be given in the land office. We have reserved a clause to consider the notice that should be given for opening a township to homestead entry and the same notice in that case might be applied to this.


George Eulas Foster: Let it go with your present amendment and if it is necessary we can come back to it.


Frank Oliver: Yes.
On section S3-forms may be varied by minister.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is not the first part of the section very arbitrary in that it gives power to vary the forms?


Frank Oliver: Special cases arise in which it is necessary to make some exception to the statutory form and this section enables that to be done.


George Eulas Foster: The schedule is part of the Act, and the minister is therefore asking power to vary a statute.


Frank Oliver: It is customary to make statutory provision for the variation of a form, but the form must always be in conformity with the Act. This Act,, as do others, contemplates the possibility of a particular form not meeting each case.
On section 84-employees of department not to purchase Dominion lands.


George Eulas Foster: Does that section cover all the abuses that are possible? It prohibits employees from purchasing Dominion lands except by authority or to locate land warrant or scrip or to act as agent of any person in that behalf. Does that prohibit Dominion land employees from acting as agents for purchasers of Dominion lands ? If you don't allow a man to buy Dominion lands himself why should you allow him to act for anybody else in the purchase?


Frank Oliver: We don't.


George Eulas Foster: Then the section prohibits him from acting as agent for location of land warrant or scrip or for the purchase of Dominion lands?


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: That is the intention.


George Eulas Foster: Do not some of your Dominion land officers whose whole time should be devoted to the work of the department, constantly engage in buying and selling company's land for interested parties and for which they get large commissions? They have an advantage over others in that respect and they draw customers because of their general familiarity with the land conditions in the district which they acquire by reason of their official position. The minister knows his land officers in the west have been engaged in that kind of work and some of them have made large amounts of money. I don't think it is right they should use the land offices as their own offices and be employed in making pi'ivate deals for which they are paid a commission, instead of attending to the work of the government. It is an unfair advantage to give a government official over the man who has to get his knowledge as best he can without the advantage of being supported by a government salary. I think it would be salutary if the land officials of the government were precluded from engaging in that private work. What does the minister think about it.


Frank Oliver: The agents who are paid a salary which is intended to compensate them for their whole time, namely the land agents and their staff in the different offices, do not, we take it for granted and verily believe, traffic privately in lands as the hon. gentleman. suggests.
Mr. FOSTER, My hon. friend is taking too much for granted.


Frank Oliver: That may be. If they do that they are doing wrong.


George Eulas Foster: But they go on and do wrong for years and years.


Frank Oliver: If they do and it is brought to my attention I will guarantee there will either be a change in the land officer or a change in his methods.


George Eulas Foster: If has been brought to the attention of the minister, and he has done nothing.


Frank Oliver: I think not.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, he made a change; he translated the officer to a more honourable position with, if anything higher pay.


Frank Oliver: Allow me to complete my statement. There is no case that has come to my notice in which any agent who is paid a salary by the government for the whole of his time, has had transactions in real estate in any such way as the hon. gentleman suggests. I do not say that an agent who saves his money should not have the right to buy a piece of land.


George Eulas Foster: That is a different thing.

1151S


Frank Oliver: It is. We are speaking of those who are carrying on what may be called a real estate business, and I know of none of our land agents who are doing that. But when we come to sub-agents it is a different story and in the large majority of cases our sub-agents do transact a large amount of business. They are the only men practically that we can get to act as sub-agents, and they act as sub-agents because it is an advantage to them in their real estate business. I do not know how we are going to get away from that condition of things. We do not pay them for their whole time; we only pay them from $25 to $50 per month which covers their services and their office expenses and everything else and we could not get people to give their whole time for that remuneration. The sub-land office is given as a convenience to the public; it is not an office of record, it is an office at which to make applications and to give information in regard to the land. While there are disadvantages in the system, we do not feel that we could be required in any way to prevent. these sub-land agents from transacting real estate business or any other business they may see fit to transact so long as rve are not paying them a salary which would entitle us to the use of all their time. So far as the agents are concerned, to whom we pay a salary for their whole time we expect them not to engage in the real estate business, and if they do they are subject to our discipline and I think my hon. friend will find they will be disciplined. So far as the sub-agents are concerned the statement of the hon. gentleman is absolutely true, but I have no remedy to offer. I am not prepared to admit that there is any substantial evil which would necessitate our doing away with these sub-land agencies or establishing them on the basis of agencies and paying the necessary expenses.


Richard Stuart Lake: There is still a more dangerous practice in connection with some of the land agencies than that of allowing them to deal in land, and that is that subland agents are agents for loan companies. These sub-land agents are able in many instances to exercise a great deal of influence on a homesteader who in applying for his patent wishes to take a loan on the land. I would like to see it made a regulation that no land agent should also be the agent for a loan company. I think the minister will see that such a practice is open to abuse.


Frank Oliver: I would be very glad if I could meet the views of my hon. friend, but I do not see how we are going to give the public the accommodation of the subland offices, otherwise than under present conditions, without laying an undue burden upon the treasury. I would point out to my hon. friend, however, that the sub-land
agent has no authority whatever; he has nothing to do except to act as clerk and receive the applications, and it is upon the agent who is dependent upon the government for his livelihood that the decision rests as to *whether the applicant is entitled to his homestead. The sub-agent has no responsibility except that of acting as a receiving office for business with the head office and as a distributing office to give information to the public. But his office is of great advantage to the public. Those who were here a few days ago will remember how my hou. friends from Alberta (Mr. Herron) and Marquette (Mr. Roche) protested against the closing of certain offices. I would be glad to close many more, but difficult to do so if each time I am met with a protest.


Richard Stuart Lake: Provided the homesteader who applies for a patent is well informed and understands the position of the subagent, it is all right. But I know of an instance, in which a man showed me a printed notice from a sub-land agent informing him that he was lending money and this man who was applying for his papers was afraid he would have to go to this particular land agent in order to get liis loan. He thought he might have some difficulty with the land agent, and in order to conciliate him he had better take his loan from him. Would it not be possible for the minister to appoint sub-land agents who are not acting as real estate agents and loan agents ? There are business men in all the towns who are not engaged in either of these lines and could carry out the duties of a more, but it is difficult to do so if each time I am met with a protest.


Robert Laird Borden: If this section is going to be effective, it ought to go somewhat further. It says that no employee shall purchase any Dominion land. But there is nothing in the section to prevent any employee forming a small company, in which he may have almost the entire interest, and purchasing through that company. I would suggest an amendment in this way :
No officer or employee of or under the Department of the Interior shall directly or indirectly, in his own name or that of another, purchase or acquire any Dominion land or any interest therein, nor shall he he interested as a shareholder or otherwise, in any corporation or company purchasing or acquiring such land or interest therein, except on or under the authority of the Governor in Council.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that there is any particular objection to that, but I hardly think that the circumstances make it really necessary. We are not selling agricultural land. The evil mentioned has not occurred in the past to any great extent, but we desire to have the authority in the Act should it occur.


Robert Laird Borden: I will draft a clause.



11519


Mr. SPROULE.: My attention has been drawn to the fact that these sub-agents do not always work for the government but rather for themselves. They discourage the land seekers by telling them the good land in their locality has been all taken up, but that they will put them on the track where they can get good land to buy at reasonable figures. I have been written to several times to this effect, and the impression seems to be that some of these sub-agents are more anxious to do business for themselves than for the government. I know of the instance of one man who was trying to get a homestead and who left the country in disgust because there was so much manipulation between the agent and the sub-agent that he did not know where he was.


Frank Oliver: No doubt there has been too much of this thing. We have a very large number of sub-agents and they are a great convenience to the public in the transactions of land business. But for reasons I need not explain, we are almost confined in our selection to men who are in the real estate, insurance and lending money business. These three occupations generally go together.
' Mr. LAKE. Would it not be possible to have the postmasters appointed sub-agents ?


Frank Oliver: Sometimes, but very seldom. We have to do the best we can. A man who is in the business of real estate, insurance and lending money can do our business to the best advantage, as subagent of Dominion lands. The work he does in that department does not interfere with his own legitimate business. But it is different in the case of a postmaster or a man of any other occupation. He would have to lose so much time answering inquiries for answering which he got no adequate compensation, that he would refuse to answer and possibly become surly or even insolent. It is only a man who is in general touch with these conditions of real estate, insurance and loaning who finds that he can afford to take a sub-land agency on the terms we can afford to offer him, because it works in, as you might say, with his own business. That being the case, we are apt to find a sub-agent here or there who is quite willing to use improperly the advantage he has by reason of being our agent in transactions in these other lines of his business. When we find such a subagent, we have to change him and appoint somebody else. Sometimes we have to prosecute-we have prosecuted several and have displaced some. But we cannot, in the circumstances, always be sure that such conditions will not arise that such abuse will not sometimes occur, We do the best we can to prevent them, but, confined, as we are, practically, to that class of men for our sub-agents, and being compelled to keep such a large number of sub-agents, we are subject to the disadvantage, at times, that


Robert Laird Borden: my hon. friend has suggested. We can only do our best to find it, check it in every way we can, prosecute some, dismiss others and caution still others so as to keep up the service of the public. It is important in this sub-land office work that the person who has the sub-land agency should be in the first place, well informed in regard to land matters and should be, in the next place, of a temperament that will tend to have him deal with the public in a favourable manner, so that strangers who come in will feel that they are not insulted, or ill-treated, or treated brusquely, by one who is held out to them to be a representative of the government. It is easy for us to appoint a sub-agent at a place, but to find the man w7ho combines the qualifications and will take the agency on the terms we offer is not always an easy task.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section S4 stands.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 85-employees shall not give information without authority of minister.


Frank Oliver: This places a disability on any employee giving information with regard to discoveries made by him. In ' section 84 the person shall not traffic in land ; in 85 he shall not give out information in regard to land. In the old Act the two provisions were combined. We found difficulty in expressing what we wanted to in the one section, and have made two.


Mr.   POSTER@: Does it refer to minerals and valuable deposits?


Frank Oliver: It refers to anything connected with the natural resources of the country. Suppose a man is sent out to explore, except there was some provision such as this, some other person than the government might get the benefit of his information. This provides that he shall not disclose it to any except with the authority of the minister to whom he makes his report.
On section 86-registration.


Mr.   POSTER@: Is it not obligatory that until the title has issued all assignments must be registered in the department?


Frank Oliver: We only recognize an assignment which is registered in tl^e department. We do not know anybody else as the owmer and we hold out in this that when any transfer is made, if that transfer is to be recognized by us, it must be registered by us.
On section 87-transmission of patent lists to registrars.


Richard Stuart Lake: I suppose at the same time that lists of letters patent are sent to the registrar a notice will be sent to the

homesteader? It will be necessary to notify him that the patent has been issued.


Frank Oliver: The patent is sent to the patentee, the notice is sent to the registrar.


Richard Stuart Lake: From line 5 onward it says letters patent are to go to the registrar :
' All letters patent shall be transmitted to the registrar.'


Frank Oliver: The word 'list' should appear there, so that it will read :	' All
letters patent and lists of.'
On section 93,-remedy in case of conflicting grants.


George Eulas Foster: Why do you limit it? If it is an error it should be remedied.


Frank Oliver: It is dangerous to let such matters get cold and, of course, it can always be remedied by Act of parliament.
On section 95-deficiency in quantity mentioned in patent. .


George Eulas Foster: How far will that go? Here, for instance, is a party who buys, we will say, from a railway7 corporation or a local government, land which they had acquired from the Dominion government, and it is found in the transaction that the quantity of land purported to have been conveyed in the second instance is not the true quantity. Then, the company, or the local government, say that it is exactly what they received from the Dominion government. Is it possible to remedy an error of that kind under this clause?


Frank Oliver: When the claim is made within five years of the date of the original transfer.


George Eulas Foster: This is meant for a transaction of that kind?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
On section 99-ejectment of person wrongfully in possession.


Frank Oliver: This provision is intended to apply to cases of squatters or over-holding of homesteads. Up to the present we have had no satisfactory provision for absolute removal in case of their refusing to leave and we make provision here for obtaining an order of the courts and the enforcement of that order'.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Is there any compensation to be paid for improvements?


Frank Oliver: It is not dealt with in this section.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Will it be dealt with in any other part of the Bill?


Frank Oliver: I do not know that it is dealt with anywhere in the Bill.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not claim that a squatter has any particular rights, but sometimes he has improved the land and 3651
erected valuable buildings and it does seem to me there should be compensation paid him.


Frank Oliver: If we provide by statute that a squatter who goes on land probably against the order of the government, shall have a proprietary interest in his improvements we would be giving on one hand what we have refused on the other. I think it is very, much better that we should be in a position to secure respect for the orders we issue in regard to reservation of land and to leave it that any one who sees fit to go on land unauthorized should be at the discretion of the government. In any other wa.v you would encourage what you intend to discourage.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: In the past some persons have been led to believe that certain lands would be opened for homestead and they have made quite important improvements. It is a hardship that these poor men should have these improvements confiscated.


Frank Oliver: It is a hardship and for my part I desire to administer any such requirements of the law as leniently as possible. But still, in order to have the law respected you must be able to eject a man who is on the land without authority. If you give such a man vested rights in his improvements you will be causing trouble and complications.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Suppose the land from which a squatter is ejected later on becomes the homestead of some one else, who would get the advantage of the improvements on it?


Frank Oliver: I can hardly imagine such a case. There would be no justification for putting off a squatter to-day and allowing some one else to homestead the land tomorrow7. The only reason for putting a squatter off is that he is occupying the property of some one else or that the land is intended by the government for some other purpose.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: As I have already said in the House, I am confident that township 1, range 21, west of 1st, will be eventually open for homesteading notwithstanding that a number of men have been driven from that land. If that township should later on be opened for homesteading how will you recompense the men who have been ejected?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to accept at the moment the statement that this land will necessarily be opened for homesteading, but meanwhile we have to deal with existing conditions. That land was reserved by order of the government many years ago. These gentlemen have seen fit to go on the land in spite of the reservation and they w7ere defying not only the policy of the government but taking advantage of their neigh-

hours to whom the land was not available. I cannot understand that these people have any legal or equitable right. In trying to secure their removal we have been as considerate as possible. We would have been more considerate had we not felt that consideration on our part would have been taken as weakness and would rather tend to establish them in their improper occupation. I do not think it is in their interest or in the public interest that we should be committed either by wording in the Bill or by statement in the House to a course that would tend to entrench them in their illegal occupation, parliament having declared that they must remove. I think it better to leave the matter as it is and we will use every leniency so long as we secure their actual removal, but we must carry out the will of parliament.
On section 101-sale of timber to sawmills, &c., before patent.


Mr. BLAIN.: Under what conditions would the minister grant to a settler the privilege of selling timber to a saw-mill ?


Frank Oliver: There is ho specific provision allowing the minister to permit the settler to sell but there are conditions which sometimes occur which make it right and proper that permission should be given. For instance in case fire runs through valuable timber on a quarter-section, that timber is useful if manufactured immediately but in about three years it becomes worm eaten. In such a case it would be desirable to allow a sale to be made.


Richard Blain: Is that the new provision ?


Frank Oliver: No, in that particular this is the same as in the old Bill.
On the schedules,


Richard Stuart Lake: In form F, certificate of subagent for entry, I think it would be as well to have the hour of the receipt of the application inserted as well as the date and place. Particularly in cases of telegraphic application the priority of application mav become very important.


Frank Oliver: I am agreeable to making such a change.
On section 7-surveys.


George Eulas Foster: According to this, when land is opened for entry for homestead or for sale and lias been surveyed, the notice is to be published in such manner as is determined by the Governor in Council. The intention evidently is only to inform good Grit readers.


Frank Oliver: There is great difficulty in making a statutory provision applicable to all cases. If there is to be thirty days notice although I think, in the opening of a township, two weeks is very much better, the notice posted in the land agency and
Mr. OLIVER
published in the newspapers in the district, is as far as you can go in a statutory provision.


George Eulas Foster: Why not have it posted up in the post office of the district ?


Frank Oliver: That can be done by regulation, but it would be dangerous to provide it in the statute because then the posting in the post office would be absolutely essential, and where you have post masters getting only $35 a year, you could not depend on their complying with the' order.


Richard Stuart Lake: The hon. minister proposes to provide by regulation that the land agent shall send the notice to be posted up in the post office.


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


George Eulas Foster: The minister will see that the regulation is carried out.


Frank Oliver: I have no objection to issuing the order to have the notice posted in the post office, but would not like to make that statutory as people would then absolutely depend on the notice appearing there.
On section 27-rights to pre-emption.


Frank Oliver: There is an amendment to that section but we had better hold that over until we get through with the other amendments. The amendment is as follows :
Commencing where the west line of range 26, west of the fourth principal meridian, intersects the international boundary, thence east along the international boundary to its intersection with the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sa u It, Ste Marie Railway, thence north west along the said railway line to its junction with the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, thence west along the Canadian Pacific Railway to the third principal meridian, thence north along the third principal meridian to the north iine of township 44, thence west along the north line of township 44 to the Calgary & Edmonton Railway, thence south along the Calgary & Edmonton Railway to its intersection with the west line of range 26, west of the fourth principal meridian, thence south along the west line of said range 26 to the international boundary.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: Can the minister inform the committee to what extent there are odd-numbered sections in the area which he proposes to add? If I understood him correctly on Friday evening, when he submitted this proposed amendment, just as the House was adjourning, although the area had been extended practically no land was added. Am I right in thinking that all the odd-numbered sections in the area have been taken up or disposed of ?
I understand that the Calgary and Edmonton Railway line has been made the line. In the constituency I have the honour to represent there is no difference in the land on one side or on the other side of this railway. To satisfy my own mind as to the advisability of this amendment. I would

like to get some information as to what odd-numbered sections are left in that area.
I have tried to figure it out from the map, but it is a long calculation. It shows an area from the international boundary to township 41 would be 268 miles as the crow flies, and from range 23 to range 29 would be 4S miles, or an area 268 miles long by 48 miles wide. To figure out the acreage of the odd-numbered sections would involve a great deal of labour. Can the minister inform the committee before the Bill goes through its third reading stage about what acreage of odd-numbered sections are in the area proposed to be added?


Frank Oliver: I would refer the hon. member for a clearer understanding to the map on the table, which shows the odd-numbered sections selected by the railway company. It shows that all the odd-numbered sections in the added area are already selected except a small group of townships which lie a little north-east of Calgary, about a dozen townships in all.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. There are some townships in the Hand Hill country, I think, that have not been surveyed.


Frank Oliver: The Hand Hill country would be all within the line proposed in the Bill. But there is a small group of townships that would be included by accepting the Calgary & Edmonton Railway as the line, instead of the range line as at first proposed. The railway companies naturally selected their lands along the railway lines. Therefore, all the lands along the Calgary & Edmonton line have been selected by the railway company throughout its entire length. The only difference made by the proposed change of the boundary is to take in this little group of townships which have not been taken by the railway, but that seem to me might properly be placed under the same conditions as the remainder of that great central area that has not been taken by the railways.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I do not wish the minister to misunderstand me. I am not taking exception ; I am trying to get at what the area would be.


John Herron: The line seems to be fairly definite as far south as Macleod, but the minister says that the land on both sides of the track has been taken. I wish to know what is to be done from there to the boundary line. That would be through a country where there are no railways, but the railways have taken the land as far as the boundary.


Frank Oliver: The railway land is all taken from Macleod to the boundary. So [DOT] I think a fair division would be to take the west line of range 26, which passes a mile or two west of Macleod, and simply continues the same course as the railway line right down to the boundary.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: The amendment you propose will not have the effect of placing any more land under the operation of the Bill, so far as the pre-emption clause and first homesteading is concerned except a few townships out in the northeast?


Frank Oliver: That is the practical effect.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister allow the third reading of this section to stand over till Thursday?


Frank Oliver: Yes. Some of our friends desire to make further suggestions.


Mr. S. J. JACKSON.: I might give the House an idea of the amendment I proposed regarding lands in Manitoba.
Townships 10 to 41, both inclusive, bounded on the east by the eastern boundary of Manitoba, and on the west by the eastern boundary of the townships in range 6, and Lake Winnipeg.
Townships 18 to 44, both inclusive, bounded on the west by the first principal meridian, and on the east by Lake Winnipeg.


Mr. BURROWS.: I give notice that I will move that the following clause be added to section 27:
That section 27 be amended by adding after the words * twenty-four ' in the 26th line thereof, the following:
And townships 18 to 44, both inclusive, between the first meridian on the east to Lakes Manitoba and Lake Winnipegosis on the west.
This includes the area immediately west of the area described by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. S. J. Jackson.)
Townships 16 to 34, ranges 9 to 16, both inclusive; townships 23 to 44, both inclusive, from ranges 17 to 24, both inclusive, and townships 29 to 44 in ranges 25 to 29, both inclusive.
In this territory the land is all taken by the railway company, and any land that is left in any of those townships would not be available so far as this motion is concerned, because, wherever the railway company did take land, they took more than eight sections; therefore whatever land is left in those townships would not be available for the purpose of this motion.


George Eulas Foster: Why does the hon. gentleman make the motion?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: There are townships in which there has been no railway land taken whatever, townships of an inferior quality, where the settler would require to have more than a quarter-section to make a good farm.
On section 18-residence in vicinity.


Frank Oliver: I propose an amendment to replace the proviso on page 17 from line 10 to line 26, and the same amendment would apply to section 28 on page 19, re-

placing the whole proviso, beginning at line 37.
On section 52-issue of license.


Frank Oliver: This section stood. I would like to have it amended by substituting the following after the word ' licensee ' in line 5, as far as the words ' and to prosecute ' in line 14:
Subject to the conditions mentioned in the license, all rights of property whatsoever in all trees, timber, lumber or other products of timber which he is entitled by the license to cut and which have been cut within the limits of the berth during the continuance thereof, whether such trees, timber, lumber or other products are cut by consent of the licensee or by any other person without his consent; and shall vest in the licensee as against any person other than the Crown in the right of the Dominion, subject to the conditions mentioned in the license, all right of property whatsoever in all trees, timber, lumber and other products of timber cut within the limit of the berth by any other person without his consent; and such license shall entitle the licensee to seize in replevin, revendi-cation or otherwise, as his property, timber of any kind cut within the limits of the berth, where the same is found in possession of any unauthorized person, and also to bring any action or suit against any person unlawfully in possession of any such timber.
The section is intended to define the rights of the holder of a timber berth against trespassers. As the section stands in the Bill, he holds his right against trespass upon the berth, and against the cutting of timber of the kind for which he holds a license. But there is timber upon the berth, such as cordwood, for which -he does not hold a license, the ownership of which remains in the Crown. If he desires to cut that timber he must get a separate permit. As the section appears in the Bill, a trespasser might go on the berth and cut this cordwood, or timber that was not under license, and there is no provision as to who that trespasser should be accountable to. Therefore we change the wording in this section so as to make the trespasser accountable to the holder of the berth for any timber he may cut, whether it is covered by the license or not.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does the hon. minister think it is the best thing to give the man who holds the timber berth the right to say who shall go in there?


Frank Oliver: We have to give the berth holder the right to protect his own interests.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: But you are giving him the right to protect the cordwood.


Frank Oliver: We think he should have the right to protect the cordwood. Having paid a large price for this berth, he should not be subjected to the danger of having his berth destroyed or his property injured Mr. OLIVER.
by people going in there and cutting wood that does not belong to them.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It will simply mean that the farmer, or whoever wants to go in there to out the cordwood, will be denied the privilege of doing so.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: As the law stands at the present time, the title in all the timber on the berth is vested in the limit holder, subject to any regulation made by the government. The limit holder may cut cordwood, subject to whatever limitations the department impose upon him. This Bill continues that provision with the exception that it does not vest the complete ownership in the limit holder, does it?


Frank Oliver: No, this takes it away from him.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: This takes away a right formerly enjoyed by the limit holder, and it imposes on the limit holder the obligation to pay the dues no matter who cuts the timber.


Frank Oliver: It enables him to collect from whoever does cut the timber. We look to the limit holder to protect the timber, and if a trespasser cuts timber we authorize the limit holder to collect the dues from the trespasser, and we look to the limit holder for the dues.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Do you say timber or cordwood?


Frank Oliver: I mean cordwood.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Would you call that timber?


Frank Oliver: It is wood. It is the product of the berth that is not covered by the license. As the law stands at the present time, it is the property of the berth holder, although he is not authorized to cut it. By this Act we are changing that provision. We do not allow the berth holder to become the owner of any timber that is on the berth except that which is specified in his license, but we make him responsible for all the timber covered by the berth license, and if any unauthorized person goes in and cuts any of tihe timber we authorize the berth holder to collect the dues from him and we collect from the berth holder. It establishes a rule of occupancy and the right of prevention of trespass in the hands of a limit holder is a reasonable and proper thing, as a matter of necessity.


George Eulas Foster: How is the householder to get cordwood when he wants it?


Frank Oliver: On a permit from the government. The government can issue a permit to go on the limits-not on the limits that have already been granted, but on the limits that will be granted. Under the new Act the government may issue a permit to a householder to go on Mr. Burrows' limit,

if you like, and cut such timber as is not covered by Mr. Burrows' license.


George Eulas Foster: How is it with reference to what Mr. Burrow's already has?


Frank Oliver: Under the law, as ait present, Mr. Burrows holds all the timber on his berth, although he is only allowed to cut what is contained in his license.


George Eulas Foster: He has it and he does not have it?


Frank Oliver: It seems to be an anomaly. We want to put the limit holder in the position of protecting his berth against trespassers.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Now, that you have mentioned Mr. Burrows' name, I suppose, as an illustration, has he power to prevent the farmer or settler from going upon his timber limits and cutting cordwood?


Frank Oliver: Unquestionably.


Mr. PORTER.: What means are provided for accounting between the limit holder and the government when the limit holder does the collecting?
my hon. friends feel strongly on, it can be taken up at some other time, but I would not feel like introducing retroactive legislation of that character in amendment of this Bill. I want to lay down what I think is sound principle for future action, and I think I have succeeded in doing that fairly *well.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: There have been serious complaints made by farmers adjacent to these timber limits, that while some years ago they were able to get their firewood, recently they have not been able to do so. We should change that section of the law so that these settlers would be able to get cordw'ood from these timber limits. I do not think that the settler should have to go to the owner of the timber limit to get his permission, or that it should be at his discretion to say whether they should have the wood or not.


Frank Oliver: I am not going to discuss that for the moment, but that has been the condition for many years.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Now that we are changing the law, let us make it right.


Frank Oliver: The limit holder accounts to us under oath for all cutting that is done on his berth.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I think you are giving a great deal of power to the man who owns the limit.


George Eulas Foster: In reference to previously granted limits, how is the householder to get his cordwood?


Frank Oliver: He cauuot get it off these limits.


George Eulas Foster: Can the minister not give a permit there?


Frank Oliver: No.


George Eulas Foster: It is a dog-in-the-manger business. Mr. Burrows cannot take it and the minister cannot get it.


Frank Oliver: That is so. The limit holder, being the owner of the wood, may be granted a permit to cut that which is not covered by his license under regulations, but we had no authority, under the Act as it has been, to give anybody else power to cut cordwood.


George Eulas Foster: So that the cordwood in all these limits is tied up?


Frank Oliver: Tied up.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Can we not provide a remedy for that?


Frank Oliver: We are remedying it now in so far as the future is concerned.


George Eulas Foster: But these favoured ones have got all they want now.


Frank Oliver: No, the world is not filled up yet. At any rate, if it is a matter that


Frank Oliver: I think I am making it right for the future, but we must not interfere with rights and property acquired in the past. I am not saying what course should be taken in the case, but I am saying that I have accumulated stores of trouble within the pages of this Bill as far as I have gone without going so very much farther, as my hon. friend suggests.


George Eulas Foster: After all, this is a very important matter. The range of limits that has been taken up is a very wide one, and you will have settlers all along that range of limits.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: No.


George Eulas Foster: These settlers will not be able to get wood. They see the wood in the timber that belongs to the timber barons. The wood is there, the timber baron himself cannot use it; the farmer, in .the meantime, is cold and wants fuel, but he cannot get it. He goes to the government, the government tells him : Well, it is within these limits. Although the limit holder cannot use it you say you cannot give it to him, and then you drive him absolutely to go to the holder of the limit, the holder of the limit can get a permit from the minister to cut the cordwood, he cuts it, sells it to the farmer and makes him pay his profit on it. It is a serious matter, and it inflicts a good deal of hardship on the farmers.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Will the hon. gentleman point out an instance in which a timber limit holder exacted a charge from a settler for cutting cordwood?


George Eulas Foster: We do not generally leave 1 these things to the generosity of the holder

of the timber limits : it ought to be made a matter of regulation or law. If the limit holder cannot utilize this timber and if the farmers need it I don't see what hardship there would be in the government giving the farmers permission to cut under conditions. The settlers need it and they should be allowed to take it.


Mr. STAPLES.: I do not think this amendment should be allowed to carry. When the coal famine and wood famine was on in the west a year ago last winter the hon. member for Dauphin, according to the statement of a newspaper in his own constituency, notwithstanding that he held such large tracts of timber, refused to allow the people to cut wood.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: That is absolutely untrue. No paper in my constituency "made any such statement. The hon. gentleman had better confine himself to the truth. I say the statement is false and you had better take it back. I did not stop any one from cutting on my limits and I am going to make you take that statement back.


William D. Staples: If the hon. gentleman had repressed himself for a moment I would explain


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I will not allow you to make such a statement about me.


William D. Staples: Will the hon. gentleman deny that the papers came out and made that complaint ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: What complaint ?


William D. Staples: The complaint that you refused to allow them to go on the limits and cut timber.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: That is not the statement you made. That statement was not made by a paper in my constituency but by a Tory paper outside.


William D. Staples: That Is the very statement I made.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: No. You stated emphatically that when there was a fuel famine I refused to allow settlers to secure wood on my limits, which statement is absolutely untrue.


William D. Staples: It is quite evident it is a sore spot with the hon. gentleman or he would not rise with such emphasis. I think it would be well for him to get some other gentleman to move such an amendment as that.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I did not move any amendment.


William D. Staples: I understood it was you.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: You had better know what you are talking about.


William D. Staples: I)o you deny the fact that it appeared in the papers in your own constituency that you refused to allow peo-


George Eulas Foster: pie to do it? I want to be fair to the hon. gentleman and I want to say that he called the attention of the House to that article and denied it at the time. But there must have been some reason for it or that would not have come out. I think it would be unwise for this parliament to amend this Bill so as to prohibit people who want a stick of wood to cut it in case of such an emergency as we had last year and have to run to the owner of the limits to get permission to cut any lumber on it. I certainly think we should not pass this amendment.


John Herron: The minister should be careful about adopting this amendment. There are grave complaints in my part of the country about settlers not getting the privileges they ought to have to procure lumber. Further than that, we would consider it would be a great protection against prairie fires if this old timber were moved away. There is no greater menace in the way' of fires and the sooner the lying timber is cleared off the ground the better.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Take my constituency as an instance and the farmers cut dry wood for fuel on government lands from time to time without any charge whatever. The land department endeavours to keep the farmers as much as possible from cutting green timber but even green timber is taken right along without any dues being paid. This is not a hardship in the north country, but you could understand how it might be a hardship if there was no other timber that a man could get.


William D. Staples: It is very often that way.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: As a matter of fact limits are generally granted in a locality where there are no settlers. There is one limit I bought from another party which is located close to settlement and the farmers for years have been cutting their wood supplies there. But in any district where there is dry timber the farmers generally get the dry timber for fuel and up to the present time this question has not arisen.
I would again point out to the member for Macdonald that I did not move this motion and I am not responsible for it at all.


William D. Staples: You are watching it pretty closely.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: It is my privilege as a member of this House to watch any legislation. It is a difficult thing to pass legislation affecting the rights of the limit owner in a case of this kind. According to this motion which the hon. minister introduces, hereafter the limit men will have no right to cut cord wood unless he gets permission, but he is going to be made responsible for cutting by any one else. As a lumberman I would prefer the government to keep the responsibility within their own hands rather than place it on my shoulders. However that is a matter for the House,


Robert Laird Borden: Let me ask the minister whether I am correct in my understanding of the law as it is at present and as it will be after this amendment is passed. At present, under the license or lease issued by the government the licensee is entitled to cut only* trees of a certain dimension, but the government is not entitled to grant to any settler the remaining timber upon the area in question. The government nevertheless can issue a permit to the licensee to cut such timber. The result of that then is that he can in the first place cut timber of a certain dimension ; he can in the second place obtain a permit from the Crown for the purpose of cutting other timber and when that timber is cut he can sell it to the settler.


Frank Oliver: Precisely.	.


Robert Laird Borden: The law, as you propose now, is this : He will receive a license which will restrict him to certain dimensions. He is entitled to bring an action against any person with respect to any trees of that dimension cut without his consent. If no license has been issued by the Crown to any other persons, and some person, without the consent of the Crwon, cuts timber which he himself is not entitled to cut, he is invested with a right of action to recover for that.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Under some regulation, not under this section, he must account for that to the Crown?


Frank Oliver: Exactly.


Robert Laird Borden: But then the Crown in this amendment reserves to itself the power to grant to persons other than the licensees the right to cut timber outside of that which the licensee has the right to cut under his license.


Frank Oliver: Precisely.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore, under this law as now proposed to be amended the government will be in a position to grant to the settler the right to cut timber not embraced within the class which is granted to the licensee by the terms of the license.	'


Frank Oliver: You have understood me correctly.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the law as it is at present, and the law as you propose to amend it?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: But the amending law does not apply to any license which has been issued in the past and is still in force?


Frank Oliver: No.


Mr. TURRIFF.: Under the old license, wherever the licensee has cut off the timber over ten inches in diameter, which is called the merchantable timber, the government always has it in their power to withdraw that portion of the land covered by the license from the limit and make it available for any other purpose, and then they are in a position naturally to issue permits to settlers.


George Eulas Foster: Where it is all cut off?


John Gillanders Turriff: Where the merchantable timber is cut off. Suppose there are fifty miles under license, and the merchantable timber is cut off say five miles, then the government could withdraw that portion from the operation of the license and will not include it in the next renewal, and can issue permits to the farmers.


George Eulas Foster: But if on that 5 miles a certain proportion of the merchantable timber is left, the right does not come back to the Crown.


John Gillanders Turriff: In a case of that kind there is a clause in the license enabling the Crown to notify the licensee that he must remove any merchantable timber that may remain on a certain portion of the limit within a year, or say two years, and if he does not remove it in that time the Crown can withdraw that portion, whether there is merchantable timber on it or not.


Frank Oliver: The reason for that provision of the Act was that it vested in the limit holder the right of property in all the timber upon the limit so that he would have an interest in the preservation of that timber looking to the renewal of the limit from time to time bv the upgrowth of the young timber. That was the principle, but we find that in practice it tends rather to a difficulty in administering the Act and we have asked the House in this Bill to change the principle.


George Eulas Foster: Have any licenses for timber areas been withdrawn on account of the areas having been cut off ?


Frank Oliver: Oh, yes, many.


George Eulas Foster: That is they have denuded it of the merchantable timber and then it has come back to the Crown. The amendment is all right as far as it goes if it can only be made to apply to the limits heretofore granted. Then it- would cure the whole difficulty. I do not see why the minister could not make such an arrangement as that with the limit holders.


Frank Oliver: I would not like to undertake legislation of [DOT] a retroactive character of such importance as that, especially when it would do violence to a principle which, although we have seen fit to depart from it for reasons which I have stated, is entitled to consideration and appeared to be a sound principle to those who established it. At the present time, under this Bill, I would not like to undertake to deal with

that principle as my hon. friend has suggested.


Richard Stuart Lake: The term ' merchantable timber ' is used a good deal in the Act and in the debate. What is its meaning ?


Frank Oliver: Where we use it in the part of the Act relating to the sawing of timber we speak of trees 10 inches in diameter and over of spruce, or of kindred wood as merchantable timber. The question as to whether poplar would come under that is not so clearly defined.


John Herron: There is no doubt that the owners of timber leases have left a portion of the merchantable timber on the land so as to continue in occupation according to the law. I think the government should make some provision for stepping in and taking control in such a case as that, not leaving it entirely to the judgment of the limit holders.
On section 84-employees of department not to purchase Dominion lands.


John Herron: The land agent might happen to be the holder of scrip which he had obtained himself by service in South Africa. How would this clause affect him?


Frank Oliver: This would apparently prevent him holding it. If we inserted after the word * scrip ' in the first line the words ' unless issued to himself ' it would seem to cover the case. I move that section 84 be amended by striking out the words in the first two lines and insetting the following :
No officer or employee of or under the Department of the Interior shall, directly or indirectly, in his own name or in that of any other person, purchase or acquire any Dominion lands or any interest therein, nor shall he be interested as shareholder or otherwise in any corporation or company purchasing or acquiring such lands or any interest therein e.xcept by or under authority of an order of the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Marcil: Sections 27, 28, 77 and the preamble remain.
Progress reported.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the Bill (No. 189) to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Fisher.
Mr. SPEAKER.: Perhaps before proceeding further with the consideration of this Bill, I may be permitted to make a statement. The other evening the question was asked whether the officials of the House were quite agreeable to come within the scope of the Bill. At the moment, not having consulted them, I spoke to the clerk of the House, and he, speaking from an interview he had with several of the officials said they were. In consequence of that assurance by Mr. OLIVER.
him to me, I made a similar statement to the House. A little later on, however, I learned that perhaps the statement was not accurate. I have since seen a number of the officials and find they are not disposed to come within the scope of the Bill, but of course that is a matter for the House to decide. Heretofore the officials of the House have been under the control of the House and some of them think that that control should be continued. I discussed the matter with them to some extent, and they suggested an amendment which I have handed to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). I might point out however that in one or two respects, the Bill will conflict with the rules of the House. For example section 56 of our rules reads as follows :
Before filling any vacancy in the service of the House by the Speaker, inquiry shall be made touching the necessity for the continuance of such office; and the amount of salary to be attached to the same shall be fixed by the Speaker, subject to the approval of the Board of Internal Economy and the House.
Section 58 seems to give to the clerk of the House direction and control-though perhaps that would not be affected at all by the Bill-of the officers and clerks of the House. Section 64 enables the House, through its Speaker, to fix the hours of attendance, as I think it should, and there should be an exception in the Bill as regards the fixing of the hours of attendance of the respective officers of the House. It is quite apparent that the hours of attendance of the officials of the House are not at all to be compared with those of officials in the departments. The officials of the House are sometimes required to be up all night, and at times special arrangements have to be made as to their relieving each other. That is a thing which the Civil Service Commission could not very well regulate, although it is possible that by some regulation which it might prescribe, that might be dealt with. But as a matter of convenience I think that had better be controlled by the House and the Speaker, as provided by section 64. I notice too that, under the House of Commons Act, the appointment of an Accountant is dealt with in a special way, which would conflict with this Bill. These are some of the suggestions that occurred to me, and which I thought I ought to explain to the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I made the inquiry the other night because it seemed an anomaly that the officials of this House should be included in this Bill and the control taken from the Speaker and clerk of the House. That might cause a good deal of inconvenience.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Regarding what Mr. Speaker has said I think that on most of the points he has raised there is no real clash. Where it comes to a question of the appoint-

meat by the Speaker the Bill provides for appointment on the recommendation of a minister; and so far as this Bill is concerned, the Speaker takes the place in that respect of a minister. There is this radical difference that if this Bill comes into force, the employees of the Houses of parliament shall have to submit to the same competitive examination and would have to get the certificate of the commission for promotion and other matters in which certificates are required.	[DOT]
As far as salaries are concerned, I take it that the House will be like one department, the Senate like another and the library of parliament like another. I think, speaking from memory, that in the statutes there are provisions which indicate that the House, the Senate and the library are likened to departments or are stated to be departments. I am pretty sure that under the Act under which the library of parliament is constituted, it is called ' The Department of the Library of Parliament.' Under these circumstances, I take it, the librarian would have the same, relation to the employees there that a head would have to the employees in a department. In regard to the fixing of the salaries, of course, in the organization of the employees of the House under section 8 of this Bill, these officers would have to be put into the various classes provided by this Act according to their salaries, and, to that extent, they would have to be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill. I understood from Mr. Speaker's remarks that the employees of the House did not object to the classification or to the examination before appointment or to certificates being required for their promotion, and so on. If that is the case, I think that, perhaps, the object in view might easily be obtained by a slight amendment to section 3 of the Act leaving out the words which are here applied to the officers, clerks and employees of both Houses of parliament and the library of parliament, and adopting a rider to that clause. I have a form proposed by the officers, I believe as follows:
So much of this Act and of the Civil Service Act as relates to appointment, classification and salaries

And I would add ' promotion.'
-shall apply to the permanent officers, clerks and employees of both Houses of parliament, and the library of parliament.
I think that would accomplish what we had in view in framing the Act as it is, and remove any doubt or difficulty, and would also meet the views of those whose representations Mr. Speaker has just made known to the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would that touch the temporary employees?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. We determined that this Bill should apply only to the permanent employees. I believe the word ' permanent ' was inserted in clause 3 by amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would recognize the Senate and House of Commons as two departments under official heads. Will not that apply to promotions'? These have always, heretofore, been under control of the House, of Mr. Speaker, of the Clerk and the Sergeant at Arms, and anything done was done by order of Mr. Speaker. If you recognize the House of Commons as a department, will it not put the employees of the House in the same position as the employees of any other department?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The amendment, as proposed, I think, would do away with any doubt in regard to that-I think there can be no question about it. As I said the other evening in speaking of this matter, there is no intention to derogate from the control of the House itself over its employees, except in so far as the appointments are concerned. I believe that today appointments are made by Mr. Speaker, but in future they would be made by competitive examination. There is no doubt that that difference would be made.
IMr. SPROULE.- Would not they be made in future by Mr. Speaker?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under the rules provided by this Bill, they would be made under competitive examination, and Mr. Speaker would have to apply to the commission, just like the head of any other department, stating what clerkships were vacant, what services were required. Then it would be advertised that such and such services in the House of Commons were to be competed for, and then the examinations would take place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And no power or authority for dismissal?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill would not interfere with the present power of dismissal. Where the appointment is made by order in council, the dismissal is by order in council. Under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, the appointments would be made in the way I have indicated, but the power of dismissal would be the same as to-day.


Mr. GERVAIS.: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, has the amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture been placed in your hands?


Charles Marcil: No. The commission is on clause 29, but


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Following what Mr. Speaker said, I thought this amendment might be proposed.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Fisher moves:
To amend section 3 by leaving out the reference to the officers, clerks and employees of parliament, and insert the following clause 3a:
3a. So much of this Act and of the Civil Service Act as relates to appointments, promotions, classification and salaries shall apply to the permanent officers, clerks and employees of both Houses of parliament and of the library of parliament


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The only objection by the officials to that would be to the word ' promotion.' They are still of the impression, from the clerk down, that, so far as promotions are concerned, it would be better to leave these still under the control of the Speaker and the clerk. I understand that this Bill is based generally upon the English system. Under the English system, in the case of vacancies in the staff of the House, there is what is called a ' limited competition.' The clerk suggests a name or names for the filling of positions that have become vacant, and the examination is restricted to those who are so named, and not as will be the case if this Bill passes in its present form, from lists supplied by tile new Board of Civil Service Commissioners.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Before this amendment is passed, I would like to know from the hon. minister (Mr. Fisher) which officers are the ' permanent officers ' of the House who are to be included under this Bill? Does that clause mean to include among the ' permanent officers ' the translators as well as the official reporters of the ' Hansard ' staff? So far as I can see, there is no distinction between a permanent official and a non-permanent official or employee of the House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should think that officers who are appointed permanently, that is whose employment continues without reappointment, would be .included in the definition ' permanent.' For instance, the pages of the House, the sessional messengers, and I think the sessional clerks, are appointed at the beginning of every session, re-appointments take place as a general rule, though I think some new officers are appointed. But I believe it is quite competent for those in authority to appoint somebody else in their places. I understand that the other employees of the House are permanent. When they are once appointed that appointment continues until such time as they either resign, or are retired, or die. I should think that would be a perfectly natural division, and that it would cover the definition of the word ' permanent.' I think my hon. friend mentioned the translators. I understand that the translators are permanent employees, I am not sure, but I think so. I think that having been once appointed there is no Mr. FISHER.
further appointments in their place. I think my hon. friend, as chairman of the Debates Committee, will probably know about that better than myself. But those that are not permanent are those whose appointment takes place every session, those who are not in the category called permanent employees.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: According to the definition just given by the Minister of Agriculture, the translators and official reporters are permanent officers. That means that according to the theory of the new Civil Service Bill, they will be hereafter ruled and controlled by the new commission. Is that what the hon. gentleman means ? Do 1 understand that, according to the new Bill, the translators and official reporters will be under the control of the Civil Service Commission ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not consider that the phrase used by my hon. friend is a correct phrase, when he speaks of the power and control of the commission. The commission would certainly have to conduct the examinations which would have to be held in regard to new appointments. But after the appointment is made, the commission does not control or manage the appointees of the House of Commons any more than it will the clerks or employees in any of the departments. That will be done by the officers of the House, just as it will be done in a department by the officers of the department. I understand that the Debates Committee of the House of Commons has control and management of certain officials of the House.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Only supposed to.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know as to that Of course, the House has supreme control, and therefore the House would have the same control ill the future management as they have had in the past, but not in regard to the appointments. The appointments will be by competitive examination under the management of the commission, and if the amendment I have just read is adopted, that would fix the manner of the appointments. As to control after appointments, that will be in the same hands as at present, except that in cases where certificates of promotion on merit are required, the employees would have to get that certificate from the commission the same as employees in other departments.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Now that the minister has made that statement, I must add a few words. In my capacity of chairman of the Debates Committee I feel that I cannot accept that amendment. I think that the House of Commons, by passing that amendment, would infringe on what I consider acquired rights. I think that the House of Commons, by adopting this amendment, would be guilty of unfair treatment of our official reporters and translators. As far back as 1884, 25 years ago, a staff of report-

ers and translators was appointed, they were appointed as officers and employees of the House of Commons. They were appointed with the understanding that during the recess between sessions, they would be at liberty to engage in outside work to supplement their salaries. Our official reporters and translators have been doing their duty; nobody can say a word against the way they have been doing their duty for 25 years, tish parliament is copying our system of reporting the debates. British parliamentari-porting thet debates. British parliamentarians have become dissatisfied with their own method of reporting debates, and are adopting our method. Our reporters were appointed in 1884 with the understanding, as I have just said, that they would be allowed to earn a few hundred dollars during the recess between sessions to recoup themselves for their exclusion from the benefits of the Superannuation Act. Such was the contract made with them in 1884, such has been the contract ever since, until now, in 1908, we find the House of Commons proposing to alter the conditions of that contract which was entered into between the House of Commons and its reporters and translators. I say that the present Civil Service Act is an infringement upon the acquired rights of both the official reporters and the official translators.
In the second place, I say that by subjecting the reporters and translators to the control of the Civil Service Commission you destroy that impartiality in reporting which it was the chief aim of the House of Commons to secure when they organized the reporting staff and placed it under a committee of the House of Commons. If the reporters and translators, from the 1st of August next, or the 1st of October, are made the officers of a government commission, that means simply this, that the Speaker of the House will have the absolute right to dictate to the reporters and translators how they shnll do their work, how they shall report the debates and how they shall translate them. That, as I say, defeats the very aim that the House had in view when it organized the reporting and translating staff in 1884. It was for the purpose of securing impartiality at that time, it is for the purpose of securing impartiality to-day, and it will be for the purpose-of securing impartiality in 1915, or 1940-because the need of impartiality will be just as great as it is to-day, though at that time I may not be alive to enjoy the happiness of sitting on the benches of the dominant party as I do to-day, that I say that the Debates Committee should not be interfered with in its work.
Some of my friends may say that it will [DOT]be a long time before that day comes. But,
I may be on the other side and I hope that if. some day, I am on the opposition side of the House I will not be in the position to complain that the reporting and translation of the Debates are not done properly, truely and correctly and are not a faithful representation of what has been said in this House. I think that is another strong reason why we should not put the staffs of official reporters and translators under the control and guidance of the Civil Service Commission. Then, I think that the wishes and the will of the contracting parties should be given some consideration and that it is well that they should be communicated to the committee. It is all very well to say that the new Civil Service Commission Bill will do away with all the rights and privileges which were acquired years ago. There is a majority in this House to pass such legislation, I know, but I think it would be unfair to the official reporters, who are not permitted to present their case or to defend themselves-although I do not doubt that they could do it better than I am doing it now-to make such a change in their status without giving some consideration to the position which they occupy. I will read to the committee a letter which has been handed to me in my capacity of chairman of the Debates Committee and which has been signed by our official reporters. It is as follows : *
Office of Official Reporters of Debates,
House of Commons, Ottawa, June 29, 1908. Honore Gervais. Esq., M.P.,
Chairman Debates Committee.
Sir,-Referring to conversation between yourself and some of the members of the reporting staff, the undersigned members of that staff are agreed on the following:
1.	We are quite satisfied with the terms of our employment by the House of Commons, with the exception of the matter of salary, and as to this we have your favourable report now pending before the House.
2.	We do not seek to be brought under the new Civil Service Bill. We are not informed as to the effect such a change would have, and, therefore, cannot express an opinion on the subject.
3.	We assume that, in case of any change in our status being proposed, the Debates Committee will be consulted, and in that case we hope your committee will grant us the favour of a hearing before action is taken.
4.	In the meantime, we trust that favourable action will be taken by tbe House on the third report of the Debates Committee as presented.
Your obedient servants,
(Sgd.) E. J. DUGGAN,
S.	A. ABBOTT,
T.	P. OWENS,



GEO. SIMPSON, ROBERT C. DUNBAR.


[Stage Direction]
As hon. members can see, most of the official reporters have signed this letter, in which it is shown very plainly that the men who were appointed in 1884, and those who have joined the staff since that time, wish
[Stage Direction]
to remain under the rules and government of the Debates Committee. The reasons for the ground which they take are numerous. First of all it is an infringement upon their right and it is taking away one of the reasons for which they were appointed as servants of the House ; that is that the Debates of the House might be reported and translated fully, truly and impartially. The Bill provides that the Civil Service Commission shall conduct an examination of these expert newspaper men who are appointed as official reporters of this House. The expert newspaper men who are now engaged in the work of reporting our debates, are the only men capable of examining candidates to fill these important positions and it is absurd to suggest that they should be forced to pass examinations before other men who are not experts in this work. Who are to be the examiners? Who are to be the experts to conduct these examinations ? The only experts in this particular work are right here making the official report of the debates of the House, and if you want to procure men to conduct examinations for our official reporters you must import them from outside, from foreign countries, because there are none in Canada who are capable of holding an examination of the men who are now doing our official reporting. Therefore, I say that to place the official reporters under the direction of the Civil Service Commission will serve no good purpose but will, on the contrary, have the effect of diminishing the high standard of efficiency that we have now obtained in the reporting of our debates by the employment of the expert newspaper men who now compose the staff.
Then, in addition to that, I desire to point out to the committee that the rules laid down by the Civil Service Commission will not be applicable to our official reporters. For instance there is a book of attendance which has to be signed at certain hours of the day-I think twice during the day. Every member of this House knows that our official reporters have to work day and night sometimes for weeks and months. Is it fair, is it just, to force these men, who may leave the House at nine in tbe morning or five o'clock in the morning to come back to the House merely for the purpose of signing the book of attendance ?	.
George Eulas Foster: Do they sign it now ?
Mr. GERVAIS-They do not sign it now, but they will have to do it.
Mr. ^FOSTER. There is nothing in this amendment which would make them sign it * in future.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Not at all.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: If they become members of the civil service they will have to sign the book of attendance and do all the other duties of an ordinary public servant. As Mr. GERVAIS.
a matter of fact everything in the life of an official reporter, as well as in the life of an official translator, is extraordinary and exceptional and no fixed rule which may be applied to the ordinary public service should be made applicable to public officers of this class. They are from the very nature of their work, beyond the scope of rules that may properly be applied to the service generally.


Samuel Hughes: As I understand it the hon. gentleman is merely speaking with regard to the official reporters ? He is not speaking of the whole staff of the House ?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Not at all ; I am speaking of the two staffs of official reporters and translators. Then, I say, that this is not a proper time to propose this legislation especially in view of the fact that the Debates Committee has been waiting for three years to secure a legitimate and fair increase of salary for the official reporters and translators. I think it will not be fair to our official reporters to subject them to the kind of treatment which they will have to submit to under the new Civil Service Act. For these reasons I beg to give notice of the following amendment:
Moved by Mr. Gervais, seconded by Mr. Miller:
That tbe following be added to this Bill as section 47 *
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to deprive the House of Commons of the power to appoint a committee to supervise the official report of the debates, nor shall anything in this Act be construed to curtail the powers now enjoyed by the said committee with respect to the appointment and control of the respective staffs employed in connection with the reporting, translation and publication of the official debates of the House.
I assert that the Debates Committee has been doing its duty for the last three years. Everything possible has been done to have the reports expeditiously and correctly published, and if you transfer the staff to the Civil Service Commission I believe you will retard the progress which has been made by the Debates Committee. It is idle to suppose that the Debates Committee, having worked arduously for years and years will submit to this curtailing of its power. It is my view that the application of this Civil Service Bill to the reporting, translation and publication of the debates means a death blow to the committee. That ipay please some hon. members on both sides of the House. I state now' that I have nothing to regret in my conduct as president of the Debates Committee. I have endeavoured to do my duty fairly by both sides of the House, and I think that the placing of the reporting and translating staff under the Civil Service Commission is unfair and unjust, and is detrimental to the best interests of this House of Commons.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. So far as I am concerned I do not anticipate anything very serious happening to me as a member of the Debates Committee no matter which way this matter may be decided, but I do say that the House of Commons wili be lacking, in dignity if it hands over the appointment and control of the ' Hansard ' officers to any Civil Service Commission. The ' Hansard ' reporters accepted employment for a certain salary but that salary does not by any means represent the income that these gentlemen are able to earn in a year. If the House of Commons had to pay these gentlemen what their services are worth, as they would have to be paid if they are brought under the Civil Service Act; and if the House has to pay them for doing this work without engaging in any other work, then it would be found, I believe, that their salary would be double, yes, treble what it is at present, for they are worth that and can earn it in other capacities than as reporters for this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the salary?


Samuel Hughes: $2,000, and they have had no increase for 20 years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you trebled it, it would be $6,000.


Samuel Hughes: I have no hesitation in saying that there are men on the official reporting staff who can earn $6,000 a year.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand it the minister does not propose to hand over the appointments to the Civil Service Commission, but merely that the officers of the House who now make the appointment should ask the Civil Service Commission for certain names in order that one or other of these names shall be selected. On looking over the Bill I do not approve of some of the provisions relating to the House of Commons. For example section 2, subsection C, says :	' Heads of the
department,' includes the Speakers of both Houses and ' deputy head ' for the purpose of the administration of this Act includes the Clerk of both Houses. Section S has this provision:
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.
Now, if you apply that to the House of Commons, as soon as possible after the coming into force of the Act the Speaker of the House shall cause the organization of the staff of the House of Commons 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 titles and salaries thereafter to pertain thereto.
3. After being so determined and defined the organization of a department shall not be changed except by order in council.
It seems to me that that particular provision is undesirable. I do not see why the Governor in Council should provide for the organization of the House of Commons officials. I would be inclined to think that the organization had better be determined by resolution of the House. There might be something said for the view that this Act should be empowering so far as each House is concerned, and that in the end the House itself should determine by resolution which of its officers should come under the Act. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture will understand that I am not saying one word against the principle, I am looking at the constitutional aspect. The House determines these matters and has always determined these matters for itself apart altogether from the authority of the Crown and apart altogether from the intervention of the Senate. I would be inclined to think that it can be accomplished in the way I suggest, and if so, it would be more in consonance with constitutional usage. I am not sure that I am making myself absolutely plain.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think so.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not desire to withdraw the permanent official staff of the House of Commons-I am not speaking for the moment of the ' Hansard ' staff for there may be other considerations with regard to them-I do not desire to withdraw the permanent official staff of the House of Commons from the operation of the Civil Service Act, but I suggest that the proper constitutional way would be to have the object of the Bill accomplished by a resolution of the House and not by an Act of parliament, although the Act of parliament might contain an enabling clause providing that the Civil Service Act should apply to such officials of the House as should be set forth and mentioned in any resolution that the House passes for that purpose.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I quite understand the point made by the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and I appreciate the difficulty that arises in interfering in any way with the complete control over the officers of the House by the House. There has been, however, a feeling, I confess I have shared it, that the officers of the House might fairly be subject to the same restrictions as to appointments, qualifications and classifications as the other parts of the public service here in Ottawa and it was for that reason that we have attempted in this Bill to bring the officers of the House as far as appointments, salaries, classification and promotions are concerned, under

the operations of this Act. I would not like, offhand, to give a very decided opinion but I am under the impression that the amendment as proposed and read to me House today would do away with the objection which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition referred to when he spoke of section 8 by which the organizations would have to be approved by order in council. If the amendment which I have in my hand were to be adopted in place of the words in section 3,
I think that nothing in this Act except what relates to appointment, classification, salary iand promotion would apply to the officers of the House of Commons, the Senate or the library.


Mr.   POSTER@: You would have to have section 8 operative would you not ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know that you would.


Robert Laird Borden: There might be an exception made in section 8.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If that was found to be the case it would be easy to make an exception and say that the organization in the cases of the Houses of parliament should be done by resolutions of those Houses.


George Eulas Foster: Or say that the section should not apply.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. Or if preferred say that the operations or action described in section 8 should be done in the case of the House of Commons, the Senate and Library, but that it should be ratified by a resolution in place of an Order in Council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could you do away with it entirely ?	[DOT]
Mr. FISHER, That would do away with the action of the Civil Service Commission as far as appointments and salaries were concerned. This amendment would not. If we do away with the application of the provisions of this Bill as regards appointments, salaries ^promotions and classifications, we might as well take out the employees of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library altogether. The object of. including them in the Bill was to have the appointments to these services made the same as other appointments in the public service in Ottawa. We thought that advisable aud while I will not insist, I thought that was a point on which the government should be guided by the judgment of the House of Commons and the Senate. If the House 's not willing to accept the restriction of its powers which would be contained in this amendment of course we cannot undertake to insist upon it. It is a matter on which the House itself must exercise its own judgment. Our judgment was that as far as salaries, appointments, classifications and promotions were concerned, it would be better to have the employees of the House under the same rule.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to say to the hon. member for St. James division of Montreal (Mr. Ger-vais that I will not enter into any dispute as to the powers or authority of the Debates Committee, but I do not find in the rules of the House anything to indicate, according to my judgment,-and I confess I am quite a tyro in the matter, because I have never followed the discussion or dispute-anything to indicate that the debates committee has any control over appointments. I find the rules of the House indicate that. Rule 56 I should read to mean that the appointments should be by the Speaker, and rule 58 that tlie clerk of the House has the direction and control over all officers and clerks employed in the offices, subject to such orders as he may from time to time receive from Mr. Speaker or the House.
I appreciate that Bourinot at page 296 points out :
The Commons Committee on Debates recommend to the House the appointment, salaries and duties of the official reporters, and in fact make all the arrangements necessary for the satisfactory operation of the system. Their reports, when adopted, are the rules governing the publication of the reports. In 1887, during the elections, certain French official reporters of the Commons having published language reflecting on two members of the House, one of them a minister of the Crown, the subject was brought before the Speaker by the Committee on Debates and they were dismissed by him; but exception was taken to this course by an amendment setting forth that all questions respecting the reporting were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the House itself. The House decided by a division that the Speaker acted within the scope of his powers.
Indicating, as I read it, that it was the Speaker who had control and not the Debates Committee. This is a specific instance that seems to bear upon that point. I do not wish, however, to enter into the dispute which I believe has been somewhat constant for some time between, I think, the Commission on Internal Economy and the Committee on Debates as to their respective powers in the way of appointments, etc. That is a dispute into which I would not be prepared to enter and I am not going to enlarge upon that point.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I think the minister is referring to the case of M. A. E. Poirier, who was a recorder of the city of Montreal and was dismissed on a strict party vote because he was mixing himself with election matters between 1878 and 1884. At the time there was a good deal of criticism in same quarters. I do not know if this which has been cited and quoted is a very strong precedent.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not wishing to mix up the question of whether his dismissal was right or wrong; I do not remember the particulars. The point is that Bourinot distinctly states that the Speaker was sus-

tained in his action by a vote of the House, indicating that the House at that time thought it was a matter for the Speaker to deal with and not for the Debates Committee.


Mr. KNOWLES.: How is that in any way associated with appointments ? I would understand that only to be an emergency for dismissal purposes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill before the House does not in any way deal with dismissals or change the course in regard to dismissals in the future from what it has been in the past. My own interpretation of the wording of the Bill is that, as regards the management of the staff of the House, the Bill does not change it, but it does change the methods of appointment, and it requires, in the case of promotions, the same certificates for officers of the House as it does for employees in the departments. At the same time governments do not wish to infringe in any way upon the management of its own affairs by the House of Commons. I have been under the impression that the members generally would be in favour of what I have indicated. I may be wrong, and as this is a matter so closely touching the dignity and privileges of the House, we would not think of pressing on the House the change should a considerable number of members consider it is not advisable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether any effort was made to ascertain the views of the House on it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We can only do that by discussion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that an effort was made. I do not know of any. Does he think the Senate will give up its right to appoint and supervise its own employees or has there been any understanding with the Senate ? Heretofore the senators have stood out very vigorously against any interference with their rights.


George Eulas Foster: Neither would we like to have the Senate interfere with our rights and privileges. Nor would we like to have the cabinet interfere with them. I do not think that the House proposes to consent to either. But the point I wish to enforce is this. I would be very sorry to see the House of Commons think it necessary to pass a Civil Service Bill for the sake of introducing competitive examination and bring about a better standing of the officials and then refuse to take its own medicine. Take an ordinary employee, he does much the same work here as the same class in the inside service, and we ought to apply the same principle to him in order to be consistent. If the system provided In this Bill for appointing and promoting employees be good for the inside service, it ought to be good for the House of Oom-366



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
mons. But, as Mr. Speaker has said, our hours and constitution are altogether different, and I do not think the government should, in council assembled, say what our organization should be. We say that ourselves. The only thing that is proposed to be done is to apply the system, which we think should apply to other employees, to the employees in the House of Commons. The next question is how shall that be done ? Shall we allow the government or the council to do it ? I think we ought to do that ourselves. It is only a matter of form as to how we should bring it about. As regards the reporters and translators,
I do not understand that any of the dire consequences, which were rather predicted by my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) will take place if that amendment went into effect. There is nothing requiring a nine o'clock and a four o'clock attendanceship, or five hours or ten hours. The Bill simply leaves the management in exactly the same hands as now-the hands of the House, largely of course, through certain officers of the House. So with reference to the reporting branch, which is a special branch. It belongs to what in the other branches would be classed as technical and somewhat highly technical officers. The House has a right to do for that particular branch of officers what it thinks best in order to get the very best reporters for the work of the House and in salary should do the same. I would hold that matter in the hands of the House. I am not at all certain that the commission, by its methods of examination, could not ascertain those best qualified to report the debates of the House just as well as the Debates Committee does to-day. I think they could. I am not enamoured with the way in which employees have been taken on in this House. We say it is the House that does it, but it is mighty few in the House who do it. The great majority have neither voice, lot, nor part in the matter. I do not think we would suffer, if we were to adopt that method of getting our employees and promoting them which we have embodied in the Bill.
Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I would like to hear from the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) what, in his opinion, would be the power left the Debates Committee if the new commission is to be given the appointing and classifying of the translators and official reporters and so on. I submit that nothing would be left the committee. Everything would be taken awmy from it.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think that any powers will be taken awmy from the Debates Committee which they really possess at this time. I am not going to derogate from the position of the House by saying that a committee we appoint is superior to the House itself. We appoint our comrnit-tees to do certain work ; but to say every
edition	.

committee shall make an entity of itself and dictate to the House what should be done is going too far. That is where the dignity of the House is infringed on, and my hon. friend should stand up for the greater dignity of the House as well as for the dignity of a small committee. I would not take away from a single service the Debates Committee are doing; tout in the final result they have to come back to this (House for their ratification as they come to us for their existence as a committee.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: It was created in the House of Commons years ago when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was a leading light in the House.


George Eulas Foster: We maintain all vested privileges.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: But now ail our vested privileges are being taken away. Let me quote to the House a few lines from Bouri-not's parliamentary procedure as to the scope of the powers and responsibilities of the Debates Committee. This is what Bourinot says, at page 295:
The Official Reporters.-The House of Commons has the advantage of the services of an efficient staff of official reporters. Previous to 1874 all attempts in this direction were fruitless, though it had not been unusual to make special arrangements for the reporting of very important debates in the House and its committees. In 1874 a select committee was appointed to report on the best means of obtaining a Canadian Hansard; and the result was the adoption of a scheme which was carried out in 1875. Since then, the debates have been reported by a staff of reporters paid by the House, and published in a form similar to that of the English'Hansard. The reports are, as a rule, very correct, and a decided improvement upon the partial, imperfect reports in the newspapers to which the members were previously obliged to refer. Any one who has to gather the materials for a political work, or to find precedents of old parliamentary usages and procedure in this country, must see the value of such a correct record as is afforded by the several series known in England as Hansard's debates.
And there is a marginal note as follows:
The Commons Committee on Debates recommend to the House the appointment, salaries and duties of the official reporters-


George Eulas Foster: What is the first word? -' recommends '?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the House of Commons may adopt it or not.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: (Let hon. members wait until I have read the whole:
The Commons Committee on Debates recommends to the House the appointment, salaries and duties of the official reporters, and in fact make all the arrangements necessary for the satisfactory operation of the system. Their reports, when adopted, are the rules governing the publication of the reports.


Mr.   POSTER@: So, I say that the scope of the power and privileges of the Debates Committee is quite well defined by the rules of this House of Commons. The Committee on Debates has had the power to appoint


George Eulas Foster: * Recommend.'


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Practically to appoint.


George Eulas Foster: Actually to recommend.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: The recommendations of the committee, when confirmed by the House, became the law of the land. Let this Civil Service Bill become law and what will be the result so far as the Debates Committee is concerned? The result will be to debar the committee at once from the power to make such recommendations


George Eulas Foster: Not at all.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Yes, we will be completely debarred from making such recommendations. The committee will not be in a position to make a recommendation about appointments or salaries or anything else in connection with the reporting and translating of the debates. All this is taken away from the Debates Committee without a word of warning. Though,, as chairman of the Debates Committee, I have been told that our reports will be properly confirmed by this House, that increases of salaries will be granted right and left to reporters and translators, though I have been assured that our report No. 3 as well as our report No. 2 will be confirmed in due course, I find that, without a word of warning, without even the two hours' notice that is granted to tlie Crown in a case of habeas corpus, I am brought before the House to defend the life of our committee. Because that is the position-so far as the Debates Committee is concerned, this is a matter of life or death. But if, I am doomed to extinction, I will die fighting like a man.


Robert Laird Borden: With your face to the foe.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I go down like a man. But I leave it to my successors of a future day to resuscitate the Debates Committee, to bring into existence a debates committee, that will be composed, I hope, of men possessing the proper qualities.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The idea of the death of the Debates Committee or of my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) would be so appalling to me that if I thought that would be the effect of this Bill I would change the Bill-


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: That is the question so far as the Debates Committee is concerned -life or death.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman is mistaken as to the scope of the Bill. It does not interfere with the recommendations of the Debates Committee. They can

recommend tlie employment of an officer-


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: But


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Pardon me a moment- but they cannot choose the individual.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Why?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because the Bill provides the contrary. The Debates Committee can go on and do anything that it does to-day, but it cannot choose the individual appointee; that individual must be chosen under the operation of this Bill. Except for this, the committee has all its powers and privileges.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I would like to know from the minister (Mr. Fisher) what are the very serious reasons of a public character which have made the Civil Service Bill necessary so far as the official reporters and translators are concerned? I would like him to state what are the grounds of faultfinding that make it desirable to make this Bill applicable to the official report of the debates.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The reason is that it is not advisable to have exceptions when they are not very necessary.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In view of the representations which have been made, and in view of the proposed amendment which has been placed in my hands by the officials of the House of Commons, I would like to say that I think clause 3 ought to stand until I can consider the effect of this amendment and of the proposal of my hon. friend from St. James, Montreal (Mr. Gervais). I would ask, therefore, that clause 3 stand for further consideration.


Mr. LENNOX.: I am glad the minister has taken that position. I was about to address some arguments to him why the section should not be adopted as it is, but I do not think it is necessary to add anything.	-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend, or any other member, has any views to offer in regard to this clause I would like to hear them, because they might aid me in coming to a conclusion.


George William Fowler: Do you mind reading the proposed amendment?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This amendment, which was placed in my hands by Mr, Speaker, embodies the views of the employees of the House of Commons regarding section
3.	The amendment is to strike out all the words in the 21st and 22nd lines, which include the officers, clerks and employees 366}
of both houses of parliament ,and to add as subsection 2 the following:
So much of this Act and of the Civil Service Act as relates to appointments, classification, salaries and promotions, shall apply to the permanent officers, clerks and employees of both Houses o.f parliament and of the library of parliament.


George William Fowler: If you add those words, don't they cover the whole ground?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not altogether. I do not know if my hon. friend was present this afternoon and listened to the debate. The objections that were made by the employees to section 3 were that tiie clauses in the Civil Service Act which apply to leave of absence, to attendance, to attendance books and hours of attendance, would apply to them in the same way as they do to the departments. They pleaded, and showed, I think, successfully, that so far as the hours of attendance and the attendance book were concerned, they could hardly apply to them, as the hours of the employees of the House of Commons must necessarily be quite different from those in the departments. It is also, I believe, the practice for those employees to get much longer holidays when the House is not sitting than other employees in the departments get, as their work during the recess of parliament is so slight. The other parts of the Act they were quite willing should apply to them. Therefore, they drafted this amendment, which covers the points that I have alluded to.
Mr. FOWLER, Those matters would seem to be very minor matters, and could easily be arranged by the commission itself. If these were the only reasons, they are very slight reasons why they should not come under the operation of the Bill. But I do not think this House will divest itself of its privileges and prerogatives in this way. I think the House should retain full control of its officers in every way, both as to appointment, as to promotion, as to salary, and all that sort of thing. I think that the officials would feel themselves altogether as well off in the hands of the members of parliament as they would be iu the hands of this commission, which has very wide powers, and which would not naturally be in as close touch with the officials as would be the members of parliament. So far as I am concerned, I protest against handing over the officials of the House to any commission.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that would be the result of the enactment of this Bill; it would not hand the employees over to the commission. The commission would only deal with the entrance into the service by passing the examination and with the giving of certificates of qualification in cases of promotion. The classification is made by the Bill, it is not the commission

that makes it, the statute will make it. So far as salaries are concerned, they would be entirely under the control of the House, because the House would allot those officials to any class or division which they *w fit, and the salaries would then be those attached to that division. So the [DOT]expression used by my hon. friend that we were handing over the officials to the management of the commission does not properly describe the effect of the Bill.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think that I thoroughly grasp the meaning of this subclause 2 that the civil servants of the House of Commons propose, but I have no doubt that they have carefully considered it. I was talking to one or two of them this morning, and they had a decided objection to section 3. They pointed out that it would virtually make that class of officers into a department, with the Speaker as their head, who has no position in the Cabinet. They thought they were handicapped to a certain extent now under the Internal Economy Commission, by reason of the fact that the commission was composed of Cabinet ministers, one of the commission being the Speaker, who is not a member of the Cabinet. They think that if the whole Cabinet-I do not mean that this is exactly their language, but it is the idea which seems to have prevailed-had the control of this matter, the Speaker not being in the cabinet, they could not expect to get their case adequately represented. They seem to think that this amendment, striking out certain words of subsection 3 and providing that so much of the Civil Service Act as relates to the appointment, classification and salaries shall apply to the permanent officials and clerks of both Houses will serve the purpose. I cannot say that I quite understand what the effect of this clause they propose to add is. My feeling Is that the House of Commons should rather aim at obtaining greater control over the staff which peculiarly appertains to it than of lessening their hold in any way over them. They should assert their powers in that regard. I have not been taking part in this debate but I listened very carefully to what the hon. Minister of Agriculture said and X have noticed that he frequently refers to the fact that we have the parliament of Great Britain to guide us in this matter- a very safe guide-but I am instructed that we would not be following the system of Great Britain if we should retain the section as it appeared in the Bill or if we should put the employees of the House of Commons under the control of the Civil Service Commission. I think it is very desirable, as I said, that we should retain full control. I believe that while this Bill follows generally, the English system, in this respect it is a departure from the English practice and it is one that I do not think we should adopt. I would be glad to assist the min-Mr. FISHER.
ister in any way I could in this matter, but I feel very strongly that we should aim at keeping a very effective control over the staff of the House of Commons in the hands of the members of the House. I think that probably up to the present time, the government, rather than the members of the House of Commons, have had control of the matter to a greater extent than they should * have iiad.


George William Fowler: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) if he has had any conference with the Upper House as to whether they are satisfied to hand over the control of the officials of that Chamber to the commission even in the partial way that is proposed by this amendment.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, two of my colleagues are in that House and I have also spoken to individual senators, amongst others to the Speaker of the Senate about it, informally it is quite true. I would like to say to my hon. friend who spoke a moment ago (Mr. Lennox) with regard to the model of Great Britain, that, in so far as I can gather, the difference between the appointments to the house staff in Great Britain and appointments to the rest of the service is that in regard to the house staff permission to compete, in the competitive examinations, is limited to nominees of the clerk of the House. In England, until 1S70, all competitions were limited to such persons as were nominated. That was done away with in regard to the rest of the service, or to nearly the whole of the rest of the service in 1870, but it still exists with regard to the House of Commons, and I think of parliament. Those who are permitted to compete are nominated by the clerk of the House. Then, competitions, under apparently the same rules as those guiding other competitions in the civil service, are conducted and the successful one gets the appointment. But, as I understand it the examinations are conducted by the board of commissioners under regulations just the same as for other appointments in the service. That is my understanding.


George Eulas Foster: That is right.


George William Fowler: Hitherto there has been no examination with regard to officials of the House has there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


George William Fowler: Well, we seem to have gathered around us a very respectable class of officials. I do not think they could be surpassed in any way. They are men who understand their business, they are courteous, obliging and attentive and if we have so far conducted matters with such excellent results why should we make a change [ at all ? Why not leave the matter as it is I in the hands of parliament ? It would seem 1 to me that that is the proper thing to do.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister who has charge of this Bill (Mr. Fisher) has been kind enough to invite an expression of opinion from members of the House. I happen to be a member of the Debates Committee, and in my humble way 1 have given as close attention as I could to the different questions which have come before that committee. While I have no opinion to express with regard to the other officers of the House, I am bound to say that in regard to those who are employed as official ' Hansard ' reporters, in the light of the experience I have had and of the study which I have made of the question of the reporting of the debates, I am of the opinion that it would be better to continue the present system. I do not quite view the matter in the same manner as my hon. friend from Montreal, St. James (Mr. Ger-vais) does in the way of being sensitive with regard to the execution of the committee. as he expresses it. I do not think there is anything very serious about that, but I agree with him that the committee has given a very great deal of attention to the conduct of this business and I also feel that its work has not been appreciated. We have had meetings there of an entirely nonpartisan nature and it is an extremely happy relief to get away from the Public Accounts Committee and others of that kind where the time is wasted by wrangling one with another. We have in that committee nothing at all of the partisan spirit and I believe without exception the different members of the Debates Committee have divested themselves of party politics in the conduct of the business of that committee. We have on different occasions made recommendations to the House which I very much regret have not always been accepted. I think it is almost a truism that the recommendations of committees, so long as they have' the confidence of the House, are generally accepted and acted upon ; whereas, we have made recommendations which have not only not been accepted, but which have not even been considered. The recommendations of that committee are not taken in the same serious and generous way as the recommendations of other committees which I think give to their business no more consideration than we do to ours. I have only to say that, in my humble opinion, it would be much better to continue the conduct of the recording of the debates under the committee, subject, of course, to the ratification always of the House in the same manner that it is conducted at the present time. The idea of having a commission appoint these gentlemen, deciding who shall be promoted and who shall not be promoted, seems to be something not only lacking in recognition of the Debates Committee, but also lacking in recognition of the dignity of the House itself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not consider that under the amendment which I have presented to the House there will be any interference with the management of the staff.


George William Fowler: No interference with the appointments?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The appointments in future will be the same as the appointments to any other branches of the service.


George William Fowler: Will you need a Debates Committee if you are going to put that in the hands of the commissioners?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Just exactly the same as now.


George William Fowler: Will they recommend appointments?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If they do it will not avail because the appointments must come from a competitive examination. I do not wish to deceive anybody as to that. Instead of the Debates Committee recommending to the House so and so for the appointment a radical change will be made in that and the appointments must take place after a competitive examination, the results of which shall say who shall get the appointment. But the Debates Committee can recommend the necessity of an appointment just the same as heretofore. The Debates Committee can recommend salaries if they wish and any arrangement they may choose in regard to the classification or organization


George William Fowler: No.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Subject to the arrangement of the classification in this Bill.


George William Fowler: Well?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Suppose the Debates
Committee were of the opinion that the ' Hansard ' reporters should have a certain salary or should be placed in a certain division under the Bill, they could recommend that.


Mr. CROCKET.: Would the appointments be made by the Governor in Council on the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, all appointments
under this Act are made by the Governor in Council.


Oswald Smith Crocket: So that it takes the appointment of the officials of this House out of the House and places it in the hands of the Governor in Council.


George William Fowler: We would have no control over them at all.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I have served on the Debates Committee for 25 years, and I think the debates staff is perfect now. Whenever a vacancy has occurred on that staff we have called for applicants who were .referred to a competitive examination before a competent board and the committee made

its selection on the basis of the qualification as given by the examiners. That system has worked admirably. We have a first class staff and if the minister wants to disorganize and disarrange it he will take it out of the control of the House. We have had power to appoint and dismiss reporters and translators; we could reprimand any who was not discharging his duty, but that is now taken away and you might just as well dissolve the Debates Committee.


George William Fowler: Sure.


George Taylor: You have only to look at the competency of the present staff of reporters and translators to see that the Debates Committee has performed its duty well. We have provided an efficient and competent staff, and I do not see why the government want to interfere with it. The third clause of this Bill should not make any reference to the staff of the House which should be left as it always has been. If the House of Commons has not judgment enough to select a committee to look after the reporting and publication of the debates, and if that committee had not done its duty it would be time to take away its powers from it, but until fault is found the government should not interfere. The Debates Committee has given satisfaction to both sides of the House; it has worked year after year faithfully and efficiently and the translation is now done in first class shape.


Mr.   A.@: MARTIN (P.E.I.) I have never heard any one say that the staff of this House is not most efficient; our officers perform their duty well, and I think it is wise to let well enough alone.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I certainly do not ask that this amendment should be adopted without looking carefully into the manner in which it would work, and in view of the representations made I do not propose to ask that clause 3 should be adopted. I would like to say to my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) that I have not had the sligutest idea or intention of casting any reflection on the ' Hansard ' reporters or the translators' staff or on the employees of the House generally. The only reason they were included was that they being civil servants here in Ottawa we thought they should be subject to the same rules and regulations for entry into the service and promotion as other civil servants.
'Mr. TAYLOR. They are not civil servants in the true sense of the word; they are simply appointees of this House to do their work as long as they do it properly, and if they do not we have the power to recommend their dismissal.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perhaps technically speaking they are not civil servants, but at the same time they are doing very large-Mr. TAYLOR.
ly the same kind of work that civil servants do in the departments, and they are a portion of the public service here in Ottawa, the whole of which this Bill was designed to bring under the Civil Service Act. It is for that reason we thought to include them, but of course as I said in the earlier stages of the debate, If the general sense of the House is against it we are not desirous in any way whatever of forcing it upon the House. I think it is a matter which the House itself should deal with and decide upon, as indeed it must. We thought on the whole it would be advisable but if the House thinks it interferes with its prerogatives, and if the House wishes to retain control, the House has only got to say so and there is no question about the result. I would ask that this clause stand at any rate for another opportunity of discussing the merits of it.


George Taylor: Carried.


George Eulas Foster: The practice with regard to filling these positions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords is much as stated by the minister. They are all filled by examinations and the examination is conducted by the Civil Service Commission. But instead of everybody and anybody being allowed to present themselves only those are allowed who get the nomination of the Clerk of the House. I find that in one examination for two offices there were 10 competitors and in another case there were S competitors for one office. The duty is put upon the commission of making the examination and the appointment js made upon the results that come from that examination. That is all I want to apply to this House. The Minister of Agriculture said that he understood appointments would be made by order in council. I am not in favour of that. I do not want that done, and I do not think the minister expressed himself rightly. He surely means that whatever is to be done, this Bill is to be amended in such a way that all that takes place with reference to our ofticers is that their qualification shall be determined by the civil service examination. That is what I understand this amendment to mean. Then we give up no control at all, but we put ourselves alongside of the general principle which is in the Bill namely, that we approve of the principle of competition for entrance into the service of the House. We give up none of our privileges; we will simply be directing how the entrants are to find their way into the service of the House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is practically what this amendment put into my hand by the employees of the House would mean.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that the amendment to which reference was made before six o'clock?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: 
George William Fowler: No man would be stronger for reform than I where there is necessity
for reform, but certainly there has been no necessity shown for reform or a change in the case of the officers of the House whether on the ' Hansard ' staff or in any other department; these officials have been admitted by every Speaker to be efficient in every way and that being the case why should we make a change at all, why not leave the matter as it is, why deprive the Houses of parliament of all the prerogatives which they have to-day, why is it necessary to hand this matter over to a commission ? You speak of competitive examinations. In the employment of ' Hansard ' reporters there has always been a competitive examination, but if you take the appointment and the classification and the promotion away from the House and give it to the commission, what have you left ? It would be absurd to have a Debates Committee, what could they do ? The minister says recommend to the commission as to appointments, salaries or promotions. The commission would have no more right to take their recommendation than to take a recommendation with respect to any other official who came under their jurisdiction in any department. I fail to see any reasons for a change shown ; every person who has spoken has shown some reasons why there should not be a change.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will realize that we are introducing a new principle in the appointment of the civil service. In the civil service I include the officers of this House as well as the officers of the executive government. All are entrusted with public duties, which are much of the same nature. Up to the present time a man appointed either by the executive government or by this House has been appointed on the judgment of that body that he was a fit ,and proper person for that position. But to-day we introduce a new principle. Hereafter it shall not be allowed to the executive government to select any person to fill an office necessary to be filled in order to carry on the administration. It has been decided that a commission shall be appointed to select persons fitted to perform such service. A man is to be appointed say in the Pr.vy Council office or in the office of the Secretary of State or any other office of the executive government. Up to the present, the president of the council has had the privilege of recommending appointment for such an office. He will no longer have that privilege, but wTill have to ask the commission to recommend to him some one who is competent and proper to discharge the duties of the office. The commission itself shall not act arbitrarily or by its own moods but shall follow certain rules in order to get the best and most fitted person. If that is to be the rule in the executive government, can there be any reason why it should not be the rule for the officers of this House ? What difference can there be between the

gentleman who Is called upon to serve in any of the offices of the executive government and the gentleman who is called upon to serve in an office in this House ? They are qualified to perform much the same services and they are called upon to perform services of similar character. Therefore it seems to me that there is as much reason why the principle of competitive examination should apply to those who are to serve in this House as to those who are to serve in the executive government, My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) put the point clearly this afternoon and as far as possible I would agree with what he said. While that is admitted. I agree altogether that we should not go beyond what is absolutely necessary, we should not invade the privileges of this House or any one else except in so far as this is necessary to carry out this new principle, and I believe that the power of appointment, wherever it is to day, should reside there. The Debates Committee will not have the power they have to-day to select anybody on their own will, properly exercised I am sure, but will be bound, as every one else having occasion to make an appointment, to apply to the Civil Service Commission to appoint to them a good and proper person to perform the duties required. But if the Debates Committee has had the privilege up to the present of making recommendations when they have received this person from the Civil Service Commission to fill that position they shall have to make a report to this House and the report shall have to be adopted by the House. The powers and the usefulness of the Debates Committee will not be interfered with. Some of these powers will be curtailed as the powers of appointment are to be curtailed, but the sphere of action of the Debates Committee would continue to be the same as today, barring of course this encroachment on their power; but in so far as the discipline, standing and everything else connected with the work of the committee is concerned, it will have the same powers then as now.


George William Fowler: If they would not have the power of dismissal or recommendation of dismissal how could they discipline ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Debates Committee shall have the power to make recommendations, to say that such a person is not fit for the position and to suggest his dismissal. The only point in which the power vested in them to-day will be curtailed will be that they will have, like every other appointing power, to apply to the commission to name a person to fill the office.


Robert Laird Borden: The proposal does not in the slightest degree infringe on the dismissal power here or elsewhere?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all.
Mr. FOSTER, They would have the power to probationize ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER


George William Fowler: The House will have the power of dismissal and not the commission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The House has no power of dismissal under this Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: The commission has no power except to make the selection.
On section 5,
5. The inside service under the deputy heads, excluding messengers, porters, sorters and packers, and such other appointments and employments in the lower grades as are determined by the Governor in Council, shall be divided into three divisions.
2.	The first division shall be divided into-
Subdivision A, consisting of officers having
the rank of deputy heads but not being deputy heads administering departments, assistant deputy ministers, and the principal technical and administrative and executive officers;
Subdivision B, consisting of the lesser technical and administrative and executive officers, including the chief clerks now holding office.
3.	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. This division shall be divided into subdivisions A and B.
1. The third division shall consist of the other clerks in the service whose duties are copying and routine work, under direct supervision, of less importance than that of the second division. This division shall be divided into subdivisions A and B. (Sections 61 to 78.)


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When this clause was before the committee some days ago, it was agreed to, with the exception of subsection 3. My hon. friend from North Toronto took exception to the wording. I have a wording now, which perhaps will meet his views

The second division shall consist of certain other clerks having technical, administrative, executive or other duties, which are of the same character but of less importance and less responsibility than those of the first division. This division shall be divided into subdivisions A and B,


George Eulas Foster: That is satisfactory so far as I am concerned. What I wanted was something which defines their duties.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is what I understood.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister thought out the suggestion of the leader of the opposition as to simplifying the divisions ? In the British service they have two divisions, the upper and the second besides the writers division. The latter consists of what you would call the lowest clerks. Where do the deputy heads come in ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are over and above this classification.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, but where are they ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are in the inside service.


George Eulas Foster: But uot classified. How does that affect the matter of promotion ? What I advocated very strongly was that the grade should not be barred to the entrant in the lower division who should prove himself capable of doing the duty. How is that affected?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It will not be affected.


George Eulas Foster: You have the deputies over and above all. Then you have the first division, which is defined as consisting of technical, administrative and executive officers. Then you divide that into two- one part important and the other of lesser importance. Then you go to work with the second division and you define that, and also consisting of technical, administrative and executive and other officers of a grade not as important but keeping the same generic description, and you divide that into four subdivisions. It would seem possible to simplify those and have a first and a second division and then your third division of copying clerks. The moment you divide men doing the work of the country into castes and classes, you make distinctions among them which are almost entirely arbitrary distinctions. They grade from one to another but they are all in the same class. What is the objection to simplifying the divisions ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My first inclination was to divide the whole service into just three divisions, the first, second and third, the latter of which, to a certain extent, though not altogether, corresponds to the writer class in Great Britain. We found, however, this condition of things. When an employee gets into a certain division, the practice to-day is, and probably will continue, that he gets his statutory increase right along from year to year. My hon. friend must have observed that frequently clerks, without any specifical qualification, simply by seniority, get away up into the service ; and we have thought it better to have in each division a certain stopping place where, if the clerk showed he was not of a quality which justified his going to the head of that division, he would stop by reason of not being promoted from one division to other. But if he showed ability and industry, he would naturally get his promotion when he came to the head'of his subdivision.


George William Fowler: Who would be the judge ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The commission would have to give him a certificate. But if he showed he was doing his work in a purely perfunctory way, he would then stop at the head of that subdivision and make no progress until he had shown himself worthy of it.


George William Fowler: Does he go automatically from one point of division to another ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To-day a clerk gets his annual increment unless he has some vex-y bad mark against him. It is very rare when he does not get his annual increase. If he gets to the head of the class in which he is, there he will stop unless he has shown himself worthy of further progress ; and we thought it better to subdivide each division into two, so as to get that stoppage if the clerk was not worthy of a promotion. If he is worthy, there is nothing to prevent him going right along. That was the object of this apparent multiplication of the subdivisions. There is no other reason.


George Eulas Foster: No doubt there is something in that.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Is there anything in the Bill that would prevent the appointment of an officer in a certain grade to be given work in some other grade? I know of many such cases in the outside service, and I suppose there are such cases in the inside service as well. For instance, suppose that the position of a clerk becomes vacant ; the government wants to appoint a certain man, but the person so favoured is not able to pass the civil service qualifying examination ; to get over this difficulty he is appointed as a messenger, and, though having only the title of a messenger, is set to do the work of a clerk. The government is making appointments of this kind every day in the outside service-in the Customs, Inland Revenue and other departments. Is there anything in this Bill to prevent a continuance of that kind of thing?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: So far as that applies to the inside service, I do not know how it can be done now. If you appoint a messenger, he must be a messenger and will have the pay, standing and rank of a messenger. I do not mean to say if there were some copying to do in my department and nobody available to do it except a messenger, if the messenger had the necessary qualifications, that I would not put him on that work.
Mr. ,T. D. REID. But suppose that a third-class clerk is needed in the minister's department and the man whom he wants to appoint cannot pass the examination, could he appoint the man as a messenger and then put him to do the work? Of course, the man would have the standing and pay of a messenger, for the Auditor General would not permit anything else, but he would be filling his position of a third-class clerk.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I take it for granted that under this Bill if a third-class clerk were wanted, my deputy would apply to the

commission, and that an examination would be held and the clerk appointed. I must say that what my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) has stated is entirely new to me. I never thought of such a thiug. I can understand the attempt to appoint somebody by a roundabout way in order to give him advantages of salary, but to appoint him at a lower salary to do the work that calls for a higher salary is a thing I never thought of.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose the minister never heard of an attempt to evade the Civil Service Act?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have heard stories to that effect, but I do not know of any case.


John Dowsley Reid: Did he ever know of a case, say in the Inland Revenue Department, where an officer is required for the work of the department in a brewery or distillery, and, to evade the law, they give their man an appointment as deputy collector and let him do the work?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It must have been unlawful.


John Dowsley Reid: A deputy collector is not required to pass the civil service examination. Or they can appoint him preventive officer and let him do the work. So, in the inside service, could they not appoint a man to a minor position and put him to do the work of a position for which he could not pass the qualifying examination? And could not the Bill be evaded in that way?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If it can be done now. I suppose it could be done under the Bill. The country would benefit to the extent of getting a clerk's work done at messenger's pay.


George William Fowler: But getting it done badly, perhaps.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would not be right, and could no more be done in the future than in the past. It is a matter that never suggested itself to my mind. .


Mr. STEWART.: Do I understand that under this Bill a clerk would rise by continuous gradations, so that on reaching the maximum of his class he would go into the next class?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: With the necessary order for promotion.


Robert Stewart: But I understood the minister to say that there was a difference in that respect between this Bill and the present law. Under the present law', when a clerk reaches the maximum of his class there is no wTay for him to advance until there is a vacancy for him to be appointed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would be the same as now.	1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On section 6-second and third divisions.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was held in deference to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). He objected to an amendment I proposed. I have decided to drop that amendment and to leave the section as it stands. But I must, in fairness, say that, in a later clause, I propose to add something of the same kind in a modified form.


George Eulas Foster: As the minister has been so good in that respect-and I think his action a wise one-I am going to propose a little change in this section myself. This is with reference to subsection 4. The subsection now reads :
4.	Third-class clerks and temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies shall be placed in subdivision B of the third division.
Now the principle of this Bill is that you shall test the successful applicant by means of an examination. With reference to the clerks who now have an absolute status, acquired by fulfilling the requirements of the old Act and passing a preliminary or qualifying examination, that status is maintained. But here you have a different class. A large number of people have been appointed temporarily and paid out of civil government contingencies. We have always been pretty sensitive and careful with reference to temporaries who have been a long while in the public service, and in the various changes we have made in the Act from time to time we have put those of long service into the lower division and made them a part of the service. You are coming now to this state of things that you have a larger number, variously calculated at 100 to 150 of temporaries who are comparatively new. They are being paid out of civil government contingencies or other votes and have not passed anv examination at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Those that I speak of have not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then they are not in that class.


George Eulas Foster: I have made careful inquiry, and I am told there are quite a large number of clerks in temporary employment to-day w'ho have not passed any examinations at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not under civil government contingencies.


George Eulas Foster: My inquiries have led me to that conclusion ; and more than that, that there are a good many of those who w'ould find it difficult to pass any kind of an examination. If that be true, these should not be drafted into the permanent service.
I w'ould suggest that in the case of temporary clerks paid out of civil government con-

tingencies, they should he placed in subdivision B of the third division, upon their getting a certificate of qualification from the Civil Service Commission, in all cases where they have not performed the service for more than ten years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I maintain that I am right in regard to the clerks under civil government contingencies. The Auditor General has always refused to allow any clerk to be paid out of civil government 'contingencies who has not passed the qualifying examination. I have known in my department that there is no possibility of the appointment of anybody to be paid out of civil government contingencies who has not passed the qualifying examination.


George Eulas Foster: If that be so, and that there are no temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies who have not passed qualifying examination, then of course my objection would be met. I had proposed that in the case of temporary clerks who had not passed the qualifying examination and who have served for less than ten years, a certificate from the Civil Service Commission as to qualification, health, character and habits shall be required before they can be so placed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will ask that this section pass, provided that, if I find that my hon. friend is right, we will come back to it.


George William Fowler: If the minister finds that he has to make an amendment in order to get within the clause, I will suggest that after the word ' clerks ' you add the words ' temporary clerks who have passed the qualifying examination or have been ten years in the service.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If they are paid out of civil government contingencies, that means they have passed the qualifying examination.


George Eulas Foster: If that is so, my objection falls.
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.


George Eulas Foster: What is the meaning of that ? Because you include the same clerks as you do in the preceding (section.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is generalizing what is in section 0. If. by any possibility, there is anybody who is not indicated in section 6, he will come under this.


George Eulas Foster: I thought that classification according to salaries had another meaning. For instance, you have 30 clerks, and they will come in the new classification, not in the order of their age, or their entrance
into the service, but in order of their salaries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They would be put into the subdivision according to their salaries and in the order of their salaries.


George Eulas Foster: So it might happen that No. 8 would be a person who came into the service three or four years later than No. 7, but on account of his receiving a larger salary than No. 7, he would be placed above the other on the list. That incidentally carries with it the idea of seniority for promotion, and might work a hardship.


George William Fowler: Section 7 certainly goes beyond section 6, it includes everybody, it is a general clause. ' Except as herein otherwise provided, all persons now employed in the inside service including temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies.' All clerks, whether they are qualified or not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, any temporary clerks who are not paid out of civil government contingencies do not belong to the inside service.


George William Fowler: Then why do you put that qualifying clause in at all, as to temporary clerks ? If no temporary clerk can belong to the inside service unless he is paid out of civil government contingencies, then why put that clause in there at all ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The clause is needed, but perhaps the words the hon. gentleman objects to are not needed, that is to say ' paid out of civil government contingencies.'


George William Fowler: If they are needed in subsection 4 of section 6 they are needed in section 7.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, because in section 4 they might apply to temporary clerks outside the civil service who are brought into it.


George William Fowler: You are intimating here that there are temporary clerks who are not included in the qualification of being paid out of civil government contingencies.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Lots of them, but they are not in the inside service.
(Mr. FOWLER. But that is the plain meaning of the section. If they are not in the inside service this Act will not apply to them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It will apply to them after the Act passes.


George William Fowler: No, because it is expressly limited to the inside service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They will be in the inside service after this Act passes. They are in Ottawa.


George William Fowler: Then it must mean that the Act is going to take in certain clerks

who are not in the inside service and who are not in the outside service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, there are lots of them.	-


George William Fowler: I do not see why you want that qualifying clause, ' including temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies.'
Mr. FISHER The last words ' paid out of civil government contingencies ' would not be required, but the words ' temporary clerks ' would be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are officials who have come in lately, some of whom have not even passed the qualifying examination, who have been pushed forward very much ahead of men who have been in the service a number of years and who have passed the civil service examination. Although the former entered the service at a later period their salaries are larger.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does my hon. friend refer to clerks who have come into the inside service without passing the examination?
)Mr. SPROULE. I think it is the inside service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It cannot be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is because there were several put in temporarily a few years ago and they were made permanent.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know that. It cannot be in the inside service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are several services in Ottawa which are not permanent. They are not in and they have not the status of the inside service. In the Public Works Department there are some officials of this class. They are called permanent clerks, but they are not paid out of civil government estimates or civil government contingencies, and the Auditor General does not recognize them as being in the inside service.
Mr. SPROULE I am told there are some included under the heading which is given there, and that this will work an injustice to others who have been in a much longer time and who are more deserving. You propose to rank them now according to their salaries. Suppose a young man came in seven or eight years ago, started at the lowest salary, and gradually worked up. For several years he was not allowed his statutory increase and therefore his salary is small. Another comes in several years later and is given a start at a much higher rate of remuneration. He is only in a short time when his salary is pushed up perhaps a couple of hundred dollars. Shortly he is put up to a larger salary than the other, although he has only been in the service a few years. Now Mr. FOWLER.
then, he takes his position ahead of the man who has been in the service for several years, who has passed all the examinations and who has worked faithfully. The man who came in several years after him will be away ahead of him now; in future he will be eligible for a higher class and will get a much larger salary. I submit that this is a real injustice to deserving young men who have been in the service for a length of time. There should be a better method of classifying them than by simply taking the salary they are obtaining at the present time.


George William Fowler: Do I understand the minister to say that there are now no temporary clerks employed in the inside service who have passed the qualifying examination ?
Mr. FISHER That is what I say.


George William Fowler: If that be a fact then you have no need of these words ' including temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies.'
iMr. CROCKET. Are there not a large number of temporary clerks employed in the different departments who have not passed the qualifying examination?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.
IMr. CROCKET. And the minister says that they are not in the inside service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.
Mr. CROCKET What will become of these temporary clerks after this Act passes?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is another section which provides for their being brought in.


George William Fowler: Then this clause only mystifies us?


George Eulas Foster: I think the words used are unfortunate then. It says ' all persons now employed in the inside service.' The Department of the Interior is the inside service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Part of it.


George Eulas Foster: Go over to the building where the Department of the Interior is- that is the inside service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not under the present interpretation of the Act.


George Eulas Foster: If you said ' who belong to the inside service ' it would be different, but there is your inside service and there are your temporary clerks employed by the dozens who have never passed the civil service examinations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend means that in relation to the inside service I say he is quite right, but that is not the interpretation of the Civil Service Act, and that

is what we are discussing at the present time.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Section 3 describes the expression ' inside service.' It says:
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.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the new interpretation of the inside service. [DOT]
Mr. CROCKET As distinguishing it from the outside service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the new interpretation.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, if you leave it in that way it will bear the interpretation which this Act gives it.


George Eulas Foster: The wording is unfortunate.


Robert Laird Borden: You will have to alter the phraseology.


Mr. MONK.: I would like to take the opportunity of the discussion of this section of the Bill merely to protest, in so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, against the restriction of its application. When my hon. friend (Mr. Fisher) announced this measure and when he introduced it, I was very anxious to give it my most hearty support because I had very often criticised our system of civil service and referred to the reforms which had been effected elsewhere under circumstances of far greater difficulty than exist in our own country. It was therefore a measure which I was very glad to see proposed by the government, but I desire to lodge my protest against the exclusion of the outside service. I think it is extremely regrettable that the government has not comprised the whole service in this reform, and I am asking myself for what possible reason it did not do so since there was a great grievance to be cured which the government has only attempted to half cure. I cannot imagine what the reason of that timidity can possibly be because the result of the application of this measure in the way that the government intends to apply it will be an intensification of the evil which exists in the outside service. The outside service is the most important service because it is not under the direct supervision of the government. This may have been stated already, but I was not here at the other stages of the discussion of the Bill, I may not be here when the Bill comes to another stage and I wish to lodge this protest as voicing the opinion which is held in the province of Quebec, where civil service reform has been desired for a very long time. I approve of the action of the government very much
although I think we must all admit that it is under pressure that the government has brought in this Bill. It is good in principle but why apply it in this restricted manner ? In the province of Quebec, and I am sure everywhere else in the large centres, the civil service is not under the direct supervision of the government. It is not as it is in Ottawa. I do not mean to say that the civil servants are better in Ottawa, but they are under the eyes of the administration. In Montreal and in other cities throughout the Dominion the outside service is loaded up to the hilt with thehait.the infirm and the incompetent. They have entered under the system of patronage which existed before this government came into power and which has flourished exceedingly since it came into power. The relatives of members of parliament, friends of members, ail kinds of worthless people are shoved into the outside service. In Montreal it exists in ail the departments. In England fifty years ago they determined they would do away with this festering sore, and they courageously grappled with it and did away with it at once. They did not temporize with it as this government of Canada proposes to do. In the United States, where the conditions are entirely different from what they are in this country. they could not do away with the evils of the outside service at one fell swoop, and so they gradually introduced reform commencing with the customs house and other federal services in New York city, where the civil service was a disgrace to the name and extending reform later to the post office service. Is it not better we should follow the example of England and crush the evil at once rather than the example of the United States where the reform has only been gradual. The result of leaving things as they are in the outside service will be that it will be crowded with all sorts of incompetents under the patronage system and when you come to the application of clause 4 bringing in the outside service by order in council you will be met with all kinds of obstacles. I believe it my duty to make this protest and I believe that every member of this House who has any political experience will endorse it. This is a good measure and deserves our support but it stops short of effectiveness for good when you do not bring the outside service under it. There is no reason why we should pass a half measure like this in Canada, for I believe public opinion in my province and elsewhere is strongly in favour of makiug it a complete measure and remedying this defect which will mar the efficiency of the Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill provides for bringing in the outside service from time to time as it is feasible and as the necessary details of organization may be worked out. I have already given my reasons to the committee

why we have not thought it advisable to bring in the entire service at one swing, and I do not think I need repeat these reasons now.


Robert Laird Borden: As to the expression ' inside service ' contained in section 7


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I wish to state that I was mistaken as to that and therefore I must move an amendment because it was intended to apply to the old inside service. I move :
That section 7 he amended by striking out the words ' inside service ' in the thirty-sixth line and substituting the following: first or inside departmental division as defined by section la of the Civil Service Act.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does that mean the existing Civil Service Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When this becomes law is not the old Act repealed ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This will define what is meant by these words here,


Robert Laird Borden: With respect to section 3a which has been alowed to stand, I wish to place upon ' Hansard ' for the information of the House the amendment I have suggested and possibly this form of enactment will be acceptable to the House generally. I beg to suggest the following :
This Act and the Civil Service Act shall apply to the permanent officers, clerks and employees-
(a)	of the Senate to the extent and in the manner set forth and declared from time to time by resolution of the Senate;
(b)	of the House of Commons to the extent and in the manner set forth and declared from time to time by resolution of the House of Commons;
(c)	of the library of parliament; to the extent and in the manner set forth Trad declared from time to time by a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.
I do not suggest that the minister should decide' upon it at once, but I thought it just as well to bring the suggestion before the committee. It seems to me that it would secure the freedom of action of each House in a matter in which each House would desire some freedom of action, and at the same time bring about what I hope will be brought about, that is the placing of the officers of the House generally under the provisions of this Act, which is applicable to all of the departments of the government except the outside service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, that would have to be a subclause to clause 3 at the end of the clause, and certain words would have to be struck out.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be necessary to strike out the last two lines of clause 3.	I


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And that would be substituted as a subclause at the end? I shall be very glad to take that into consideration *with the other remarks and suggestions that have been made, and I hope when we again go into committee we shall be able to come to a conclusion on the matter.


George Eulas Foster: I would make a suggestion in regard to clause 9. You appoint a commission which is to consist of two members appointed by the Governor in Council. I wish to ask the minister to consider whether he will not admit the following words :
To be called the Civil Service Commisison consisting of two members not more than one of whom shall he an adherent of the same political party.
We are appointing a commission for life or good behaviour. We are starting out on a new plan, which is to be put in force in a country where there are two great parties with the rivalries and suspicions and the likings that each of two parties have with reference to each other. We are also to have it operative in a country where Conservatives and Liberals will be applicants both for first entrance and also for promotions under the Act itself. For two reasons, the first for the fairness of it, and secondly for the sake of recommending it more to the confidence of the public as a whole and allaying suspicions, I think it would be a good thing if that were introduced. This principle is not new at all. Of course, in Great Britain the question of partisanship does not come up with reference to the Civil Service Commission, as it does not on the boards of customs or of inland revenue, who are also appointed for life or good behaviour ; the conditions are different here and so they were in the United States. In the United States Civil Service Commission the minister wall see that provision is made that not more than two of the three shall belong to the same political party. I find that the Civil Service Commissions of New York, Massachusetts and Wisconsin proceeded on the same basis, and in correspondence with some of these commissions and the offices of state, not only with reference to the Civil Service Commission, but with reference to other commissions, such as the Public Utility Commissions, I was informed that the system *was adopted there of having what might be called bi-partisan commissions, that is, appointing representatives of both parties on the commissions, and in that way they not only induced confidence, hut the result in the working out has proved to he very beneficial indeed. I think it would strengthen the Act and its operation and improve its reception by the public.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would point out that the model of the United States in a matter of this kind is not a very safe model, and

it is not to my liking at all. ,In the United States party politics is recognized all through the organization of the government and of political warfare and everything else of that kind in a way that it is not recognized or acknowledged here. I would also point out that these commissioners are to be appointed as though they were judges. Nobody ever suggests that a judge should be chosen with reference to his political partisanship or anything of that kind. The appointment of a judge means that he leaves behind him his political allegiance or partisanship, and certainly I cannot believe that the men who are appointed to the Civil Service Commission will not do the same thing. They ought not to be appointed because of partisanship; men of broad views and quite above the possibility of betraying their trust will have to be appointed. I would not like to have it understood that one member of the commission is appointed because of his political faith. In the United States they have three commissioners. They do not require that they should be all of one party, but that one shall be of each party, and the third practically holds the balance.


George Eulas Foster: It provides that not more than two shall be of one party.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a recognition of partisanship on the commission which I should be sorry to see here.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As far as I am concerned, I would not like to admit the principle in our country of a distinction of parties in a nomination of this kind. It has never existed in England at all, and in the United States it has come about under ideals of government that are totally different from our own. I look at it in this way, that if this commission is what we have reason to expect it will be, they will be' men who will act just as judges would.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Having a tenure of office different from that on which commissioners of this kind hold office in the United States. As I understand, they will hold office subject to the will of parliament, having the same tenure of office as our judges. Under these circumstances, I must say that I would be sorry to see in the nomination of men occupying these judicial positions the recognition of political parties. It has always been recognized in the United States almost in the appointment of judges. In the case of the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States the highest tribunal except the Supreme Court, there are provisions regarding the selection of commissioners as far as their political views are concerned. There has never been such a recognition of party politics in England. and as long as we can follow the traditions of the mother country we had
better adhere to them and try to carry them out.


George Eulas Foster: I did not suggest that tile government should select the two simply because one was a Liberal and the other was a Conservative ; that is not the principle at all. But I suppose it is not to be gainsaid that equally suitable persons can be found on both sides of politics, and whilst the cardinal principle was to select the man who was best fitted for the work, that would not be varied in the selection of tile two by selecting one from one party and the other from another party. I certainly think that, while there are some tilings to be avoided in the arrangements on the other side of the line, and that we do not need to slavishly follow what they do, yet, on the other hand, neither do we wish to refuse to follow their example where that example is a good one. The practical effect of this plan has been the sensible and useful work of these commissions for public utilities and civil service reform, and I am sure would have no deleterious effect in this country.


George William Fowler: Why have you two commissioners? Why not three?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I explained the other day that two could do the work quite as well and that three would be an additional expense ?


George William Fowler: Suppose they should disagree ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should say they would agree. Generally one will carry the day. I do not think there is any doubt about that.	#


George William Fowler: In that case why not have only one ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, because we have French and English in this country, and I think that, in deference to the two languages and races, there should be one to represent each.
I am going to ask that section 15 be reconsidered.


George Eulas Foster: Section 10 was not passed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I want that to stand. Amendments are being prepared to bring the section more into accord with the evident feeling of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Before leaving section 10, might I call the minister's attention to one matter which affects that as well as some other sections of the Bill. The general scheme of the Bill is set forth in section 8. I pointed out that it will require amendments so far as the Houses of parliament are concerned. Might I suggest that, for the same reason, the following sections, so far as they concern the Houses of parliament will require consideration

and probable revision, or else it will be necessary to embody in tbe Bill some general section explaining the manner in which the sections of which I am about to speak will apply to the Senate, the House of Commons and the library of parliament: Section 10, subsection (b)-if there is to be any investigation into the House of Commons it should be done on resolution of the House on report of Mr. Speaker

The same is true of section 21, probably of section 22, certainly of sections 23 and 26, probably of subsection 28, subsections 1 and 2, sections 34, 35 and 38 and section 39, subsection 3. I am not absolutely sure that I have covered every section.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I see what my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) means. Where the Governor in Council does certain things, then, so far as the House is concerned, the House will have to do them.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. I think a general provision at the end of the Bill would be better than an amendment to each of these.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that would be the better way.
Section 15 was adopted, but in consequence of a remark of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in regard to the list of successful competitors, I have discussed the matter with the Department of Justice and they have suggested that these words at the end of subsection 3 of section 15 would accomplish the object aimed at. My hon. friend spoke about the permanent list. While I gather from the tenor of the Bill that it is intended to make a list each time that there is an examination, these words added, as I have suggested, would make clear the intention of the Bill :
.-and their names in the order of merit shall he placed at the top of the list to he prepared in accordance with section 17 of this Act.
That indicates that those who remain over from the previous examinations, should be placed at the head of the list at the next examination. That seems to cover the ground.
Mr, FOSTER. That expression ' a previous examination ' does not seem broad enough. 'If there remain from a previous examination successful competitors '-they might remain from previous examinations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The section says that, if there remains from a previous examination successful competitors who have not received appointments, their number should be deducted in making a computation for the next examination.


George William Fowler: 'A previous examination' would mean any previous examination-there might be half a dozen.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That expression is all right, I think.


George Eulas Foster: Should not you have the word ' additional ' in section 15 ? That would make it read ' Before holding any such examination, the commission should require each head of a department to furnish it with a number of additional permanent officers or clerks likely to be required in his department within the next six months.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It seems to me the section is clear enough.


George William Fowler: Better put in the 'additional.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no objection. But I think it is painting the lily.
Mr. FOWrLER. Otherwise the head of the! department will have to give a list of all the officers required for the work of his department, not merely the additional ones.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: I was not here when section 14 was under consideration. Did it pass ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Was any amendment
made ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think not.


George Eulas Foster: Does not the minister
leave out one important thing which I find in every other civil service examination,- viz. the certificate of health and character ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was intended to be in the rules and regulations.


George Eulas Foster: I think it is important enough to have in the Act itself. We should add the words ' and presents certificates satisfactory to the commission as to health, character and habits.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no objection to that at all.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18-selections to fill vacancies.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have been asked to strike out the word ' person ' in line 21 and replace it by the words ' successful competitor.' The clause will then read :
The selection shall be, so far as practicable, in the order of the names on the list, but the commission may select any successful competitor who, in his examination, shows special qualifications for any particular subject.


George William Fowler: I do not see any necessity for that change. What list is it ? It is the list of successful competitors, under section 17. from -which you are to select. And you are now making the clause prac-1 tically read ' may select from the list of

successful competitors a successful competitor.' The first drafting is preferable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The change was suggested to me by the Justice Department.


George Eulas Foster: Why do you put in the words ' so far as practicable ?'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that these words are the exact terms in the English order in council.


George Eulas Foster: You might use them if you were not going to make an exception, but when you specifically make the exception,
I do not see why you use these words.


Robert Laird Borden: It may happen that the first person on the list might be one who had left Canada, and there would be no use in selecting him. The second person might have become incapable through illness and so on. I suppose the words were intended to cover such cases. In addition even where these persons are available, we give the commission power to select the person who has special fitness for a particular office. You leave that to the discretion of the commission.


George Eulas Foster: What do you mean by the words ' who in his examination shows special qualifications for any particular subject ?' You are trying to get a man for a certain employment. He might show special qualifications in some particular subject and still be impracticable for the work you require him to do.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think the word ' subject ' is a very good term. The words ' particular position or employment or service ' might be better. The word ' subject ' is used because it is used in the English statute. The reason for it is this. One competitor might show particular qualifications for book-keeping, another for correspondence and so on. If you wanted an accountant, you would prefer the one ; and if you wanted a man to do correspondence, you would take the other. We want to give the commission a certain latitude in choosing, according to the particular service for which a clerk is required.
On section 26,
Mr. FISHER, After the word 'promotion ' in the first line, I propose to add [DOT] promotion other than that from the third to the second division shall be made for merit.' Because, when coming into the second division, they have to pass another examination. When a clerk passes from the third division to the second division he goes through an open competitive examination.


George Eulas Foster: How about promotion from the lowest class to the next above ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would come under the 6th clause. I say 4 other than that from the third to the second.'


George Eulas Foster: You say here 4 by a certificate of qualification by the commission to be given with or without examination, as is determined by the regulations of the commission.' The minister is not following the English method there, because the English method requires an examination, it may_ be competitive or it may be non-competitive. For instance, the appointing head has the option. If he wishes to have it made competitive, he so signifies, and a competitive examination is held. There may be in the department three or four that are just about even, the appointing head does not wish to make a distinction between them, so he proceeds by competition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 4 With or without examination, as is determined by the regulations of the commission.' The principle adopted is to leave to the commission the way in which they would obtain their information on which to base their certificate of qualification. They may do that on the record of the clerk in the department without making any examination, and they might on it give a certificate of qualification for a promotion. Or they might not think that conclusive, and they might prefer to hold an examination; they might also think it better to hold a competitive examination. They would not hold a competitive examination unless the head of the department nominated two or three different clerks in it for promotion.


George Eulas Foster: You say this shall be determined by regulations of the commission, that is, whether they shall proceed with or without examination. That would mean a standing regulation that would apply to everybody. So the commissioners could not of their own whim say that Jones must submit to an examination, whereas Smith could go without an examination ?	*


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, they could not.


George Eulas Foster: You are leaving it to the commission to decide that question.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite so, and they might make a regulation that where there was any doubt in the record of the clerk as to his qualification, they could submit him to an examination. The clerk's record might be very good as to habits, devotion to duty, regularity of attendance, but his qualification of intelligence, or capacity, or aptitude for the position, would not be indicated by the record. Then the commission could say, We must have an examination or this applicant before we give him a certificate of qualification.


George Eulas Foster: It would be clearer to say ' By the commission, to be given after examination, which may be made competitive or non-competitive as may be determined by regulation of the commission.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I prefer to leave it to the commission to decide whether they need an examination or not.


George Eulas Foster: You allow the commissioners to say that they will dispense with an examination, and there comes in the trouble. One man is examined, the other is not; one man thinks he has been more hardly dealt with than another.


George William Fowler: There must be some standing regulation which will apply to everybody.


George Eulas Foster: But the regulation may be that there shall be competition or no competition.


George William Fowler: All people must be treated alike.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know about that. Some will be examined and others will not be.


George William Fowler: That would depend on their record.


George Eulas Foster: Record and examination ought both to be taken into account.
' Mr. FISHER. There are men in the service who have passed the promotion examination which entitles them to go to a higher position. If the suggestion of the hon. member for North Toronto were adopted they would have to pass another examination. There are people who have passed the promotion examination which entitles them to chief clerkships although they may only be second class clerks to-day. They have a certain standing as a consequence of that and I think the commission should recognize that.


George William Fowler: With reference to the question of examination, particularly with regard to an examination upon literary subjects, it should be held as early in the career of the individual as possible because when a man reaches fifty years it may be that he has not kept up his school work and is not capable of passing as good an examination, although he might have a better general knowledge than a person who would pass a better examination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. Under this clause in future the certificate would only be given at the time the promotion was suggested. At present it is sometimes years before a person who passes the examination gets his promotion.


Mr FOSTER.: Of course these promotion examinations have been differently conducted in different departments and there is no uniformity about them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not at all.


George Eulas Foster: Therefore they would not be a very correct estimate. In looking at
Mr. FOSTER,
section 24, it struck me that there was a very wide power in that.
Any person now employed at Ottawa or at the experimental farm station or the Dominion astronomical observatory, near Ottawa, in the public service, or in any part of the outside service to which the provisions of this Act relating to the inside service are made applicable, may be placed in the inside service by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the head of the department based on the report of the deputy head.
The provisions of this Act are made applicable in part or may be made applicable at any time to the outside service. You may bring in first one part and then another part of the outside service, and after you have brought in, we will say for example, the Inland Revenue Department or the Customs Department, you have here enacted that any officer then employed in the outside service may be placed in the inside service by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the head of the department based on the report of the deputy head. That is a mighty wide power. It is not conditioned on anything. A man may have been in the Customs Department one year or one month before the Customs Department was brought into the inside service. That man passed no qualification or competitive examination, but you can transfer him into the inside service to compete with and be one of those who had passed the competitive examination and who had consequently earned their spurs. Surely there ought to be some limit upon transferring from a non-competitive branch into a competitive branch ; otherwise you do great injury to the status of those in the competitive branch and you work an injustice to them. That is one point. The other point is that there is no limitation. The transfer may be made within ten days from a non-competitive outside branch into a competitive inside branch. There seems to be no reason why such a one as that should be put into the inside service. He should not be put into the inside service unless it is impossible by promotion to fill a vacancy. Otherwise, you disturb the whole theory of promotion which is a very strong point of this Bill. If there is a vacancy in the first division the idea is that you promote from the second division. Men have gone into the second with the idea that they are to work up. But, when there is a vacancy, instead of promoting from the second class, you transfer a chap from the outside who may never have passed the competitive examination at all, and you do it with no limitation upon the time in which he may have been in the service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that it does not mean that. Certainly it was not intended to mean that. The intention of this clause

was that when the present outside service, not an individual in it, but the outside service itself should, under clause 3 of section 4 of this Act, he brought under the operation of the inside service law, the head of the department might bring the individuals in that outside service into the inside service, but in the same service where they were when it was an outside service.


Mr FOSTER.: Mr. FISHER.
Mr. FOSTER, tice takes place.
Yes, I supposed that.
And only that.
But still, the same injus-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so. My hon. friend spoke of the possibility of a person who, to-day, is in the inside service and has the prospect of promotion from one class to another. For example, there is the Customs Department here in Ottawa. Part of it is in the inside service and part will be in the inside service when this Act becomes law. The officers in these parts of the customs service will not be affected by the customs house in Montreal being brought into the inside service. The individuals in the customs house in Montreal, should the customs house be brought into the inside service, would still remain in the customs house in Montreal.


George Eulas Foster: But you could take one of the officials and transfer him to this department?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That is what section 24 is for.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No; section 24 is for this purpose: Supposing that the customs house in Montreal was to be brought into the service; there would have to be an order in council bringing the whole service in. Then there would have to be an order in council bringing an individual officer into the inside service and that is what section 24 is for.


George Eulas Foster: It goes far beyond that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it does, but it is possible that it may. I want to go further in what I have said. In the same way there are services in Ottawa which are not in the inside service and which, under this Bill will be brought into the inside service. That would have to be done in the same way by an order in council, and I think it is a necessary clause to enable us to do that.


Robert Laird Borden: I don't understand the minister at all. You have two divisions, the inside and the outside service, and there will continue to be these divisions. For the present this Act is applicable to the inside and not to the outside service. By and by you may pass an order in council bringing 367$
the outside service under the Act, but it will still be the outside service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not my interpretation.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what the Act says and I cannot see any ground for the opposite view. It is not the intention of the Act to make the inside and outside service into one.
I understand section 24 to mean that if you wish to transfer some person from the various departments mentioned therein, for instance the Dominion Astronomical Observatory into the inside service you can do it. Further, if you have declared by order in council that the customs officials in the city of Montreal shall come under the operation of this statute and there is a vacancy in the inside service of the Customs Department at Ottawa, another section says you must fill that vacancy by calling "on the Civil Service Commission who after competitive examinations shall name a person and you take him on approbation ; but this section says what is absolutely inconsistent, that you can bring your man from the customs service in Montreal, and put him in the inside service to fill that vacancy. That is what it seems to mean.


George Eulas Foster: There is no doubt that is what it is.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend may be right but that is not my conception. Under subsection 3 of section 4 the Governor in Council may bring the whole or any part of the outside service under the same provisions of the law as the inside service, and my idea was that then that part of the outside service would become part of the inside service.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, no.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may be wrong. That I think was the intention.


Haughton Lennox: The Act would have no sense then.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perhaps I may be wrong in that also. If it means that the Governor in Council could bring the customs service in Montreal under the inside service and it still remains in the outside service section 24 will have to be amended because the intention of section 24 was that as far as the service outside of Ottawa is concerned these people would be brought under the operation individually of the civil service law.


George Eulas Foster: That is what the civil service law says.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, as applied to the inside service.


George Eulas Foster: That is where the trouble
arises.-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But so far as the service in Ottawa is concerned the Act brings in the present service which is not in the inside service and there is no necessity for an order in council. The other point I will have to consider very carefully and it is quite possible I may be wrong in my interpretation.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the minister requires any such order in council in respect to these departments which are mentioned in section 3 because this Act when it is passed will do exactly what the minister thinks should be done by order in council. These services mentioned in section 3 are brought into the inside service as soon as the Act passes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The question is whether there will have to be an order in council passed ?


Robert Laird Borden: There is no order in council required the moment you pass section 3.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If that interpretation of section 3 is correct I do not think section 24 is required.


Robert Laird Borden: I should not think it is required at all.
On section 28,


George Eulas Foster: Why should not clerks of the third division enter for these competitive examinations any time they please ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The objection is that if we allowed these clerks to enter without regulations they might be trying practically every time that comes up and it would seriously interfere with the work in their department. I have heard complaints at present from the departments that when clerks are going up for promotion examinations it seriously interferes with their work. We thought that the commission could make regulations by which under certain terms after a certain period of service, they should not be permitted to enter into a competitive examination more than once in each year or each year and a half or two years or something of that kind. We did not wish to prevent them getting advantages of entering competition and raising to the second division if they showed themselves capable of it but at the same time we did not wish to encourage them to be constantly making the effort and trying the examination when practically it would be of no use to them and would interfere with their duties and work in the service in the third division. That is the reason for the restriction.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me to be a little arbitrary to prevent the free exercise of the right which every Canadian citizen ought to have to enter the service of the country and to better himself within that service. It would be discouraging to say to a man that even if he has one of the bright-


George Eulas Foster: est minds in the country and might become one of the very best clerks he shall not have the privilege, because he happens to get first into that third division to rise from it. Would it really interfere with the good work of a clerk to be continually trying to better himself and studying to secure advancement ? Would he not, other things being equal, be a better clerk than the one who settles down and says.: I am here and here I remain. The latter type of clerk rapidly deteriorates into the mere routine clerk. If his work was interfered with by these efforts he could easily be told that he must attend to his duties. If he goes up and fails repeatedly then you might make a regulation that he shall not try more than once a year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the kind of regulation we thought the commissioners might make ; it is not with the intention of preventing clerks from securing advancement and we thought the commissioners themselves would be best qualified to make suitable rules and regulations.
On section 28, subsection 2,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would move to amend this by striking out the whole of line 9 and the word ' and ' in line 10 and substituting ' any person,' not limiting it to junior second-class clerks. That is applying to those who are now in the service, in the junior second or third divisions, all of whom entered the service with the expectation and idea that they would have a right to the ordinary gradations and promotions without any further competitive examination. We thought it would be better, if they got a certificate from the commission of their qualifications, that they might be promoted from the third to the second division without going into the open competitive examination and I would also insert words providing for the obtaining of that certificate.


Haughton Lennox: The way it is worded now it does not seem to me to carry out that idea.


George Eulas Foster: I think that the wording of the section as proposed to be amended opens it very wide.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have explained that this is in the interest of those clerks who are now in the junior second-class and third-class, who entered the service in the expectation of promotion, without further competitive examination.


George Eulas Foster: They are not subject necessarily to an examination at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are subject to the rules and regulations governing other promotions.


George Eulas Foster: No, you say ' may without examination.' There are more than the junior and the second-class clerks.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And third-class clerks.


George Eulas Foster: You are going to put into three divisions, not only the present third-class clerks but also all temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies. You are going to have a very large number of your junior, second and third-class and temporary clerks paid out of civil government contingencies and you make it possible for every one of those to be promoted into your second division without examination, into which no outsider can get without undergoing a competitive examination. That second division is also, preparatory to the highest work in the first division, and you are going to let those in without any examination. That is a mighty wide clause. There will be no competition for the second division for a generation, because the others are a very large class.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Unless the commission decides that these clerks are qualified to enter into the second division, they will not be admitted. They must have a certificate.


George Eulas Foster: But you do not require the commission to hold an examination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would be willing to do that.


George Eulas Foster: That would make it much better. I believe in giving a free chance for the third-class to rise, but let them show their merit by getting a certificate after examination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We will let that stand.
Progress reported.


George Eulas Foster: What is going on to-morrow ?	'	.	[DOT]


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall probably take up this Bill and then go into Supply on Public Works. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 30, 1908.