Mr. SPEAKER.
No, there has been an actual decrease in some branches of the service. Of pages, while there Were nineteen in 1892, in 1904 there were seventeen only. In 1892 there were four servants and in i904 there were six.
Mr. LENNOX.
I do not know whether they would come under the item, but I would like to mention the messengers in the Library.
Mr. SPEAKER.
They are not under the Speaker.
Mr. SPROULE.
I understand that there was some committee of the Internal Economy Commission who made a report on the matter of salaries last year or the year before. I understood the Speaker to say that this was taken up, and all the salaries were rearranged on a new basis, and in future they would go up automatically until they reached the maximum. Who composed that committee ?
Mr. SPEAKER (reading) :
At a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy, 28th April, 1904.
Present : Mr. Speaker, Sir Richard Cartwright, Mr. Fielding and Mr. Sutherland.
The following resolutions were adopted unanimously :-
1. Resolved, that the salaries of the officers on the staff of the House of Commons be increased upon the same basis as to maximum and minimum salaries first provided for by this civil service generally under the Act amending the Civil Service Act just passed. In order to carry out that resolution the Speaker will prepare, with the aid of the clerk of the House of Commons, a series of resolutions and schedules determining-
(a.) The different branches of the service.
(b.) Grade, present salaries, the salaries under the new law, the grade of the future appointments, and the maximum salaries of the future officers, and the minimum salaries of the future officers.
That said resolutions and schedules be submitted as soon as possible to the members of the board for approval, and the same be laid before the House of Commons next session as a report of the board for the concurrence of the House.
Then follows the list of the officers with their present salary and the salary of their successors, the minimum and maximum in both cases, with a statement of the duties they perform.
Mr. CLANCY.
Coming back to the question of making restitution to those who are denied their statutory increases, I have been looking at the question of the sergeant-at-arms. I see that he had a salary of $2,400 in 1897. It appears that there has been no statutory inerease from 1897 up to the present year. You. Mr. Speaker, say that the maximum is $2,500 a year. If he had received the statutory increases which he was entitled he would in 1899 have reached the maximum. It will be seen that there is some discrimination between the increases that are given to the others and these which are given to the sergeant-at-arms. Perhaps you will be able to explain why this is the case. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the clerk assistant had been given an
advance partly on the ground that he had not received any statutory increase and partly because his predecessor had received $2,800 a year and it was thought the services that he is performing now are quite as good as the services performed by Mr. Rouleau. That is not at all, perhaps, unreasonable, but what seems to be a strange thing is that the officials of the Housd are not dealt with in accordance with some uniform rule by which men get even justice. Here is the sergeant-at-arms ; he was entitled to have reached the maximum in 1899 and now receives $50 of an increase. I am in this, pointing out the injustice that has been done to the civil service. Hon. gentlemen opposite cried out in every back school-house in Canada, at least In Ontario, against the sums that were paid to the civil service. I am not here as an advocate of the salaries of the civil servants. I think first that we must have a good service and to have a good service it must be reasonably well paid for. I think that there are many in the service who ought not to be there, but an efficient officer must be reasonably well paid. If we have a good service we must pay for it and we cannot afford to take any other ground. Hon. gentlemen came into power, and weak in office as they were in opposition, they found themselves confronted with the expenditures which they had criticised in the country. They withheld the statutory increases and now they have come down and made partial restitution. That is not creditable to the government. It shows a deplorable weakness, first to have taken the course they did in the country. I believe that under our system it is a very difficult thing not to made appointments that should not be made. I do not know whether we will ever come to a time when we shall sufficiently profit by experience and when any government will have that complete courage to do what they ought to do in a matter cf that kind, but hon. gentlemen opposite were not at all content with making appointments that should never have "been made, but it was made a campaign cry in the country that men went to their offices at nine and ten in the morning, that they closed them at five in the afternoon and that they were paid immense salaries. I say again that I am not here to advocate the cause of the civil service ; it is not my business, but it is my business in my humble way as it is everybody's to state the truth. However it does seem to me that there has been a very extraordinary inconsistency in regard to the way that the civil service has been dealt with in regard to statutory increases. I am not now saying whether officers of the civil service are overpaid or underpaid. That is a matter entirely aside from what I have to say and I think there ought to be some explanation of these inconsistencies. I think, no matter what party is in power, that we
should forget what the former leanings were of those in the service. I should hope that every man in the service would be faithful and loyal to his chief and to those who are over them, and the best way to secure loyal service is for those in superior positions to treat fairly the mein who are under them. I am speaking now of the sergeant-at-arms ; I am not saying whether he is paid too much or too little, but T do not understand upon what principle these salaries have been dealt with.
Mr SPEAKER.
The hon. gentleman's
remarks have been of a general character. He speaks of inconsistencies generally, while the only inconsistency he has given has been that in regard to the sergeant-at-arms.
Mr. CLANCY.
I simply took up that case for the purpose of saving time.
Mr. SPEAKER.
The hon. gentleman bases an argument upon that, but when I state the facts in connection with the serjeant-at-arms. I think he 'will agree that there is no inconsistency. The last classification of the officers of the House was made in 1885. At that time the salary of the sergeant-at-arms was fixed at Tlie nresent government thought that the salary ought to be increased to $2,500.
Mr. CLANCY.
When was that?
Mr SPEAKER.
That is what was done by virtue of the resolution which I have iiist read. The hon. gentleman will remember that besides his salary the sergeant-at-arms has apartments in the House of Commons He is provided with apartments and that includes light, heating and one or two servants who are paid by the House.
Mr. CLANCY.
Are there not some others os well ?
Mr. SPEAKER.
There is the housekeeper. These rooms and the incidentals connected therewith, I am sure must be worth $41)0 or $500, so that his salary would be equivalent to $3,000 putting a very moderate estimate on the apartments.
Mr. SPKOULE.
The main object'is to find whether there have been many increases in the expenses of late years, and if so, to what extent. I understood Mr. Speaker to say that there had not been many increases. I have the estimates of 1900.
Mr. SPEAKER.
The hon. gentleman must not misquote me. I was comparing the statement for 1903-4 with that for 1904-5. and I said that there was only an addition ol $2,150. I did not pretend to go back of last year, because I have not the figures.
committees, sessional clerks and extra clerks, 1901, $21,000. last year. $41,000 an increase of nearly 100 per cent within a few years.
Mr. SPEAKER.
Yes, but you had an eight months session last year.
Mr. SPROULE.
An eight months session last year but the estimates for last year were for the year before that. It seems to me that this is a very large increase and that there is nothing in the situation except -I was going to say extravagance, that would justify it because it is not justified by an additional amount of work. Then, take the next item-contingencies, including $300 for clerical assistance for the leader of the opposition. 1901, $19,700. last year. $26,403 an increase of $7,000. Is that evidence of economy ? The estimate of the sergeant-at-arms as approved was then $34,307. and the same estimate last year was $01 508 or nearly double. There is no economy about that; that is a case of extravagance.
Mr. SPEAKER.
My hon. friend is not quite fair in intimating that there has been extravagance. We generally provide for a session of 100 days, but last year there was a session of about 240 days, and in the increased amount would be included all the employees who are paid by the day. If the hon. gentleman takes the salaries of the permanent officials he will find that there is little difference.
Mr. SPROULE.
I have great difficulty in getting these salaries and so I have to look at the estimates. There is a disposal to withhold information, or at all events there is no effort made to give it. .
Mr. SPEAKER.
In 1S99-1900 the salaries of the permanent officials were $70,000 ; in 1900-1901, $69,850 ; in 1903-04, $71,250, and in 1904-5, $72,700.