Mr. KEMP.

What are the duties of Mr. E. H. Wright and what is his salary?

Mr. OLIVER.

Mr. Wright is the chief assistant commissioner of Dominion lands and his salary is $1,550.

Mr. FOSTER, When did he get that? $1,250 is what is down here for the last year and that with the annual increase would mean $1,300 now.

Mr. OLIVER.

I am informed that he was made a first-class clerk in 1906.

Mr. KEMP.

What was his salary in 1901?

Mr. OLIVER.

I cannot say. He entered the service in June, 1893, and was made permanent in 1894.

Mr. KEMP.

He advanced very rapidly. I think his salary was $600 in 1901. Has he special aptitude for the work?

Mr. OLIVER.

The Commissioner of Dominion Lands is of course the most respou-Mr. MONK.

sible official in the department and Mr. Wright is his chief assistant. Mr. Green-wray, the commissioner, handles a large number of land matters and requires some four or five men to assist n!m. Mr. Wright is the chief of those assistants.

Mr. KEMP.

He went ahead very rapidly.

Mr. OLIVER.

I need not say to the House how very important is the work he does. It is not routine w ork in any sense, but work that requires the exercise of the very best judgment and decision, as well as thorough familiarity not only with the Land Act, but also with the actual operation of homesteading upon the land. It seem that in the stress of work Mr. Wright has been able to show that of Mr. Green-way's assistants he was the better man.

Mr. FOSTER.

How does he show it?

Mr. OLIVER.

By reason of his ability in arriving at correct decisions promptly, I presume.

Mr. FOSTER.

You presume?

Mr. OLIVER.

I say by reason of his arriving promptly at correct decisions to the satisfaction of the commissioner and the minister. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that Mr. Wright had been appointed in 1903.

Mr. KNOWLES.

As a member who perhaps has as much to do with that branch as any other member, if not more, I wish to take exception to what the member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp) says. I think that the salary should be more. In the first place after fifteen years' service $1,500 is not out of the way when expenses have increased so.

Mr. KEMP.

I was not taking exception to the amount of the salary, I was inquiring to the reason for the rapid advance.

Mr. KNOWLES.

I have a great deal of correspondence with that department as well as personal intercourse, and I find that Mr. Wright has a wonderful grasp of its affairs, he has an ability for doing his work with great accuracy and I would consider that the government secured his services very cheaply at $1,550.

Mr. MONK.

The difficulty is that there appears to be no principle upon which these rapid advances are made, which does not tend to the efficiency of the service. It is absurd to suppose that men who have been long in the service are inefficient, as they must have been efficient when they entered, for they passed the examinations, and they have since added experience. The explanation is that those who have recently entered the service through political influence have their friends still alive and influential and able to secure their advancement.

Mr. OLIVER.

My hon. friend's suggestion is absolutely gratuitous. The explanations that have been given are absolutely correct. These men were promoted because of their efficiency in the service and that was the only reason, not because they had any political pull. Length of service in a department does not necessarily tend to efficiency any more than in a private business. It must be apparent to any one that the man who has had to fight the battle of life in the world at large, has to take his chance with competitors in all lines on entering the department, other things being equal, is more likely to be efficient than the man who knows nothing except what he has learned within the four walls of a department. The suggestion that a commission should regulate the advancement of these men is another means of arriving at the same result. Working in the interests of the public and for the efficiency of the service they would take the responsibility of picking out the efficient men and passing them to the head of the list. The only difference is that now the minister takes that responsibility and so far as these men are concerned I accept the fullest responsibility.

Mr. ROSTER.

That is a very pretty theory of the minister, but it does not hold in this case. I watched the whole process, how it resolved itself

Mr. OLIVER.

Does the hon. gentleman say that what I said is not true?