Mr. PUGSLEY.

In quite a number of cases there were slight increases in salary provided for by that order in council. Every year there must have been an order in council, for the continuance of those engaged in the outside staff. The appointments were for the year and were renewed by order in council and the salaries provided for.

Mr. FOSTER.

It seems to me the order in council ought to state what is really being done or else council may be very easily misled. Of course the minister might have gone over it in detail with his colleagues and shown exactly what he did.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

That information is given to the Treasury Board and that board has before it the salaries of the previous year in every case.

Mr. FOSTER.

But the Treasury Board gets what comes before it second-hand. It is a subsidiary council of the council. Surely the minister does not reserve the question of increases for the Treasury Board alone? The increases in salary come first before council. If they go to the Treasury Board first, the report from that board must come back before the council. It is not the Treasury Board which can either give salaries or increase them; it is the council alone which can do that. The Treasury Board has other duties to perform; they have to see that the regulations and conditions are the proper ones as prescribed by law. That opens the whole question. The minister will remember that I stated in that general debate that in the orders in council which had been brought down later, a large number of these outside employees received special increases running from $50 up to $200 or $300, and I tried to calculate the total increase which had been, as I contended, given by the minister outside the spirit of the Act, to take effect on the 1st of September, as grading these into the service under the new Civil Service Act. The whole of it was not shown, unless we can find out what increases were given by this order in council, which purports, on the face of it, to provide simply for a continuance of office, and impliedly a continuance of salary. Now, the minister says that while it was a continuance in office it was in many cases an increase of salary. I do not want to take up too much time to find out just what increases were given, but in that large number of clerks, the minister will see there is room for a good deal to happen under that concealed order. It is rather blind, I think, to say the least of it. The minister is sending down an order in coun-Mr. FOSTER.

cil with reference to employees that have been employed year after year, and asking that they be continued at the salaries placed opposite their names. I think the inference is that the salaries are simply continued salaries.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

The usual course was followed in this case. The order in council of the previous year would show the salaries which were paid in that year, and, as is customary, and as I think my hon. friend will agree is a proper course in this case, this recommendation to council was referred to the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board then had before it the salaries of each of these officers had received the previous year, and saw what were the recommendations for increases; the Treasury Board then reported to council, and upon the report and recommendation of the Treasury Board the order was passed. I do not think my hon. friend is right in calling it a concealed order.

Mr. FOSTER.

Well, it is a blind order.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Not at all. The most my hon. friend can say is that it does not show what were the salaries these officers received in the previous year. Though I would be sorry to see the item delayed. I will be glad to lay on the table of the House a copy of the order in council of the previous year so that my hon. friend can compare the two.

Mr. FOSTER.

That raises the question as to whether this was the custom in the other departments. We have found out so far in our investigation that some of the ministers in some of the departments carried out this whole business on a different plane from others, and it raises the question now as to whether the ministers generally, in reporting to council with reference to the vast outside body, gave increases then, upon which afterwards special increases, sometimes repeated, have been made. In the other* case we saw what the special increases were; they could not be put in any other way but in the first continuing order. If all the reports had been the same as my hon. friend's, we do not know, by looking at it, how much the increase was given and in what cases. I would like to go into the new system and ascertain how each division of the service entered it; and if the minister will amend that report that he brought down with his order in council of the 5th May, 1908, by having one of his clerks put alongside the list that is here each case of increase, probably they were not all increases, that would lighten the labour somewhat. If he would do that, and have it ready before we get into the Civil Service discussion, I would be very glad.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I will do that.

Mr. FOSTER.

Then I raised the question before by what authority it was that you come in along the last of August, and you make increases, and you date the increase back by the order in council, two months, may be, to the beginning of the then fiscal year. I cannot find any authority in the Civil Service for that. I do find that this has been done, that you come down to parliament and you ask that an increase be granted, and that the increase be voted to take effect at a certain time. But out of the vote that you can, on the 27th day of August, make an increase of salary of $100 or $200 to men in the service, and then say that it may be dated back to the 1st of April-I do not find any authority for that. Anyway, it seems to be a rather dangerous form of proceeding, you are doing what parliament has had no advisement of. That is altogether different from the case where you come down in an estimate and say: Here, I want $50, or $100, or $200 increase in this item for such a clerk, and I want to pay him from the first of the year, or from any particular month.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I do not know whether that could be done in the case of one who was under the Civil Service Act, but I presume it could not be done. I would agree with my hon. friend in that respect. But with respect to those who are on the temporary, and what is known as the outside service, that authority has always been recognized, because the vote is for a lump sum, and when the question came up with regard to fixing the date from which the increase would tal^e effect, my deputy informed me that it had been the practice ever since he had been in the department, and there seems to be no limitation under the Act with regard to that power. It occurred in two or three cases, I think that was done by the order of May. My hon. friend is aware that the order in council was not an order made under the old Civil Service Act, it was made before, the new Act came into force-that was my information. The vote being a general one and these officers not being under the old Civil Service Act, the council, if they thought fit to do so, could fix a date anterior to the order irom which the increase of salary would take effect. Now, with regard to making the increases themselves, I think we threshed that out pretty fully some time ago. But I think my hon. friend will realize that as there were a large number of officials who were going to be brought by force of law under the Civil Service Act and were to be placed side by side with those who were under the new Act, it was proper that the deputy minister of my department should have regard to the merits, so far as possible, of the different officers, to their length of service, the importance of the duties which thev were discharging, and endeavour to do justice as between them all, and so start

them upon the 1st of September upon a proper and justifiable basis, leaving their remuneration and their classification after that to be fixed from time to time under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. That is what he sought to do, and it is what I sought to assist him in doing so far as my knowledge would enable me.

Mr. FOSTER.

I do not wish to go again over the discussion we had the other night, but I would point out to the minister that I do not think his ground is a good ground. He may say that he thought he had more liberty under the outside vote than he had under the appropriation for what we call the regular Civil Service. But in theory they are the same. You ask for your vote to pay for the services of your officers, and, when you get your vote you administer the fund under the authority given. The fact that these men were to be brought in on September 1, and up to that time had not been brought in, does not, I think, make against the argument that the spirit of the legislation of last year was to place the service on a permanent basis and on a basis of competition and merit in appointments, which, up to that time, had not been the case. As I said then, so I believe now, that the outside service should have been administered in the spirit of that Act. While I do not want to go over that discussion again, I find that there are new appointments, for which, as yet, I think we have no reasons. A draughtsman was appointed in the chief engineer's branch at $700, the appointment being made by order in council on August 6, 1908, and dated back to April 1, 1908.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

That was the beginning of the fiscal year.

Mr. FOSTER.

But the appointment was not made at the beginning of the fiscal year, but was dated back. Now, the Civil Service Act provides, both with reference to the outside and the inside service, that no appointment shall be made until the office has been created, in the case of the regular Civil Service, and, in any case, until the amount has been voted by parliament. The whole spirit of the Act is against dating appointments back. Mr. F. O. Hamel was appointed at $700 in the chief architect's branch. What is the explanation of that appointment?

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Mr. Hamel is a draughtsman, and the services of a draughtsman were required and accordingly he was appointed. That is all I can say.

Mr. FOSTER.

That answer might be set up and stereotyped. Was the appointment so urgent that it could not be left over from August 6, when it was made, to September 1, when the machinery of the

Civil Service Act would be at the disposal of the minister for all appointments?

Mr. PUGSLEY.

There was a good deal of work on hand last year, and the chief architect was very much in need of additional assistance. I was very desirous, as far as possible, to carry out the views expressed in the House that architectural work should be done in the department. So, it became absolutely essential to have additional help.

Mr. FOSTER.

The minister has not been very explicit as to what would have happened had he waited for twenty-five days later and made the appointment in the regular form.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Plans on important public works would have been delayed. This young man had been employed temporarily because the services of one of his profession were needed, so he was actually in the office before the order in council was passed, and I think probably had been workins from about April 1.

Mr. FOSTER.

I suppose he must have been there, or the minister, surely, would not have paid him.