Mr. SIFTON:

I am sorry that it will not be possible to give an absolutely definite statement to-night as to what may happen with regard to a suggested union of two departments which it has not yet been decided to unite. I woulld think that after the passing of the- Bill would !be quite time enough to decide what officials in connection with the two departments would Ibe necessary. So far as the Inside Service of these departments is concerned, I would say that

it would be largely necessary to carry them on separately. They are distinct and separate classes of work, and, at this point at least, would have to he looked after by different classes of men. In a large number of places outside otf Ottawa, particularly in small districts, it might he possible to unite the work almost completely and to effect a considerable saving, or at least to secure greater efficiency by opening additional offices for the accommodation of the public with the same expenditure. Very large economies could he made in sofne places in *Canada and a better class of work done by the officials of both departments. If the amalgamation proceeds, it is along that line that the economies will take place and more satisfactory work in the interest of the community be done.

Mr. E. LAPOINTE:

Will there he a private secretary in each department if the two departments are amalgamated?

Xf the two departments

are under one minister I would not think it essential, but he would be apt to work at something else.

Mr. E. LAPOINTE:

Who is the private secretary at present?

Mr. SIFTON:

I have no idea.

Mr. CANNON:

I was told this afternoon that the private secretary of the Minister of Inland Revenue was a gentleman by the name of Chass'-*, who receives a salary of $2,700. How can he draw a salary of $2,700? In the estimates of last year only $600 was voted for this purpose.

Mr. SIFTON:

A private secretary enters the department in one of the subdivisions of the Inside Service, and the $600 is voted separately and added to his salary so long as he remains private secretary. If his salary is $2,700, $2,100 is voted in one of these divisions and $600 as private secretary. If he ceases to be private secretary he goes back to' the other division at $2,100 and loses the $600.

Mr. CANNON:

He would be occupying

two positions for which he would be receiving $2,700, $600 as private secretary and $2,100 for his work in the department?

v Mr. SIFTON: No, he would he voted

$2,100 plus $600, 'but he would not be doing any work in the division while he was occupying his position as private secretary.

Mr. CANNON:

Who is head of the department now?

Mr. SIFTON:

Temporarily, I am.

Mr. CANNON:

The former minister is

on leave?

Mr. SIFTON:

I am not aware of that; I was appointed acting minister.

Mr. CANNON:

Has he been given permanent leave?

Mr. SIFTON:

Not to my knowledge.

Mr. BUREAU:

The minister, in speaking about the changes that are to be made in the department, says he is not exactly aware what changes are to take place. The minister says: When we get authority to do the thing, then we shall see what we shall do. My contention is that the minister should tell us what he is going to do before we decide whether we shall give the authority to do it or not. That is where the cleavage comes in between the minister and myself. I claim that the House of Commons ought to know exactly what it is legislating on. If changes are required to be made in the department, and we are to be asked to authorize those changes, we should know what things we are voting before we vote, and before we agree to this Bill, we ought to know exactly what the Bill means and what it is intended for. That is where the minister and I do not exactly agree.

Mr. SIFTON:

I would not like to disagree with the hon. member at all. My contention in regard to this was that it had nothing to do with these estimates, and that when the Prime Minister brought up the Bill and asked the House of Commons to pass it, then would be the proper time to find out what he meant by it. I have no doubt he will be able to give the House full information as to what it is for and what he would like to have done under it, but this has nothing at all to do with the salaries of the Inland Revenue Department, upon which, as far as is possible, I am willing to give all the information, and I am also willing to give information in regard to anything else that I know, but I cannot give any information in regard to what somebody else knows.

Mr- BUREAU: I thought the proper man to apply to was the minister who was at the head of or to be at the head of the particular department.

Mr. SIFTON:

The Prime Minister settles that.

Mr. BUREAU:

Mr. SIFTON:

Possibly he will do so.

Mr. BUREAU:

The Prime Minister would also probably accept the suggestions and recommendations of this particular head, because I suppose the Prime Minister has enough to do without being the active administrative head of each department of the service. I do not want to get into the confidence of the minister or to have him betray any secrets; but if this merger is going to take place under the authority of Parliament, I want to warn the minister if he is called upon to give any information, we shall endeavour to the best of our ability to exact this information from him if this Bill is going to be utilized to merge the Department of Inland Revenue with the Department of Customs.