Mr. GRAHAM:

When things were done properly.

Mr. HARRIS:

Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether he thinks this way of paying salaries is better for the country or for the government?

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I am afraid I would not be an authority on this matter. I have tried both ways, but it is some time since I have tried this method. It seems to work all right both ways. I have not been sitting in the audience listening to the other man making the explanation, otherwise I might have been able to tell better.

Mr. LEWIS:

It may be better for the government, but I must say it is not very good for the private member. It does not give us any conception at all whether the department is overmanned or not. We do not know what kind of men have been introduced into this department at all. Previously we were able to make a comparison, and we were able to tell what kind of men had been taken into the service or taken out of it, but under this system we are in the dark, and that seems to be the position in which the government wants to place us.

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Have the salaries mentioned in this item reached the maximum or will there be further increases from year to year?

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

There has been some increase. There is an aggregate increase in those first eight positions of $600, due to the regularly provided statutory increases. They are all now up to the top salary range, I understand, and that is where they will stand until there is some adjustment in the way of classification by the Civil Service Commission, or some increase in salary, but so long as they remain in that category that is where the salaries will be. They are all at the top.

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Before passing from that item I should like to ask if there is any possibility of a change being made in the system. I observe that the deputy minister receives a salary of $5,500 and he has been on the job many years; evidently has reached the maximum, and it is quite evident that very heavy work devolves upon a deputy

minister. It seems quite significant that some of the recent arrivals, whose salaries have evidently been smuggled through in some of the items which have been passed without any comments at all, should receive a higher salary than the deputy minister. I cannot understand this system. I was wondering when I saw what has happened whether this was the new system that is to be developed by reason of the activity of the government yesterday in having referred to a special committee the work of the Civil Service Commission who have control over such matters as these. Is this one of the reasons why the party referred to does not come under the Civil Service Act as these officials do? I think it is a most remarkable thing that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture-after the many years' services which he has rendered and the heavy duties which devolve upon him-should receive less salary than a man who passes his winters at a seaside resort down in Florida, makes trips across the Atlantic, goes around speaking at political picnics, and has a real good time at the public expense. This man, the minister states, is his special messenger.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I can only guess to whom my hon. friend is referring, but there is no doubt as to whom he has reference when he speaks of the deputy minister. Now, I explained last year, I think it was to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) how Dr. Grisdale's salary seems to be less than that of the average deputy minister. Dr. Grisdale receives $5,500 in cash, and occupies a rent free house at the experimental farm,. an arrangement entered into before my time. The salary and emoluments are considered to be equivalent to $6,000. I made that explanation last year and my hon. friend is aware of it. I hope he will recollect it next year, and not make a grievance out of nothing.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I notice in reading the Estimates of last year that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture occupied three full pages of explanations wherein the names of the officials, the positions they held under the classification, and the salaries paid to them were set forth. Now the only information we get on the same subject is a mere half page, everybody being lumped together, thus affording no chance of distinguishing one official from another or making a comparison. It seems to me that the minister could very readily furnish us with the information as it appeared last year, so that we might be able to make a comparison, and see what difference there is in each case.

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries

Mr. CALDWELL:

I want to add my protest to that of other members as to the method referred to. If it were the custom to pass these items without asking any questions concerning them I realize that it would be a very advisable method for the minister to follow. But when he is called upon to give those explanations that are necessary in order to enable us to dispose of these votes intelligently it will occupy a great length of time. The information given last year, set out in the manner in which it was, rendered the Estimates much more intelligible to members. As it is now the minister gives us the names of officials and other explanations which go on Hansard. But we have not got that information before us, as we should have, and it is very hard-in fact impossible-to remember all these details when they are not before us in printed form. I must say that I was very much surprised when I turned up the Estimates and found the items set forth in the form in which they appear to-day.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Surely the government have some intelligent reason why this change is made. For years the House has been accustomed to have proper information as to the Civil Service given to it. During the war that information was withheld for a short time owing to the pressure of business and the like, but it was again vouchsafed just as soon as the classification became -sufficiently complete to permit of its being done. Now, the details have disappeared and the House is not in a position to properly consider these items. We are refused information, in so far as these estimates are concerned that we have always got. Surely the government are not here to-day to say that they do not care about this matter one way or the other. Surely they are not here to make a laugh and say that this change goes back to a time when there was proper government. Surely that is not the position of my hon. friends. Surely there is some real reason why this is done, other than a desire to make the passage of the estimates difficult. I suggest the least thing the government can do is to give us some reason for this change. Some one must be responsible for it.

Mr. STEVENS:

I do not think that my hon. friend (Mr. Motherwell) is, perhaps, treating the committee with that courtesy to which it is entitled. If members will turn to items 153, 154, 155 and 157, relating to public works, they will find the information there displayed in accordance with the practice in previous years-that detail of information which has always been looked upon as a great advantage, and which has the effect of facilitating the

passing of estimates. Now if you turn to Civil Government and these votes of the various departments-customs, agriculture, marine and fisheries and so on-you will find that they have been changed to the mysterious and obscure method referred to without any real reason, apparently, being given. There is really no information given whatever. Now there has been some general policy adopted. This does not apply merely to the Department of Agriculture, it extends to several of the other departments so far as I have been able to judge. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) whose courtesy is always unbounded and whose knowledge of the departments is usually fairly complete, can give us a little information on this matter. Apparently it is a policy and method adopted generally by the government, and not simply by one department. As far as I can judge, it is very unsatisfactory and we ought to have some explanation for the change. I would suggest, before the Minister of Finance replies, if he will extend that courtesy to me, that he should give to members, before we pass any more votes of this particular class, the lists of officials as they were printed last year and the other information formerly presented. It would not take very long, it would, I think, be very acceptable to members generally, and might greatly facilitate the passing of the estimates.

Mr. FIELDING:

I may say that the object was to present the estimates in a form which, it was thought, would be more acceptable to the House as showing the various grades of salaries. Of course the Estimates as formerly brought down never gave the names of officers. Some hon. gentlemen opposite appear to think that there is a departure in that respect but the Estimates in theit

10 p.m. former shape did not mention the name of any officer; they did mention the rank or the position, and in some departments there would only be a few of the higher officials, the rest being clerks. I am assured by my colleagues who had this matter more in hand that the explanation is the one I have stated. I know the object was to present the Estimates so that at a glance members could ascertain how many officers were getting high salaries and how many were getting small salaries. Whether the change is going to prove more acceptable to members than the former system remains to be seen. If the judgment of the House is that the old system was the better one I am not absolutely determined to insist upon the present arrangement. I repeat, the object was not to conceal anything but simply to enable members to see at a glance how many were high

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries

salaried and how many were low salaried officials.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Is it not a matter of importance to know what work a man does when you are considering his salary?

Mr. FIELDING:

You will find that a great many, probably the majority of the officials cannot be designated by their work; they take rank as clerks. The higher officials can be designated, such as the deputy minister, the live stock commissioner, or other commissioner, a few cases like that; but you do not designate the work of the majority of civil servants at all-they are clerks and doing the general work of the department. But, of course, the minister must be prepared to state in every case the duties of the office, the salary paid, and if necessary the name of the official whose salary is being voted.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

I take it from what the hon. gentleman says that he agrees it is advisable to know what an official is doing before we pay him. If he will agree with me to the extent that we have had a reasonable classification in the past, that ought to be continued.

Mr. STEVENS:

I would like also to point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that last year we had, not only a description of the position held, but a comparison of the salary with that of the previous year. I remember, if the minister will recall, last year the House, in checking over this list, discovered a number of purchasing agents, I think, two or three in one department, and the result of that was a correction or a promised correction, at least, of an apparent overlapping in the department. All we have now, we are told, is that there is one at so much and three at another salary, without the slightest information or comparison at all. If this was designed-I say this with all courtesy-deliberately to mislead and deceive the committee, I do not know of a better form to follow than this that is now being presented to the committee. On the other hand, I can scarcely conceive of more complete details than we have had for many previous years. In fact for as far back as I have been in this House, namely, fourteen sessions, I do not remember any other system.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

Apparently, this is the way we have it-

Mr. STEVENS:

That is no answer. That is no explanation.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

If my hon. friend will let me get through my sentence, I was going to say, if the committee is desirous of

getting out the dual system, we can let this matter stand until we do that. We may not come to Civil Government again for several days. I only want to reiterate what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has said, namely, that the last thing in our minds, as was suggested by some hon. gentleman, was a desire to smuggle something through. What have we to cover up?