The committee will remember that at the last session of parliament an Act was passed by which inspectors were appointed in Manitoba, but on account of the short crop the fees which these gentlemen will collect from that inspection is not expected to be sufficient to pay the expenses. This $15,000 is to meet the expenditure under the
But, they were not all receiving salaries. I do not understand that the officers, other than the chief inspector, were on salary. Now, it is proposed, because there was a shrinkage in the collection of the ordinary fees, to vote a sum sufficient to make up that loss, in other words, to place them on the footing of receiving salaries while that is not the intention of the law at all.
I understand that up to the 1st of September, a year ago, the chief officers were paid by fees which they collected and kept for themselves. The department pays the expenses in connection with the boards of examiners and survey boards, but, since the
1st of September, 1809, tliis has been changed to the extent that these officers are paid by fixed salaries, the fees collected being paid into *what is called the Grain Inspection Fund. This was changed a year ago, and it is on account of the short crop that we are now asking a sum of money to pay these salaries and expenses.
Do I understand that in 1899 they ceased to receive fees, that the fees were put in a fund which was applied to their salaries and expenses and that by reason of the falling oil in fees we have to pass this vote to make it up.
It would facilitate matters a great deal if we knew precisely. Some members are more familiar with certain matters than are others, and when we come here prepared to take up estimates that are not gone on with, it leads to confusion and loss of time.
I agree in that. The intention is that the Minister of Railways will have priority following the Minister of Agriculture, but the Minister of Railways has not been very well of late, and that is the reason I put in the qualification.