Mr. PATERSON.

This is simply increasing the maximum as fixed by the old table that has been in existence for, I do not know how many, years. But, I would like it distinctly understood that if officers get the idea that because there is an increase of $400 proposed in one class they are going to get $400 as soon as this Act passes they are all wrong; they may not get a dollar, or they may get $50 or they^may get $100.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

It is very misleading then.

Mr. PATERSON.

They will not get it all at once, but this is to give power to the department to give an increase to a deserving officer, who is at the old maximum. He may get an advance, not of the full amount, . but of $100 or of $50.

Mr. SPROULE.

Take the first class mentioned in the schedule:

Collectors-Salaries per annum from $300 to $4,500.

No increase. What do you mean by that? Suppose an officer is geting a salary of $600; is he not likely to get an increase? Why do you say from $300 to $4,500. If you do not propose to deal with all those between those limits?

Mr. PATERSON.

This does not deal with the increase; this simply gives the power.

Mr. SPROULE.

But you have the power already.

Mr. PATERSON.

We have the power to increase the salary of a man who gets $600 now, but because we have the power to increase his salary, it does not necessarily mean that it will be increased.

Mr. SPROULE.

What is the sense of taking the power to do what you have already power to do, if you desire to exercise that power?

Mr. PATERSON.

There is only one reason for it; when we were changing the table with reference to senior clerks we thought it was well that the whole table, which has been in existence for a long time, should be changed and therefore we propose to deal with all classes. The great bulk of the officers who are in the service now would not require to have this table altered for their sake at all because there is plenty of latitude to give them an increase under the old table. But, in changing this item we thought it well to change the whole table so that it would not have to be changed again. I want to make that point clear, because I do not want to have the officers disappointed. It must not be imagined that because the maximum is increased so many hundreds of dollars that they are to get the full amount. It only means that the department may be at

liberty by degrees, and as the officers on their part deserve, to grant them increases in order that they may ultimately reach that point.

Mr. SPROULE.

You want to be at liberty to do what you already have liberty to do. Are we to understand that you only intend to increase those who are at the maximum?

Mr. PATERSON.

This relates to those who are at the maximum.

Mr. SPROULE.

Are those officers who are to-day receiving a salary below the maximum entitled to understand that there i3 a probability of their salaries being increased or, on the other hand can none expect to get an increase who are not already at the maximum?

Mr. PATERSON.

No.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

As I understand it the minister is not pledging himself under this proposition to increase any salary, but he is taking power to grant increases. The first class mentioned is that of collector at salaries from $300 to $4,500. Then the salaries of inspectors at ports were, minimum, $2,100 and maximum $2,500. He is now increasing that maximum to $3,200.

Mr. PATERSON.

Yes, there will now be two inspectors who are at the maximum and under this we can raise them.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I am speaking of the minimum and maximum. Assistant inspectors $1,500 to $1,800; the minister now makes the maximum $2,000; chief clerks, $1,200 to $2,000. He now makes the maximum $2,100, and so on all through.

Mr. SPROULE.

What about the first item?

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

In the first item there is no change at all. He has left that as it was, the second he has left as it was, and the two near the bottom of the page are left as they were before. In the others he makes some increase in the maximum salary which can be granted to these officers.

Mr. PATERSON.

That is it.

Mr. RUSSELL.

I would like to ask the minister if he does not consider that a man who has been for from three to five years at the head of his class and drawing probably the maximum salary of that class should get the maximum if that maximum has been raised by $200 or $400. I believe that would be a fair way to treat these officers. Thev should hold the same position in their class after the maximum has been increased. A man who has been at the top of his class should, under the Mr. PATERSON.

new regulations, be placed at the maximum again. That is the only fair way to do it.