There have been added also two associate mineralogists. I do not say that they are not necessary, but I really do not feel that they are. There is also an associate physical anthropologist. It is some days since I studied anthropology, but I do not think that position is very closely related to mineral development either. On the next page there is a principal account clerk, a principal clerk book-keeper and two engineers, Grade 1, added. I do not know what these engineers drawing a salary of $1,680 are for. I do not know what particular work they have, but I think it is worth inquiring whether they are necessary. The assistant chemist may be passed along with the associate mineralogists. I notice that a translator has also been added. That makes three translators in the Mines Department, where I feel fairly satisfied there is no need of that number. Then there is a stores clerk added, near the bottom of the list-why, I do not know.
There are only nine new positions including the young men I have mentioned who are going out into the field. The others are promotions. The titles I do not pretend to understand. Apparently the service generally has gone mad over giving official titles. I will give the list of new positions included for 192223 and of the positions dropped which were included in 1921-22:
Positions dropped which are included in 1921-22
1 Associate Ethnologist.
1 Fuel Efficiency Examiner.
1 Vertebrate Palaeontologist.
2 Assistant Mineralogists.
1 Senior Account Clerk.
1 Senior Clerk Book-keeper.
New Positions Included 1922-23-Con.
Forward 13 Forward
1 Junior Research Clerk.
1 Senior Laboratory Assistant.
2 Museum Assistants.
1 Clerk Book-keeper.
2 Clerk Stenographers.
1 File Clerk.
1 Stores Clerk.
1 Assistant Photographer.
2 Junior Clerk Typists.
2 Junior Clerk Stenographers.
Positions dropped which are included in 1921-22.-Cow.
2 Associate Geologists.
1 Associate Invertebrate Zoologist.
2 Junior Topographical Engineers.
1 Junior Geodetic Engineer.
1 Research Clerk.
2 Map Draftsmen.
My hon. friend will see that there are twenty-eight new positions and that nineteen have been dropped, which makes a net addition of nine.
In reply to my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman), who has spoken so heatedly over salary increases, let me say that the members of this Government have little or nothing to do with those increases. It is true that an official may be recommended for promotion by the deputy minister, but it does not follow that the promotion will be approved by the Civil Service Commission. They decide whether the promotion shall go through, and fix the salary.
If the Civil Service Commission fix the salaries, how was it that the Department of Agriculture was provided with a certain appropriation to take care of promotions? If we have a certain sum to take care of promotions, why can we not provide for decreases. That is what troubles me.
If you vote the minimum salary and the individual is promoted, you have no money to pay him, so you must either vote the salary he will receive if the expected promotion goes through, or vote a lump sum to take care of expected promotions. That is what has been done in nearly all these cases, with possibly the single exception I have mentioned where it happened that the two salaries were voted. In the case of the Department of Agriculture a lump sum was voted to take care of expected increases. But the point is that neither the minister nor the deputy minister controls the salary; that is fixed by the Civil Ser-
vice Commission. We can recommend a promotion, but it does not follow that it will be approved; we do not control promotions.
I thought I explained that. I said that in certain departments a lump sum was voted to take care of expected promotions, and that in others the expected salary increase was voted. It would undoubtedly tend to a great deal less confusion if either the one or the other course was followed in all departments, and undoubtedly that will be done next year.
With respect to the men who are going out to do field work, I notice that opposite these positions are certain salaries. Are these salaries for the year, or are these university students simply paid for the few months they are out in the field?
I cannot say offhand as to Saskatchewan, but I think I am correct in saying that there is an arrangement with British Columbia that certain investigational work will be car-
ried on there each year. I know that in Alberta the local government frequently makes representations to the department, and I believe individuals do also, asking that certain areas be investigated. In the northern part of both these provinces a considerable amount of work has been done. I cannot say at the moment just what territory will be covered by the field parties this year, but I am given to understand that we endeavour to send out parties wherever there are indications that a field requires investigational work.
In connection with this item the committee will observe that there is a decrease in the number of employees as compared with the number last year, and also a decrease in the salaries to be paid. Last year there were 951 employees in the Inside Service; this year there are 806, or a decrease of 145. The explanation regarding these decreases will be found at page 102, at the end of these estimates, under "Civil Government." Forty-seven positions have been abolished. Sixty-seven positions are now in the Outside Service that were previously in the Inside Service and these, I may explain, consist of positions in the branch dead letter offices throughout the country. Then there were six positions not required and which were done away with, and twenty-six unclassified positions not required which were also done away with. Last year, the committee will observe, the salaries amounted to $1,297,146. This year they total $1,118,648 or a decrease of $178,498. In all other respects I may observe that the estimates of this year for civil government for the Post Office Department are substantially the same as those for last year. The committee will further observe, under the head of contingencies, three items, the total of which last year was $156,000; this year the amount is $168,000. Two of the items are identical in amount; the other, that for printing and stationery, shows an increase of $12,000. Last year the amount voted was $63,000. This year the amount asked for is $75,000, and the explanation is the increased cost of supplies and materials. These are the chief features of the estimates for civil government as they appear before the committee.
The minister has stated that the increase of $12,000 in the cost of
printing and stationery is due to the enhanced cost of printing material. It would occur to the ordinary mind that the reverse should be the case because the cost of paper, for example, has been very considerably reduced in the last twelve months. If that is not the case in this particular instance I think there must be something wrong with my hon. friend's printing department. I would like to know if the expenditure of $75,000 refers to payments made to friends of the Government, or does it represent payments made to the Printing Bureau? There are various ways of subsidizing the press friendly to the Government. I would like to know therefore if this is some government pap that has been thrown out to friends in the newspaper business or whether it consists of money paid to another department?
The suggestion contained in the concluding remark of my hon. friend falls on unaccustomed ears: I have no knowledge of any pap thrown out to any supporters of the Government. I may explain for the benefit of my hon. friend, who has asked a very proper question, as well as for the benefit of other members of the committee, that this money is disbursed through the Printing Bureau and not by the Post Office Department. All the supplies are purchased through the Printing Bureau, and the practice followed there will be explained by my colleague in the Government who has charge of that department. As to the other observation of my hon. friend that the amount of this vote should be less this year than last, because of a decrease in the price of paper, might I point out to him that he has not taken into account the ext quantity of material required by reason of the continuous increase in the business of the Post Office Department.
numbers the minister has stated that sixty-seven represent positions formerly in the inside service that are now in the outside service. So that the reductions appear to be 47, 6 and 26 respectively-positions abolished by Order in Council; positions not required, and unclassified positions not required. Is the minister in a position to tell us the dates when these reductions were made by Order in Council? that is to say the dates of the forty-seven reductions, the six not required, and the twenty-six unclassified not required?
I thought so. Therefore I will assume that the applause coming from my left was intended for this side of the House. Now I am sure the minister will be frank enough to say, as well, that these reductions followed the re-organization which the late government put into effect for which it got so much abuse from the press of Ottawa, particularly the press of Montreal, and which doubtless was the cause of our losing some seats. However I am quite content that seats should be lost in order that the public interests might be served, and the encomiums of my friends to the left are now sufficient reward for me.
decrease in the estimates I think the minister will find, if he will deduct the salaries of all the other positions that have been abolished, that there was an increase in salaries to the amount of $34,554.