consider the question whether it is desirable or not to carry out the proposal. It will then be for the House to accept or reject the findings of the committee. I think it very desirable that inquiries should be made to see if there are certain matters in connection with the Houses of Parliament in which saving can be effected by amalgamation. I am quite of the same opinion as my hon. friend from De Lorimier (Hon. Mr. Dandurand) and the honourable leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bostock) as to the desirability of having our own independent Law Branch. I think that it is very necessary, and I have no hesitation in saying that unless very strong arguments and very strong reasons were brought forward to show me the desirability of uniting the Law Branches of the two Houses, I should be against it. It will take very strong and very cogent reasons to change my opinion on that point. But I do thing that there are services in which a saving can be effected by amalgamation, without interfering with the important privileges of this House. Although a new member of the Senate I should be the last man to consent to the Senate allowing itself to be sheared of any of its privileges or any of the rights which it now enjoys. I am strongly in favour of upholding all the ancient privileges that appertain to this Chamber; but I think this is a step in the right direction. As I say all arguments can be brought before the Committee for consideration, and the Committee can make a digest report to the House, and it will then be for the Chamber to decide which of the different services they desire to have amalgamated. So I do not think there is any necessity for any change whatever in the motion as it now appears.

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: May I ask my honourable friend if a similar resolution is being adopted in the House of Commons?

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: There will be.

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: I take it that this motion is brought forward by the honourable leader of the Government in this House after an understanding has been reached with the honourable leader in the other House that a similar resolution will be passed there; so our action would not be interpreted as my honourable friend from De Lorimier (Hon. Mr. Dandurand) seems to fear. This is really joint action on the part of the two Houses. It is supposed to be done simultaneously, although

we are taking action to-day and the House of Commons may not do so until next week. This is not a question on which we are making a decision. As I understand, it is simply a matter which by arrangement is being taken up by both Houses.

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: Honourable gentlemen, the time when we are moving into these buildings is opportune to make Parliament as efficient and as economical as possible. My honourable friends apparently have sounded a note of warning that we are about to abdicate certain privileges that we as a Senate enjoyed in times past and hand them over to some foreign body that might disregard them. Nothing of the kind is in view. The Government has already taken steps along the lines that have been discussed. The Law Branch is only one of several subjects to be taken into consideration. In the past the Law Branches of both Houses of Parliament three were unsatisfactory, and four years ago the Government intervened and appointed a Parliamentary Counsel for the two Houses of Parliament. This House has consulted that counsel just as much as has the House of Commons, and I will venture to say that honourable members of the Senate have consulted him to a very much greater extent than

or

Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN: Who is he?

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: Mr. Gisborne. They have consulted the Parliamentary Counsel on matters of legislation very much more than the Law Clerks of the respective branches of Parliament.

Now, is there any good reason why Parliament should not be placed upon as businesslike a footing as any establishment in the country? Are we not as desirous of having our machinery just as efficient as that of any large commercial enterprise? Would any large business undertaking in Canada have practically three institutions for advising upon legal questions? We have the Law Branch of the Commons, we have the Law Branch of the Senate, and we have the Parliamentary Counsel, common to both Houses, who practically does the work of both Houses; and you and the country are paying the expenses of maintaining three separate establishments for the purpose of advising us in regard to the few Bills that come up to Parliament from time to time. If we are looking for efficiency, if we want to put Parliament upon a modern basis, then let us consider this matter from a business standpoint. The Committee is not charged with altering in the slightest

degree-not in the slightest degree-any of the rights or privileges or traditions which we have held in the past. All they are asked to do is to consider and report how Parliament may be made most efficient along the lines indicated in the resolution. It seems to me, honourable gentlemen, that in having a committee of the Senate meet from time to time with a like committee from the Commons to consider the administration of public business with a view to the adoption of the best machinery for the doing of it, we reflect credit upon ourselves and it is of advantage to the country.

Take, for instance, the Translation Branches, as referred to in this motion.

Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN: That is all right. Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: We have three or four translation branches in Parliament; we have a translation branch for the Debates; we have a translation branch for the Bilis: and it is the same in the other House. Those different divisions are each presided over by a senior member or some official whose standing is superior to that of the others. Would any business institution be organized on a basis of that kind? Not for a mouent.

Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN: It is the same with the Debates.

There is There is

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: also the subject of the Debates. the Post Office. Is there any good reason why the post offices for Parliament should not be under the Post Office Department and administered just the same as the post offices in the city of Toronto, the city of Montreal, or any of the other great centres of Canada? Is there any reason why we should multiply offices and multiply machinery, all of which contribute to inefficiency, when we may overcome difficulties of this kind?

If this should result in the disturbance of any official, his interests will be fully considered. As long as I have been in Parliament I have never yet seen an official whose interests have not been very sympathetically considered and dealt with. So we need have no apprehension on that ground.

a joint

We have already established restaurant. I remember the time when we had two restaurants, both very inferior. I do not say the restaurant as it is to-day is a very superior one.

Hon. Mr. DANIEL: I think not

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: But we hope that when the Restaurant Committee get to work there will be a very substantial improvement.

Hon. Mr. DANIEL: That is a bad illustration.

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: We had two restaurants; now we have one.

Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN: And two bars.

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: My honourable friend says we had two bars at one time.

Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN: Give us one now.

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: But the morality of the Senate became shocked on one particular occasion, and they abolished their bar; and a like movement was made in the Commons. The result was that both bars were abolished.

Hon, Mr. DOMVILLE: I made the motion.

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: Honourable gentlemen, this committee is simply a committee to consider and report to this Senate; and when they do report the matter will be absolutely in your hands, and it will then be for you to determine whether the report is good or bad.

Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN: May I ask just one question? This is a matter for lawyers, I understand. I have nothing to say at present with regard to any of the other branches, but may I ask the honourable leader of the Government: If the Senate is to revise legislation, and if the solicitors and attorneys and barristers- all the gentlemen well learned in law-connected with the House of Commons have passed upon and approved of a certain measure, and if we in the Senate have not lawyers quite independent of those people, how are we going to revise? If there is a joint Law Branch, the lawyers would be simply sitting in revision upon themselves, as far as I understand it.

Hon. J. W. DANIEL: If it had not been for what was, I think, the unhappy illustration the honourable leader of the Government (Hon. Sir James Lougheed) brought forward in advising us to unite certain branches, I should not perhaps have said anything. I remember the old restaurant which the Senate had. I used it several times, and I must say that I always came off clear, without any ptomaine poisoning. But the two restaurants have been joined

into one parliamentary restaurant, and the last time that I took a meal there I got ptomaine poisoning. I do not intend to take any more meals there until there is very considerable improvement. I understand the same thing happened to another member of this Senate only a few days ago. I feel somewhat diffident in talking about the question of the Law Branch, because I am not a lawyer, but I think there is a very great difference between the Law Branch and the other branches which are mentioned in the motion, such as the Translation and Debates Branches. There can be no two opinions about the translation from French into English and vice versa; and the same is true with regard to the Debates. But there is much room for difference of opinion with regard to points of law, and I think it would be very foolish on the part of the Senate to throw away the privilege which we already have of having our own legal advisers at our disposal.

In regard to the Law Branch, I think it would be better to leave it out of this discussion altogether. I must say that my experience of joint committees of both Houses does not lead me to favour them, and I fear the placing of our rights and privileges in their hands. I think it is safer for us to deal with our own concerns in our own way and keep our independence so long as we are able to maintain it, and not of our own accord and pleasure put them to one side and allow our rights to be gradually taken from us.

These opinions are given with diffidence, because I am not a lawyer, and am not so well posted in legal matters as other gentle

en here; but it strikes me that we would be very foolish to throw away any of our present privileges, and that we ought to be independent of the other Chamber of the legislature.

Hon. Mr. POIRIER: All that I would feel ready to concede to the honourable leader of the Government just now would be one restaurant and one bar. I am willing to let the House of Commons have one-half of the control of those departments, and onehalf would mean that they would have twothirds control. But I would advise my colleagues to go slowly in the matter of relinquishing our old-time and honoured privileges. I believe we made a mistake in allowing the Civil Service Commission to step in and take upon themselves the nomination and appointment of our employees. This motion, though only tentative, suggests action that should be

adopted only after very mature consideration. The honourable leader of the House likened the two Houses to a commercial concern. While that is the view taken by the experts who presided over the classification of our employees, the Senate is not a commrcial concern. The Senate is a little higher than a commercial enterprise. It enjoys privileges, and in my opinion we should continue to enjoy all the privileges that have been left to us.

Hon. Mr. DOMVILLE: As I understand it, this is only a motion to appoint a committee to look into these matters. We are all the time kicking up a row with the Government because they do not practise economy; but now, when they suggest something in that direction, there is opposition. I cannot really understand it. I was glad to hear my honourable friend talk of the bar in the House of Commons. When I was leading the temperance party in New Brunswick-and I led them well, though they knew I took whatever I wanted, but their own men had left them in an hour of weakness-I pledged myself to close up the bar in the Commons, and I did it absolutely, as you will find on the records of that House. But they got around and made a hole in the wall on the Senate side, which resulted in their getting all they wanted from the Senate.

Hon. Mr. BOYER: What a pity!

Hon. Mr. DOMVILLE: I think it is a pity if we cannot get something here; I think it a mistake to have those sumptuary laws; but you are playing to the public, you are playing to the gallery. I have drink in my house, and temperance people come along, and it is all right; sick people come along, and the parson comes along, and the result is that I am cut down in my supply, which is very hard to get, in order to help them out of their difficulties. Not that I begrudge it, but I do not like the trouble of getting it. I do not know what may result from the proposed motion. I am certainly in sympathy with the leader of the Government in looking into this matter, and finding what the other House will do.

The Hon. the SPEAKER: The fact that the honourable leader of the Opposition moved to add one name to the list of members led me to believe that he would have no objection to second the motion. However, as he does not perfectly agree to the proposition, I will ask if I may substitute for him

That an Order of the Senate do issue for the production of correspondence between the Canadian Mining Institute or others with the Government or any of its Members relating to the resignation of officers of the Department of Geological Survey and the Department of Mines.

He said: In moving this motion I have no intention of criticising the Government or the Civil Service Commission, but I wish to draw the attention of the Government and of this House to a very important matter. Some time ago I received from the Canadian Mining Institute a circular on a subject which to my mind has a great deal of importance. This circular referred to the great number of resignations which have taken place amongst the mining engineers and members of the Geological Survey of Canada. This question is of vast importance, because the future prosperity of Canada will depend upon the development and utilization of its natural resources. We have been accustomed to consider our resources as unlimited, but events of the last decade have taught us our error. There has been a decrease in the average production of our wheat per acre, also in the catch of some of our fisheries, and there will necessarily be a decrease in the output of our lumber industry. In our iron industry, there has been an annual decrease in the amount of native ores used, and a corresponding increase in the consumption of imported ores. Our mineral resources should be utilized to the best advantage of our manufacturing industries, and the preservation of our agricultural industries depends upon adequate supplies of mineral fertilizers. It is, then, obvious that the future prosperity of Canada is in a very large measure dependent upon her reserves of men highly trained in the special sciences that have to do with the study and utilization of our national resources. These men are needed, and their services are a necessity, because we cannot afford to wait until new men are trained to the various kinds of work required. This necessity of keeping good men has been realized in Great Britain and in the United States; and, judging by what has taken place, we in Canada seem to be the last to realize it. Private industry realizes the value of

men of scientific training, and, if valuable to private industries, they must be valuable to Canada for its reasonable development. Realizing the important function of these men, we must view with alarm the numerous resignations from their ranks from the Civil Service at Ottawa. These men are trained by a long and difficult course in some university, which is followed by practical experience. In the Geological Survey Branch of the Department of Mines a period of at least twelve years is required to enable men to occupy the higher positions. Within the last few months not less than eight men have resigned from the Geological Survey, representing a loss to the country of more than ninety years intensive training. Five or six other men, students in training for work in this branch of the public service, have left to enter private service. In the Department of Trade and Commerce, eight Government analysts in the Food and Drug Branch, out of a total of thirteen, have resigned to enter private service. There have been other resignations of scientists in other branches of the public service. The Department of Mines is the largest organization in the Government service devoted to investigation of our natural resources and development of our industries. During the last ten years I am told that this department has lost forty-nine men by resignation. The Geological Survey has lost twenty-six men by resignation. During the last two years there have been eleven resignations in the Geological Survey and twelve in the Mines Branch.

The resignation of scientific men from Government service seems to be largely due to very inadequate pay. The numerous chemists who have left the Departments of Trade and Commerce, Interior and Mines, have all secured higher pay than is given in the Government service. Indeed, they have nearly doubled their salaries. The cause of these resignations is not far to seek: we do not pay the men enough to live on and bring up their families.

In conclusion, I may say that I hope that the Government will take some measure to give full justice to that branch of the service, as the importance of these trained men cannot be overestimated. That is why I have chosen to call the attention of the House to this question, and I am not surprised to observe that the Mining Institute has sent us this alarming circular, asking the Government to try to remedy this evil.

Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN: Perhaps the honourable gentleman will be good enough to

allow the adjournment of the debate, because I have received several documents, I do not know from whom, asking me to look into this matter.

Hon. Mr. DOMVILLE: I object, as one. Let the discussion go on: we cannot defer the business of this House for the honourable gentleman's study. This question is one of vital importance to the country. As a scientist, or pretending to be one, I want to retain the very best intellect we have to assist in developing this country. It is very true that men are leaving Canada because they do not get the pay they require, whereas if they had had enough salary to live comfortably and prosecute their inquiries, we might have retained them. The salaries paid here have not been commensurate with what they could get on the other side of the border. This discussion will bring up the question in the departments concerned as to whether some plan cannot be instituted for classifying these technical men and raising their salaries by degrees. We need technical men in Canada, who can show us what to get out of the soil and out of the mines and from the textiles and many new things that are coming up; and we can fairly ask whether something will not be done in these reconstruction days in the matter of employing men and paying them adequately. We have drawn men from the United States; two of our honourable knights came from Hartford, Connecticut, and we were glad to get them for their ability. In the same way the Americans are glad to draw men from this country. This is a very large subject, and I know the honourable leader of this House will look into it. I have no desire to embarass the Government, rather I wish to help them, because I can see how difficult the problem is. I have had experience, and in the line that I have been investigating I have had to bring scientists from England. This cost a great deal of money; but in our case it met the case. We cannot expect capital to come into this country until our resources are explored and reported upon by men who have special knowledge and intelligence, and whose reports inspire confidence. Merely the name of being a geologist, is not sufficient; the capitalist wants to see what kind of goods he is dealing with. We need technical men in many departments; now that we are going to have a fleet we shall need a sea-lord. I am very glad to be able to aid one mite of thought to help the departments whose problems have been brought before the House.

Hon. Mr. NICHOLLS: This matter is really one of very much greater importance than appears on the surface; but I am at a loss how to approach the subject, as the proposed motion deals with a matter which it is not within the province of this Chamber to determine.. It is a fact, and a most important fact, that the natural resources of our country are very largely dependent on the supervision and technical knowledge and ability of employees of the Government in those departments. It is a fact that those men have been underpaid, and it is also a fact that they have been given very much larger inducements to leave the service of the Government and enter private employment. We had a case at the last session when the question arose as to the value of coal-mining in a section of the Northwest. It was believed that certain parties had acquired a mining lease for the benefit of private parties, for little or no financial consideration, without the Government having had sufficient knowledge of that part of the public domain that was being diverted. Our resources are very often referred to as illimitable-erroneously so; but unless Parliament has a very large number of technical men amongst its members, or some officers on whom they can depend not only because of their technical knowledge but their absolute reliability, I am afraid that the country may in the long run lose a thousandfold more, or ten thousandfold more than the difference between an adequate and an inadequate salary for its technical men. I had no intention of addressing the House on this matter, but it occurred to me while the debate was proceeding that this matter, while apparently simple, is fraught with far graver consequences than perhaps many members of the House may realize. While I have no idea that we are in a position to alter the situation, it is possible that the honourable leader of the House may be able to inform us whether the Government have full knowledge of what is transpiring, and whether, having that knowledge, they are taking any steps to mitigate what may develop into a very serious condition of affairs.

On motion of Hon. Mr. Casgrain, the debate was adjourned until the 6th day of April next.

TRIBUTES TO DECEASED SENATORS. THE LATE HON. MESSRS. LANDRY AND TALBOT.

On the Orders of the Day:

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: Honourable gentlemen, owing to the time occupied