1918-05-10

[Stage Direction]
Sir HERBERT AMES presented the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, recommending that the fees paid on Bill No. 33 respecting Brazeau Collieries, Limited, be refunded.
Sir HERBERT AMES moved that the report be concurred in.
107$
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has this Bill been withdrawn?


Sir HERBERT AMES:: In the report just presented and read to the House it will be seen that the committee unanimously decided that the preamble was not proven; that the Bill was unnecessary, and that it should not be adopted. The committee reported accordingly. The applicants then asked that the fees be refunded.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and report concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. STEELE (South Perth) presented the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills; recommending that Bill No. 35, respecting the Ottawa Gas Company, be withdrawn, and the fee and charges paid thereon be refunded, less the cost of printing and translation; and also recommending that the fee and charges, less the cost of printing and translation, paid on Bill No. 59, to incorporate the Gospel Workers Church in Canada, be refunded.
On motion of Mr. Steele, the report was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE presented the report of the Special Committee on Bill No. 25, respecting bankruptcy; recommending that the Bill be forthwith printed as amended and herewith reported, with a further recommendation that over and above the usual parliamentary distribution, . a certain number of copies of the Bill, as so reprinted, be supplied for distribution amongst the public libraries and the industrial, commercial, financial and legal bodies of the country.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie, the report was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe) moved ' that the recommendations contained in the first report of the Joint Committee on Printing, presented to the House on Tuesday, April 23, be concurred in. He said: There is,nothing in this report outside of the customary recommendation to print or not to print certain public documents.
[Stage Direction]
'Mr. LEMIEUX: I should like my hon. friend to summarize in a few words the recommendations contained in the report.
Mr. CURRIE:: The report has been on the TaJble for a number of weeks. It recommends that a few documents be printed, and that a large number of documents he not printed. The report is on file for the hon. gentleman to see. lit does not deal with any .question of printing by the departments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and report concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 86, to amend the Daylight Saving Act, 1918.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The amendment appears to be made necessary, as will be shown when I read clause 2, as it is at present:
2. During the prescribed1 period in each year in which this Act is in force, the time, for general purposes in Canada, in each province, shall be one hour in advance of the time which under the law of the province is the time prescribed for such province.
We propose to amend that by adding after the words " law of the province," thfese words:
At the time of the coming into force of this Act.	-
The clause will then read.:
During the prescribed pediod in each year in which this Act is in force, the time, for general purposes in Canada, in each province, shall be one hour in advance of the time which under the law of the province at the time of ithe coming into force of this Act is the time prescribed for such province.
What happens if 'that amendment is not made, is, for instance, in the province of Nova Scotia, the Daylight Saving Act went into force on the standard time in Nova Scotia. If Nova Scotia, for provincial purposes wishes to advance its time one hour so as to provide against any confusion of times in the province and does so advance it, then the Daylight Saving Act time would have to be advanced one hour beyond that, and that would throw it out of gear with the time in all the other provinces, and if the same operation was carried on time after time, the two times would be chasing each other around the whole circumference of the globe and would never get even.
[(Mr. Currie.]
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first .time.



FIRST READING OF SENATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76, for the relief of William Leo Walpole.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Mary Claire Dawson Hislop.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Martin Haf-ner.-Mr. H. A. Mackie.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Ida Sophia Wardell.-Mr. W. F. Maclean.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Edward David Hill.-Mr. Richardson.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: With the leave of * the House, I move that the Fiftieth Annual Report of the Fisheries Branch, Department of Naval Service, be referred to the Committee on Marine and Fisheries. I understand that without some such motion it is not competent for the Committee to take it up and consider it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence): Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to a question of privilege. In the Ottawa Citizen of the 9th instant, an article was published-and copied in many of the newspaper journals throughout the country -in which myname was referred to in connection with the appointment of Colonel R. H. Labatt to the Board of Pension Commissioners. Included in this article was a letter from Mr. H. H. Stevens, member of this House for Vancouver Centre, in which letter the hon. member states:
It is pointed out that, Colonel Labatt is reported to be a brother-in-law to the Minister of Militia, (General Mewburn), and to the Minister of Railways and Canals, (Hon. Dr. Reid).
The said article and letter referred to, 'suggest to the public mind that Colonel Labatt's relationship to me had something to do with his appointment and pension. I, therefore, wish to take this opportunity of informing the members of this House that Colonel Labatt is not my brother-in-

law and is not a relation of mine, but is connected with me toy marriage.
Colonel Labatt's appointment to the Board of Pension Commissioners was made in 1916, long before I became a member of the present Government, or had any idea of being such a member. Further, I wish to state that I had no connection, directly or indirectly, with Colonel Labatt's appointment, although I remember that at the time he was offered the appointment he informed me of the fact and 1 advised him against taking it, because he had a good private business, and I believed the heavy responsibility and worry of such an office would toe too much of a strain on his health.
While I have stated that Colonel Labatt is not a relation of mine, I do not wish to be misunderstood; I would feel honoured if this gentleman were a relation of mine. He enjoys the respect of all who know him and he is one of the most experienced and best known Canadian officers. His service in the Canadian militia dates back prior co 1885. He served through the Northwest Rebellion as a private. Ever since that time he has been a very active officer in the Canadian militia. He has given his best to the service of his country through this long period.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman is exceeding his rights on a question of privilege.
MajorjGeneral MEWBURN: I was going to say that Colonel Labatt had been at the front. I desire to repudiate, in the strongest possible language, the inference that Colonel Labatt's appointment or his right to draw a pension, had anything to do with his association or connection with me.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like to add that the appointment of Colonel Labatt to the position which he now holds as a member of the Board of Pensions Commissioners was not due in any sense to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. J. D. Reid.) His name was not suggested to me by Dr. Reid, nor did Dr. Reid have anything to do with his appointment.


Wilfrid Laurier: These appointments on the Board of Pension Commissioners have caused a great deal of comment. I suggest that 'the House be given an opportunity to discuss the matter on a later occasion. It cannot be discussed at this moment on a question of privilege.
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN: I believe that the subject is under consideration by the Committee on Pensions and when the report of that committee is made, ample opportunity for discussion will be given. The matter can be taken up earlier than that if the House considers that there is any urgency.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I-s it not a fact that Colonel Labatt has been asked to renounce this pension?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not had any communication with him in the matter so far, for the reason that the subject is under consideration by the Pensions Committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then we shall have an early opportunity of discussing the matter? .


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.
PRIVILEGE-MR. CURRIE.	.
On the Orders of the day:


John Allister Currie: I rise to a question of privilege. In the Canadian Press report of my address in this House on the Budget, which has been sent to all the newspapers of Canada, there appears the following:
There had been a careful avoidance of placing a tax on Canadian-made goods, he said, and this was not good policy on the part of the Government
I said exactly the opposite, and as this House is spending a large sum of money to have these reports sent out' to the public, I think somebody should be put in the press gallery who will be more careful in the future.



PURCHASE OF TRACTORS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Diay:
Wilfrid Laurier: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture if a report has been received from Hon. Mr. Dunning, of the Canada Food Board, as to the purchase of tractors- for farm work in Canada?


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: No such report has come before me, but I will make inquiries of the Canada Food Board.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. R. DuTREMBLAY: I understand that a number of young conscripts between the ages of twenty -and twenty-two, and whose medical category is " C," have been put in the Banks at Lansdowne' Park with-
[Stage Direction]
out further medical examination. Have all men in this class been ordered to report?
Major-General MEWBURN: A man's category may not be known when his notice to report is senit out. When he reports he undergoes a medical examination immediately, and if found to be in category " C " he would be relieved at once.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: I will give the minister the names of some of these young men.
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU:: When a category "A" man is called, has he to undergo a further medical examination?
Msjor-Gen'eral MEWBURN: In calling up the young men between twenty and twenty-two it has been found that a considerable number who were originally put in category "A" have fallen below that category when re-examined. Of course, it is not our desire to take the men of that class who fall below category "A," but there must be a re-examination to 'ascertain the condition the men are in at the time they report.


Jacques Bureau: If a man had previously been placed in category " B " or " C," would not the production of his medical certificate be sufficient to relieve him from duty until his particular category is called?
Major-General MEWBURN: It is quite possible there may have to be a re-examination of all the men. Some who have been placed in category "B" or "C" in the first place, may be in category "A" when called to report.



LEGISLATION RESPECTING ALIENS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
John Allister Currie: A few days ago this House unanimously adopted a series of resolutions requesting the Government to bring down legislation with respect to the aliens in Canada. The Government accepted these resolutions, and I would ask when they intend to bring down the legislation, for the session is likely to be short.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not recall any such resolutions.


John Allister Currie: The resolution of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Clements) was passed.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that it called for any legislation but rather that certain Orders in Council should be revised.



*CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (Acting Minister of Finance) for the second reading of the resolution adopted in Committee of the Whole for the purpose of assisting the Canadian Northern Railway Company, or any company included in the Canadian Northern Railway System, in renewing or postponing the payment of any indebtedness of any such company, etc.
Sir WILFRID LAURI'ER: I had understood the minister was to produce at this stage all the documents that were promised.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know if the hon. member purposes making a speech, but I have grave doubts whether tthW motion is debatable. In the meantime, with the unanimous consent of the iBouse, there can be no objection to his producing the information.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am inclined to think the motion is debatable but I do not want to debate it now. We simply want the information.
t


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall be very glad to avoid any debate on the resolution. I shall lay on the Table all the information available. I had not understood, however, that the right hon. gentleman wanted me to lay the information oh the Table. I understood he wished me to give it orally to the House, and I shall be very glad to do that.


Wilfrid Laurier: We are hungering for information, and want a taste of the food we are to get.


Robert Laird Borden: My colleague is proposing to feed my right hon. friend now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will give him all the information he can comfortably read in a couple of days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and resolution read the second time.
Mr. MACLEAN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 87, an Act supplementary to chapter 24 of the statutes of 1917, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When shall this Bill be read a second time?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is only reasonable that we should have time to digest the information! that was promised, before taking up the second reading.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am ready to give the information now.


Wilfrid Laurier: I should like to digest it before we take the second reading.
DOAtINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.
Hon. ARTHUR AIEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 5, to amend the Dominion Lands, be concurred in.


Wilfrid Laurier: What are the amendments?


Air. MEIGHEN:: Subsection 1 of section 10 of the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 20 of the statutes of 1918, is amended by striking out the words " or purchased homestead " in the fifth line thereof. There was another place in the Act where the purchased homestead provision was still included notwithstanding the fact that purchased homesteads had been abolished. Consequently, it was merely by a clerical oversight that the words or purchased homestead" were left in. The Senate struck them out and properly so. The Senate also struck out a clause which provided that when a patent was issued, and before it was delivered from the office of the Department of the Interior, it might be cancelled by the minister without recourse to the Exchequer Court. The Senate took the view that it was not good practice to cancel a patent after issue even though it was still *within the office of the minister. The matter is not of sufficient importance to refer back to the Senate and I am prepared to accept that amendment. There was another amendment which was of a clerical character and it is also accepted.
Alotion agreed to; and amendment concurred in.



COMPANIES ACT AMENDAIENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved that the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 65 to amend the Companies Act be concurred in.
He said: The amendment, I think, is an improvement to the Bill. The Bill simply provides that for the purpose of complying with the requirement of the Companies Act any agreement shall be deposited with the Secretary of State, but that in the case of an agreement from the province of
Quebec, which is in notarial form, it shall be sufficient to file a copy of the original. The amendment that the Senate has made is to make that the provision shall operate as from the passing of the clause in the Companies Act in order that copies that have been deposited under the Act up to the present shall avail as well as those which may fee produced in future.
Motion agreed to and amendment concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 32, respect-[DOT] ing the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, be concurred in. He said:
The amendment that was made in the Senate is to subsection 3 of section 26. The word " railway " is struck out and the word " company " is put in its place. It refers to more than railways. It refer® to express companies and carriers by water; so that, the proper word should have been company," and not " railway," in order to make it include all.
Motion agreed to and amendment concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of the Hon. Mr. Doherty, Bill No. 69, to amend the Criminal Code, *was read a second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the chair.
On section 1-Seduction of girls between sixteen and eighteen; paragraph 2, male persons under twenty-one not to be prosecuted.
Air. G. B. NICHOLSON:: I would just like to point out that subclause 2, reading that no male person under the age of twenty-one years shall be prosecuted for any offence under the provisions of this section, is either designed to maintain a double standard of morality, or else it is a direct contradiction of paragraph 1. I submit that if the Parliament of Canada establishes the principle that a girl has come to the age of responsibility at eighteen years, it has no right to establish the principle that a man up to twenty-one has not come to the same age of responsibility.
I further submit that the clause is setting up a vicious principle, in that it is saying to young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one: We recognize that you have

free license to do as you like during this period. Now the Act would be very much stronger if subclause 2 were omitted entirely, but I submit we are not keeping abreast of the times if we set up anything that would be in the nature of a double standard of morality. Subclause 1, providing for raising the age of consent from sixteen to eighteen years, is excellent so far as it goes, but subclause 2 certainly should be dropped, otherwise we are saying to our young men: We give you all the license that you wish, we invite you to do as you like between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one-the most vital years of a young man's life,-and we will undertake to correct the habits you have formed after you have passed the age of twenty-one.


Mr. DOHERTY:: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I will explain the reason for having in the Bill provisions to which he objects, and which he argues is creating a double standard of morality. Might I point out to him that the section which he [DOT] commends-and which I am glad to see meets with his approval,-and the provision of the law up to the present which has been the .same, save as regards the age fixed for the young girl, proceeds on the assumption that there is a double standard, but a double standard more severe as against the man than against the girl, because the man is made a criminal.


An hon. MEMBER:: So he should be.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This section makes the young man a criminal and extends the criminality as regards girls of higher age than the law previously provided, but it does seem that there is a severer provision as against the man than there is against the girl, and I think quite rightly and quite properly. The reason why the provision in question was inserted is this: You are making this offence, which it takes two people to perpetrate, a crime as regards one of them. By this section you are increasing the age at which the girl is held to be capable of consenting; you are raising the age of the girl in such a manner as to make it an offence henceforth on the part of the man to have relations with a girl with regard to whom, up till to-day, that was not an offence. The reason why that provision was introduced with regard to the boy up to the age of twenty-one, and the representation made in its favour, was that when you are dealing with a girl who may be just under the age of eighteen years, and a boy, say, of nineteen or twenty years of age, there was 
really no strong reason to assume that, as between young people of those ages respectively, the guilt or responsibility in the matter was entirely on the part of the young man. I do not want to go into the argument in detail. I think all our experience of human nature would lead us to concede, even if we do not think this provision ought to stand as it is, that there at all events is some force in the argument. The provision itself has been very strongly supported'-I am speaking now of the main provision raising the age-by the Social Service Council of Canada while they very strongly recommend the enactment of the first section raising the age, they also expressed the view and recommended that there should be a clause which would give protection to boys up to the same age and in the same way as the section protects the girls. That involves a section fixing precisely the same age for both sexes, and I think, perhaps, there may be a general consensus of opinion in favour of accepting that. The reason for carrying the age up to twenty-one was that which I have given. It was represented to us by people who have had very considerable to do with the detection and punishment of offences of this kind, that when you raise the age of the girl to eighteen you diminish very materially the presumption, as I have said, that the entire responsibility for what happened was upon the young man. It was pointed out that in those very years is the time when young men are more open to the influence, or more apt to be carried away by the influence, of passion, and that experience would go to show that under those conditions the young girl-any girl of seventeen or eighteen years-may fairly be assumed to be as well qualified to control herself, and to prevent conditions arising where unfortunately these offences may be committed, as the young man up to the age of twenty-one. However, this is not a question upon which I am wedded at all to the fixing of a particular age; I am absolutely in the hands of the committee as to what age limit, if any, should be fixed with regard to the young man. This is a question, of course, as to which there can be no suggestion that there should be any consideration come into play but what, in the judgment of this House, would best conduce to the maintenance of morality.
It has been pointed out to me also in this connection, and as a ground for making a provision of this kind fixing this particular age, or possibly another age, with regard to the young man, that we are mak-

ir.g this a crime. Undoubtedly the consequence will be that the young man who offends in this regard will be made a criminal; he is going to be subjected to the treatment of a criminal and started in his early youth with the brand of criminality upon him. Unless the proposed amendment passes, that _ has not been the case up to the present time. We all fully appreciate, and there is no occasion to dilate upon it, the very grave consequences that, without regard to legislative enactment, fall upon the girl who sins in this way, and I have no desire to make the position of the young man better in that -regard than her own. On the other hand, I do not think it is quite correct to point to this section as giving a license to the young man to do what he likes with regard to girls of the age referred to. If that appreciation of it be correct, then the law up to the present has given a license to men of all ages to do what they please in. that respect.
But now we are creating a new offence. This Bill makes it an offence for all men over twenty-one years of age, and assumes absolutely their exclusive responsibility for the commission of this sin, which, as I have said, takes two people to commit. Whether it is wise or unwise, in making that extension and raising the age of the girl, also to make that offence apply with regard to men of -all ages, is a question that, at all events, is serious, and calls for consideration. As I have s-aid, however, I am not wedded to this particular age. I am quite in the judgment of the committee and of the House as to whether the age with regard to the young man is. the -age 'that should properly be fixed, or whether we should fix the same age as- for the girl, or any intervening age, or whether there should be any provision at all fixing the age. I would only like to call the attention of the committee to what has been said in support of this proposition, and perhaps particularly to the fact -that by making legislation which will be applicable to young men of all ages you are perhaps not bettering the po-sitaon of the girl who has the misfortune to be a participant in this sin, but you are very materially aggravating the consequences to the young man. So far as those consequences will operate as -a deterrent, of course I think we would aill hold up both hands for them. But I think it is well to look at the other side of tthe picture and to consider whether in the general interest of the community it is well to enact a law that will sttart out in his career in life branded as -a criminal every young man
who may have yielded to temptation in this particular regard. If we could do something to mitigate the social consequences to the young woman probably it would be better, but I do not imagine that we can, nor am I affirming absolutely that it would be. But the question really pressing is: Will society as a whole gain if we blast as a criminal at the very outset of his career the young man who, under the circumstances provided for by the section, has yielded1 to temptation and fallen into this sin and committed this- offence, whose gravity I do not want to minimize, but which, at the same time, i3 an offence to which youth at that particular stage of its career is exceedingly liable, by the weakness of our human nature, to find itself guilty of. But as I have -said, I am quite prepared to take the view of the committee upon that question.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I am glad to hear the minister say that he is not wedded to this legislation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not wedded to subsection 2.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I feel moreover that the Minister of Justice had nothing to do with the drawing up or the dictating of this subsection. I know him too well for that. To my mind this is about the most damnable piece of legislation I have ever seen brought before this House. Subsection 2 simply gives to the young man up to the age of twenty-one license to go round the country committing a certain act which I will not mention, an act that is eyen too repugnant to mention here, and the Government will simply say to that young man: "Well done, go and do it again."


Charles Joseph Doherty: Might I suggest then that if that be so all governments in the past have been saying to "all" men: "Well done, go and do it again."


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But governments have not been saying that, because 12 noon answering my hon. friend's remark, I will give him what all governments have been saying. Section 211 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable' to two years' imprisonment who seduces or has illicit connection with any girl of previously ohaste character, of or above the age of fourteen years and under the age of sixteen years.
It does not tell the man that he goes scot-free; it punishes the man. But by subsec-

tion 2 of this Bill you say to the young man:
No male person under the age of twenty-one years shall be prosecuted for any offence under the provisions of this section.
If I have a suggestion to make respecting this legislation, it is to strike out the whole of the proposed new section 211 and amend section 211 of the Code as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable-
Not to two years but-
*-to - six years' imprisonment who seduces or has illicit connection with any girl of previously chaste character.
That is the first amendment I would make. And the second amendment I would make would be to leave out all words after the word "character." The words in the present Criminal Code which I propose to leave out are as follows:
Of or above the age of fourteen years and under the age of sixteen years.
The clause as I propose it would then
read:
Every one is guilty of an Indictable offence and liable to six years' imprisonment who seduces or has illicit connection with any girl of previously chaste character.
Mr. (McMASTER: How would you define " girl " ?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I define a girl just as she is defined under the Criminal Code. I would not limit her age, provided she was of previously chaste character. I say that no man, especially the class of men the Minister of Justice referred to as most apt to show their passions and to commit this crime, would be entitled to have illicit connection with any girl of previously chaste character.


An Hon. MEMBER:: Even if she were fifty years of age?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am not particular about the age. I (have know of cases where girls over that age were before the courts. If there are hon. gentlemen in this House so very particular as to limiting the girl's age, then they can suggest a limit to the age. But I have known cases such as this: a woman who was not in full possession of her faculties has been seduced by a young man of twenty years of 'age. By this proposed new legislation that woman would have no redress before the courts. We are dealing with a section of the code which gives a free hand to every young man up .So twenty-one years of age to commit a

crime. Such legislation ought not to be tolerated.


Mr. F. B. STACEY (Westminster District) :: I congratulate the Minister of Justice upon the general character of the amendments proposed in this Bill. I am sure it will be a cause of deep satisfaction to the rigM-thinking citizens of this country, comprising, I believe, the great majority of the population, that the minister has brought down such important .amendments to the Criminad Code. This Bill, perhaps more than ordinary Bills, lends itself to a discussion that is comparatively, if not entirely, free from all sectional considerations, and, therefore, in my remarks I shall try to speak as a man to men, irrespective of race, religion, or party. I have reason to believe that there are great numbers of our best Canadian citizens who would go even further than the minister has gone, and would favour raising both the .age of consent and the age of seduction higher than is provided for in his amendments. With this view I do not hesitate to declare myself in full sympathy, hut I do not intend. to suggest any further change at present. I mention it merely to. indicate to the minister .that he has not gone beyond the judgment of hundreds of thousands of the best people of our country. I do, however, ask that the minister will accept an amendment 'to clause 2 of section 211, and which I have drafted .as follows:
That the word, "twenty-one" be striken out of line 16 and the word "eighteen" be substituted therefor.
It will then read:	..
No male person under the age of eighteen years shall be .prosecuted for any offence under the provisions of this section.
.It will readily be acknowledged that the subject matter of this clause has a direct and vital bearing upon the domestic life of the people of Canada and I submit that any matter so closely related to the welfare and happiness of our Canadian homes is worthy of our most serious consideration. It is considered by some people that it is scarcely within the scope of Federal legislation to have very much to say or to do with family life. This idea is probably based on the assumption underlying the well-known phrase that an Englishman's house is his castle; but we have learned that if it is necessary to do .so to protect the interests of society, any man's castle may be invaded by the State. It is not necessary to argue to-dlay that what Canada needs is more homes; that the social and

economic conditions of society be so adjusted that early marriages may be encouraged and that the State should give some attention to and some instruction regarding the vital subject of child welfare. When it is remembered that more children under five years of age die in Canada every year than the total number of Canadian fatalities during the first three years of the war; when we remember also that great numbers of these children might, under proper conditions, have lived, we will' at once admit that every fact or consideration bearing upon the home life of our citizens is of supreme .importance. I fear that this clause granting exemption from prosecution to all offenders under twenty-one, will, instead of affording protection to our Canadian homes, tendi to lessen their number and destroy the happiness of many remaining. If a young man under twenty-one takes advantage of this clause and seduces a young girl, what follows? An unmarried motherhood, with one woman living under a cloud during the remainder of her life, and drawing other homes into the shadow; or, on the other hand, too often the beginning of a life of shame. So far as records are available I believe that a very small percentage of girls go wrong after twenty-one years of age, and consequently, so far as legislation touches this question at all, it should .seek to protect in every way possible the young women of our country.
Another reason for this amendment is found in the fact that as the clause .stands it appears at least to endorse a double standard of morals.
I am sure that this House only needs to be reminded that if there is any one thing in the whole realm of sociology which the beet manhood and the best womanhood of this country deprecates and is most anxious to eliminate, it is this two-fold standard of morals. I fear that this clause as it stands will tend to en-* courage, if not indeed1 actually to sanction, that very distinction which onr best citizenship is seeking to abolish. iMust I speak plainly to be understood? This clause seeks to protect girls np to 18 years of age from, seduction by men over 21 years of age, but it says to every young man under 21: 'Go to, yield to every passion, ruin every girl you desire of 16 years of age and upwards, and no prosecution will follow, we give you special permission until you are 21 years of age to live an unbridled sexual life, but after that you must settle dbwn and behave yourself; it is true we have tacitly encouraged you to start on
an evil road; nevertheless, if you keep on that road after you are 21, we will punish you severely. I am sure this committee will not endorse that policy. If any cynical critic either inside or outside the House should retort: Oh, you are only trying to make people virtuous by legislation; my answer is brief and direct: I am trying by legislation to make it difficult and as dangerous as possible for them to be vicious, especially when the life-long welfare of others is involved in such vicious self-indulgence.
One other reason only I shall briefly state. Our country is made up of a cosmopolitan population. From ocean to ocean, in every province of this Dominion, we have representatives of nearly every nation under Heaven. That simple statement is a warning in itself. We know that the morals of certain nationalities are exceedingly lax and that with many others of all races the animal passions are at a maximum between nineteen and twenty-one years of age. We must not consider this question merely from the viewpoint of our own households, but from the national viewpoint, and with the coming generations in sight. One thing I believe every man in this House wishes to escape and that is the accusation of an outraged public conscience, voiced too often by a broken hearted and spirit-crushed father or mother in the sad words; "My girl must suffer, but the man goes scot free."
I submit that the amendment which I suggest would help in some measure to save us from that awful indictment.


The CHAIRMAN:: Does the member for Westminster District formally move an amendment, or does he merely offer it as a suggestion?
Mr. STACEY; I have submitted my amendment in the hope that the minister will incorporate it in the Bill.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: If there is anything disgraceful in our modern civilization which has not been cured by the advance in sociality, it is the double system of morals. Any man who recognizes that system has not advanced far enough in the scale of sociality to vote to give women the franchise. I do not understand, and never could, why my sister should be tabooed for a breach of the social law while my brother for the same act should not. In bringing down a Bill, therefore, which introduces a double standard of morals for men-not as between men and women, but as between young men and older men- my hon, friend

is making a great mistake. The member for Westminster District (Mr. Stacey) points out that certain people think we have no right to pass legislation with regard to young girls. But this is not altogether a moral question: it is a physiological question as well. A man who indulges once is likely to do it again, whereas if he is kept chaste, he has no desire to do it. I speak with some authority with regard to this matter, because I have been an observer of men whom I have had under my control, men who have been closely associated with me, locked up with me, so to speak, for weeks and months. I have observed the practice of a vicious system of ignorance: some of these men teaching younger men that they would have to do certain things in order to be men. This is the greatest rot that was ever taught to young men. I repeat that the question is one of physiology as well as of morals. Young men may be and ought to be so educated that there would be no necessity for such a law, in the meantime let us protect them from their present ignorance. I certainly hope the minister will strike out subsection 2, and I would suggest that he raise the age of consent to twenty-one. A man has no right to take advantage of a woman at any time, at any rate, not until she is twenty-one.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am in full and complete accord with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin), and I believe the time is not very far distant, if it is not here now, when that principle will be incorporated into the Criminal Code of Canada. I believe, however, in being practical if I can, and I do not think there would be much use in pressing, at the present moment, an amendment quite so drastic as that, but I strongly urge on the minister that if he does not eliminate subsection 2 entirely, he will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Westminster district (Mr. Stacey), and, at least, amend the subsection so as to make the ages similar. As regards what the minister said as to branding as a criminal a young man between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, let us just reverse the order and see what takes place with regard to the girl. Assuming that we set the age limit in each case at eighteen, assuming that the young man and the young woman are alike up to eighteen years of age and that they commit that offence, what happens? The young woman goes through life branded, if not as a criminal, 
at least as an outcast, while the young man goes through life free. We proceed further along that line, and under subsection 2 we say to the young woman: You will be branded as an outcast, sinking possibly lower and lower in the social scale until you become a menace, not only to your own sex, but to the opposite sex, the younger boys, if you will, and we say to the young man between eighteen and twenty-one years of age, who brings the young woman into that position: You go scot-free, and we thus encourage that sort of thing to continue. I would like to see the clause struck out entirely, or if not, that the minister should accept the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Westminster district (Mr. Stacey).


Mr. PROULX:: I approve the amendment suggested by the. hon. member for Westminster district (Mr. Stacey). In some of the provinces a young man is considered old enough at eighteen to be married without the consent of his parents, so, as my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) has said, a young man of eighteen years of age can commit as much damage as a young man over the age of twenty-one. It would be conducive to morality if the age, so far as the young man is concerned, was reduced to eighteen.


Mr. VIEN:: The only argument that has been brought forward against striking out subsection 2 is that the young man between eighteen and twen'ty-one years of age should be protected and not be branded1 as a criminal. I think, on the contrary; it will be a preventive to the young man of that age if he knows tha't his action constitutes a criminal offence. Moreover, while the maximum punishment provided for is imprisonment for two years, the sentence may be for imprisonment for from one day up to two years, and I think that, if a young man between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one committed the criminal offence which is foreseen by this amendment to the Criminal Code, the court before which he would have to appear would take into consideration the particular circumstances of the case and, instead of branding him with a sentence of imprisonment for two years, the court might sentence him to imprisonment for an hour, a day, a week, two weeks, or two months. It would be a good thing to strike out subsection 2 and leave subsection 1 alone, thus leaving it to the courts to decide in each case what punishment should be inflicted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Minister of Justice might also take this, into 'consideration, that since we call a young man of the age of nineteen or twenty to the colours, he should not be put above the law, as under subsection 2 he will be put. I agree with the hon. member for Westminster district as to the merits of the Bill. It is a good Bill and it should be passed by the House, but subsection 2 should be struck out.
Mr. E. LAPO'INTE: I am one of the few hon. members who agree with the Minister of Justice as to subsection 2. When I first read the Bill, I was going to ask for an explanation as to the age limit in subsection 2. The reasons given by the Minister of Justice have convinced me that subsection 2 should be retained in the Bill.
There are certainly cases where the responsibility should not fall entirely on the young man under twenty-one years of -age, and where the girl should be let go scot free. Surely my hon. friend from Wright and the hon. member for East Algoma are not serious when they say a young man under twenty-one years of age should be prosecuted for having seduced a maid of forty or forty-five years of age. The proposition is absolutely absurd. The reasons given by the Minister of Justice are sound, and I think the subsection should be kept as it is.


Mr.   OOWAN@: I think the case cited by my hon. friend is so exceptional that it should not be considered at all. The vast majority of these cases occur between the vonng man of twenty and girls of the same age. Instances of the kind cited by my hon. friend are very rare,- indeed!, and should not form the basis of our legislation. I would sooner trust a man at any period of his life than between eighteen and twenty-one years, when his passions are matured but he has not the wisdom of maturity. Our ordinary legislation recognizes that. I see no reason why we should make any distinction between the two sexes. The law of Canada provides that where the two parties agree to marry all criminal proceedings shall be stopped. If we remove the penalty from young men up to the age of twenty-one years he will certainly not be any the more likely to marry the girl; whereas when he is liable to a penalty ol two years he is more likely to do justice to her. I do- not believe in forced marriages, but I believe that is better than to turn a young woman out blighted for the rest of her life. I therefore support the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: 
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: These things do not occur in rural constituencies.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The hon. member for Kamouraska. has the advantage of representing one of the ideal constituencies of the Dominion. A,s a matter of fact, there is less crime in rural constituencies- than in cities.


An hon. MEMBER:: be given to young boys. If you 'eliminate this clause altogether, a girl of eighteen, of a passionate nature, might have illicit connection with a young lad of sixteen, and she would not be liable under the Criminal Code, while the boy would; and that is something we have to provide against. We do not want a double standard of morality, and we do not want a double standard that will punish the boy of sixteen and allow the girl of eighteen to go almost scot-free. I am in favour of retaining the clause, and while not prepared to go quite so far .perhaps as the hon.. .member for-Westminster, I -am prepared to go with him a considerable length. That a young man of almost twenty-one, with all the matured discretion of a grown man, should go scot-free is not right. At the same time there must be some protection to the mere lad-, who perhaps through ignorance is led astray by a young girl a little older. I cherish this view that where two young people have misconducted themselves, as a Tule the girl is just as much to blame as the boy, and I would suggest that as we -are all agreed on the principle, it might meet the views of the House if we substituted the word "nineteen" for the word "twenty-one."


George Brecken Nicholson: I should like to emphasize the point I have already tried to make. In the case just cited by my hon. friend, what does a thirty-day term in jail mean to a boy of sixteen compared with the stigma the girl of eighteen will carry for the rest of her life? The girl you say, goes scot free hut the girl who has wilfully got herself into that position, which is a most unusual thing to contemplate, or who has been brought into that condition by the wiles of a devilish young man, is branded for the rest of her life and no sentence you could impose on any young man could brand him to the same degree as the girl is branded before society by that very act. If the suggestion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) was accepted by which .this clause would be stricken out and the determination of the punishment left to the courts you would eliminate the license you have given to the young man and place in the hands of men who are able to put a proper estimate upon the nature and extent of the offence, the opportunity to determine what the punishment should he. You will make the Bill clean and acceptable, and not hold out to any class of young men that liberty or license which has been spoken about during this discussion, if you simply strike [Mr. McMaster.l
out this paragraph as the hon. member for Lotbiniere has suggested.


Thomas Vien: Under the ordinary rules of criminal procedure a judge can even suspend sentence and- no provisions are necessary in this Act to allow him to do so. The judge could suspend sentence, if paragraph two of this sentence were struck put, and exercise his discretion in each case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am pleased to have had the advantage of listening to the different views which have been put forward. I was very gratified indeed to have had the endorsement of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe), particularly a-s I endorse the description of him given by the hon, member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) as being the incarnation of virtue. That little consolation perhaps makes it easier for me, remembering some of the very strong language that has been used in regard to this section, to express my readiness to accept the modification which is suggested. I would not like to leave out entirely a provision, not holding out a license to do things, but merely, when we are maiking a new criminal law, making it applicable to men above a certain age. If the description of -this legislation is correct as being a legislative holding out of a license to all young men up to twenty-one to commit this offence, we must inevitably conclude that as regards igirls between fourteen and sixteen, or girls over fourteen, the law up to the present has held forth a license to all men to commit this offence. We would be making a step in advance if we cut that license down to a young man over twenty-one. However, I do not want to elaborate the argument that might be made. I do not want either to convey the idea that in the argument that might he made on the other side there is not very considerable force, but I cannot say that I am absolutely convinced by what has been said that the clause as it stands is objectionable. On the other hand,
I am quite prepared, in a matter of this kind, to defer to the judgment of this committee as to the age which can be fixed and to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Westminster District (Mr. Steacey) that we should substitute eighteen for twenty-one. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) suggested nineteen. It was hardly worth while, for the sake of a difference of one year, to depart from the principle of putting both girl and boy, from the point of view of the criminal law at all events, on a footing of equality. There is

nothing we can do by the criminal law which will minimize the social consequences to the girl. That, unfortunately, will always be the case. I say ''unfortunately," and no doubt it is unfortunate for the individual girl, but perhaps not absolutely unfortunate for the good of society in general. However,
I need not go into that question. We cannot modify the position of the girl by anything the criminal law does. I will be prepared to accept the suggestion that eighteen be substituted for twenty-one, in the hope that that will meet the view of the committee generally. I therefore beg to move:
That subsection two of the proposed section be amended by striking out "twenty-one" in the first line thereof and substituting "eighteen."
Section as amended agreed to.
On section	4-Unmarried	man and
woman registering as man and wife at hotel:


Mr. COOPER:: I would like to ask
whether, in the framing of this section, any notice has been taken of what is commonly known as a common law wife. All over the British Empire and in the United States they have acknowledged that principle by paying separation allowance to the dependents of a soldier whether he was married to a woman or not. It seems to me' that this is a very drastic law, and makes a criminal of two people who have arrived at the age of discretion and ought to know their own intentions. I would think that before this is enacted it would be made the subject of discussion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: All that is made an offence is the false statement. It is made an offence for people who are not man and wife to register themselves at any hotel nr boarding house as being man and wife. There may be cases-I do not know to what' extent if such is the fact in parts of this country where what the hon. member describes as the common law wife is recognized as being validly married. But, after all, nobody has any right to live together as man and wife, unless they are legally and properly so, and the evil which is aimed at here has been represented to me as being largely prevalent. It has to do with people with regard to whom there is no pretence of common law relationship, or anything of the kind. On the contrary I am told that it is not at all an uncommon practice for people who have possibly met each other on a particular day or evening, and who make no pretence of conjugal relationship whatsoever, to go into hotels and boarding houses and use them simply as convenient places for prostitution, covering up their doings by registering themselves as man and wife. Large numbers of very respectable hotelkeepers have supported the suggested legislation because to-day they are not in a position to protect themselves by telling the parties concerned, "You are not married," and there is no consequence attaching to the registration falsely of these people as married persons. I think that the possible injury that might happen, if it be considered an injury, in the cases suggested by the hon. gentleman, sinks into insignificance in view of the real evil that is struck at.


Mr. MORPHY:: Under the proposed section the Minister of Justice wants to reach the case of the man who goes to an hotel with a woman who is not his wife. But suppose the woman does the registering and the pretending, how are you going to reach her? I think the woman in such an event should be punished as well as the man, if we want to enact legislation that will prove effective. It may be said that the clause does cover the point that I have raised, but I do not think so. From a critical reading of it it seems to me that the clause would he quite inoperative and absolute nullity if it were left in the position in which it is at present.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it would he desirable that we should make the section clear beyond the possibility of all doubt, and I have no objection to amending it with that object in view. I therefore move to amend section 220A by inserting in the second last line thereof after the word "woman," the words "or a man," and by inserting in the last line thereof before the word, "is" the words "or she" and adding to the last line. after word "wife" the words "or her husband, as the case may be."


Georges Henri Boivin: The section as proposed to be amended will now read:
Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, upon summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars or six months' imprisonment, who, at any hotel, boarding or lodging house, whether by registering in any book kept in such hotel, boarding'or lodging house, or otherwise, represents or pretends that a woman, or a man, to whom he or she is not married, is his wife, or her husband, as the case may be.


Jacques Bureau: That makes both liable.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Both liable.


Jacques Bureau: In case the law is violated that will prove to he a very dear signature.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 220B-corrupting children.
'Mr. VIEN: I think this section of the Act would afford the so-called social reformers the opportunity of entering any house, or of complaining of the internal economy of any house, making complaints in court, and compelling anybody to go and defend themselves against such complaint. The scope of the section is so wide that its operation will he mischievous and it should, therefore, be cut out entirely. As proposed the section reads:
Any person who by indulgence in sexual immorality, in habitual drunkenness, or in any other form of vice, causes a child to be in danger of being or becoming immoral, dissolute, or criminal, or tends injuriously to affect the morals of a child, or renders the home of a child an unfit place for such child to be in, shall be liableand so on. It would seem that whether you are in your own house or in the house of another person, any social reformer will be entitled: to make complaint against you, and you will have to face the complaint in court whether it is well founded or not. It seems to me that the section opens a door to blackmail of the worst character, .and should be struck out.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The clause, while new in our Criminal Code, already .appears in Canadian legislation. It is taken) substantially from a provision in the Juvenile Delinquents Act of the province of Ontario, which has been in operation for quite some time now, and is considered invaluable by good and wise people who have interested themselves in the Child Welfare movement, and in the experience of the province of Ontario it has not given rise to the suggested abuses. The reason I am asking the House to introduce this clause into the Criminal Code of Canada is that though it had been applied for no inconsiderable time in the province of Ontario with what are represented to he the moist beneficial results, it has recently been held, and I think properly, by one of the judges of the High Court of Ontario, -before whom such a case came, that the provision properly and rightly constituted criminal law,' and w.as not within the legislative jurisdiction of the legislature of a province.
As regards what the hon. gentleman points out, this clause gives no right of search 
or intrusion into- anybody's- house. What it does is to make it a criminal offence for people by their immoral acts to expose to corruption young children. Now, whatever view one may take of the desirability of making certain immoral acts criminal, I think there will be a general consensus of opinion) that where people perpetrate these acts -in- the presence of young children in such a manner as to deprave and corrupt, surely that is an, evil to suppress, and I do not think that there is any real danger to 'be apprehended with regard, to the privacy of our own households, The -charitable -societies and the child-welfare societies have found this a most useful and effective provision, and I have not heard in the province' in which it has been in- force any suggestion that there has been any abuse -s-uoh as has been mentioned. What I would like to emphasize is that the section confers on nobody any right of search or intrusion intoi a house which does not exist already. If there be a right on the part of moral reformers to intrude, they have it, and -they will 'have at, whether this section is passed or not. As- I have said, it has- been found in practice-that information I -have upon the authority of people competent to speak - a most useful section, and one particularly useful to restrain the practice of immorality on the part of men who intrude themselves into houses when the hus-band is absent or away from one cause or another, and so- conduct.themselves with the woman of the house in the presence of young children as- to create a condition where it is almost hopeless that the children will he brought u-p with any proper ideas of morality. *


Thomas Vien: I do not desire to be misunderstood. I understand there is no right of search, but it is left to anybody to make a complaint. I am fully in accord with the principle embodied in this section, that children should be -protected as much as possible, and- I am glad- to hear that this law has been in operation in Ontario and that it has not, thus faT at least, given rise to any abuses-. Bu-t I think the minister will agree with me that the right to make the complaint should) not. be open, but that the complaint should come through the instrumentality of the Attorney-General of the province, so that it would not be possible to use the right of complaint as an instrument of blackmail. This right should not be open to any body who would like tc be a complainant. Even if the complaint were unfounded, it would be quite awkward for any respectable persons to

have to face such a complaint in the criminal courts. Then the section is very wide in the definition of vice when it says " or in any other form of vice." I should not like the public at large to be confronted with the possibility of having to face a charge on any ground that the so-called social reformers could interpret as vice. There is no such thing as a definition of vice in the Criminal Code of Canada. I do not think the isection in its present form should! be adopted, but some provi"o should be inserted restricting the right to make a complaint.


Mr. COWAN:: I do not know what happens to blackmailers in the province of Quebec, but I do know that in mry province if professional blackmailers or social reformers attempted to use blackmail under the circumstances mentioned in this section, they would be punished even more severely than would the persons against whom the complaint had been laid, if the charge were proven.
iMr. VIEN: The motive may not always come under the definition of blackmail, but suppose the motive was vengeance. By this Bill you give an instrument to avenge against a person by making the right to complain open.
At one o'clock the House rose.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Jacques Bureau: When the committee rose the member for Lotbinifere (Mr. Vien) was taking objection to the clause under consideration, on the ground, first, that it was too vague, and, second, that it opened the door to blackmail. One of the members on the other side took exception to the word " blackmail," saying that if anything of that kind arose, there were means of dealing with it. But we must consider this clause as it is proposed to be enacted. We assume that those who asked for its enactment had a purpose in view. We are all human; we cannot create heavenly conditions on. this earth by legislation; on the other hand, we do not want to ruin reputations by trying to be over-good. If I had a room in a house where there were small children and chanced to bring and use a couple of bottles of whisky or wine, some goody-goody gentleman who wished to get after me, contending that, in the words of the Act, my conduct would "tend injuriously to affect the morals of a child," could bring me before a magistrate and I should be disgraced for life, simply because, in a 108
house where there were children, I happened to have more whisky than I should have had. I do not believe that is right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Act deals only
with habitual drunkenness, so that the instance my hon. friend cites does not constitute a case.


Jacques Bureau: Habitual drunkenness
would be a case outside the one I am citing.
I am willing that strict pleasures be taken to protect the youth of the country; we cannot be too severe on those who teach younger children vice, or bad habits, or immorality. I do not go so far as the member for Lotbiniere in reference to blackmail or the vengeance side of the matter, but I submit that persons acting in good faith, impelled by their zeal to do good and to see that everybody else in the community is good, may drag to dishonour a respectable person who may have had the misfortune to fall under circumstances rendering him liable to provisions of the law under which he may be fined $500 or sentenced to six months in jail. I suggest that the wording of the clause be so changed as to put a kind of limitation on the zeal of persons who, in their desire to do good, may make things worse than they otherwise would have been.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I agree with the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) that the clause is not happily worded, that it is too broad to get at the evil for which we should provide a remedy. I suggest that if the minister is not going to define the meaning of the word "vice," he insert between the words "other" and "from," in the second line of 220B, the word "habitual," thus restricting the section by specifying that it is a vicious habit that is aimed at. It is a question whether a time of war is the best time for the enactment of legislation along the line of social reform. The public mind is excited, the nerves of the people are subjected to certain strain, and we are apt to go too far in this direction; legislation of this kind is apt to be put through,too hastily. There is something in the argument of the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) that this section as it stands may be taken advantage of by persons who are actuated by spite or malice. In connection with the work of the Children's Aid Society in Ontario, some cases have come under my attention where people actuated by malice have taken advantage of this kind of provision in the Criminal Code and of others as well. We should avoid that as far as possible. The minister should frame a



clause defining vice, and should provide that in cases of wrong practices liable to depreciate the morals of children, no prosecution shall be made except through the medium of associations in the various provinces and districts which are engaged in child welfare work. These institutions are of high standing, and are accustomed to proceeding carefully along these lines and investigating very thoroughly before they make a complaint. It would be good policy also to make a further provision that in cases where no such society exists in any particular district, no prosecution shall be commenced without a-fiat from the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of the province, or such other well-constituted authority as may be designated. In this way such prosecutions would be thrown largely into the hands of societies which are peculiarly fitted to deal with the matter. I have had frequent opportunity of observing the splendid work done by the child welfare societies throughout large districts in Ontario.
The work of these societies has been the means of preserving the morals of thousands of children throughout Ontario, because those societies, being organized in a judicial manner, have made their investigations and have taken children bodily from their parents and away from the bad and immoral atmosphere which is aimed at in this Bill.
Mr. H. A. MAC'KIE: I do not agree with the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) at all. In the province of Alberta there is an Act governing the conduct of children by their parents, and, so far as I know, there has never been any attempt to use it for the purpose of blackmail against any individual by way of spite or otherwise. To say that such legislation should not be enacted because this is war time is, to my mind, no argument at all. The section is quite a reasonable one. There surely cannot be any vagueness in the phrase:
Afty person who by indulgence in sexual immorality.
The phrase itself is sufficient to indicate that the indulgence cannot be a mistake, such as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). It surely cannot be understood by the expression-
Any person who by indulgence in habitual drunkenness.

-that a man may make a mistake by having a few friends in a room where children may be


Jacques Bureau: I accepted that too.


Mr. H. A. MAOKIE:: The section aims at creating character in children. Habits are created by repeated acts, and habits create character in a child. This section is intended to lead parents to be careful in bringing up their children. If there is any possibility that the section might be used for the purpose alleged by the hon. member, then the suggestion that a fiat should be obtained from the Attorney General is a good one, and that would be the proper course to follow. The Attorney General would" have the whole case submitted to him, and he would thus be able to see whether there was a violation of the law or not. Outside of that, I ao not see why any amendment should be made, and when there are so many people coming from countries in which there is a different standard of morals from ours, they should learn that there is a standard of morals in Canada, and this section should be passed expressly for the purpose of bringing them up to the standard of morals which we Canadians have. I, therefore, heartily support the section.


Jacques Bureau: The Minister of Justice this morning said that this section was copied from the Ontario Act, which was working very well. Is that the reason for enacting this legislation to-day, or is this legislation brought before Parliament because there has been a demand for it on the part of the people generally throughout Canada? If it is based only upon the fact that the Ontario Act is working well and that the minister thought that Canada should have uniform legislation in regard to the matter, all well and good. On the other hand, if this legislation has been introduced by reason of a demand from an association or of a particular class of people, we should, because they are extremists, be on our guard as to what they may do later on. They might go much further than this legislation intends. My hon. friend (Mr. H. A. Mackie) takes exception to my statement. He bases his answer on two things that I did not touch on, and he fails to answer the third. I do not take exception to the expression "habitual drunkenness or -habitual indulgence in immorality," but I take exception to the vagueness of the third clause, which .says:	.
Or in any other form of vice.

When the word "vice" is not defined in the Bill, those over-good people may, with the best intention in the world, go further than the presumed intent of this legislation, as it stands at present. That is the exception I make to this. I agree with my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) that the word "habitual" ought to be inserted before the word "form" so that the clause would read:
In habitual drunkenness or in any other habitual form of vice.
It is common knowledge that there are persons who make it their business to run after young boys and young girls to endeavour to induce them to do wrong, and, for my part I do not think we can be too severe in dealing with such people. They are the ones whom we want to punish and of whom we want to purge society. But if we are going to pass this legislation as it is, there is an opportunity for such cases as I have suggested. Those who wish to have the legislation in its present form are extremists, and we must always be afraid of. extremists. When the law is enforced, they may be extreme in carrying it out, and injury may result to good people, who may be dishonoured for life.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Jacques Bureau: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With that .suggestion 1 have really no. sympathy .at all. I do not see what exception could be taken to a man being punished for an action of that kind, even if he did it only once. In my judgment, it is a much graver offence than that of a man who steals even something of very great value. In the latter case we do not wait until the man has become a habitual thief before we punish him. I appreciate the suggestion that there should, perhaps, be .some safeguard interposed in the way of requiring some responsible authority to be sponsor for the prosecution, although I think much that has been said about the danger of blackmailing would be equally applicable to a very large number of other offences that' tare provided for under the *Criminal Code. It does not, at the first glance, seem to me to be quite clear why there is greater opportunity of blackmail presented because this particular conduct is made an offence than is presented by numerous other dispositions of the Criminal Code. Why, if somebody wants to exercise vengeance upon me he can charge me with having seduced my servant girl, for instance, .and his vengeance will be just as effective, notwithstanding my innocence, as if .he had prosecuted me under this section.


Jacques Bureau: I hope he could not prove it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I trust the hon. gentleman looks upon that hope as an assured and certain hope.


Jacques Bureau: Absolutely. What I was suggesting was that any other form of vice would give .a man the opportunity to exercise vengeance if he wanted \p use the Act for that purpose.	.


Henry Arthur Mackie: The section aims at the forming of character in children, and if vice in any form is practised in a boarding house or anywhere else it would be detrimental to the formation of character. If the object in view is the protection of children, the section cannot be too wide.

Mr. VlIEN: If the minister would accept my amendment, I think it would meet tall the requirements. I would submit that no prosecution should be commenced without Prat obtaining leave of the Attorney-General. My amendment goes further and provides that the prosecution cannot be commenced after the expiration of sixty days from the time of the commission of the alleged offence. We do not want a prosecution for an offence that was committed years, ago. My amendment'follows the wording of the 'Lord's Day Act, which says:
No action or prosecution for any violation of this Act shall be commenced without the leave of the Attorney-General for the province in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, nor after the expiration of sixty days from the time of the alleged offence.
Surely we can trust the Attorney-General of each province to apply the provisions of this Act justly.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Hugh Boulton Morphy: 
Thomas Vien: 
Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I am placed at rather a disadvantage in not having heard what the minister proposes to do, but I have a good deal of sympathy with hon. gentlemen who have urged that this clause is too drastic in its present form. I know that a great many people are prepared to do a

little wrong to accomplish a great right, but 1 'have ibeen always very cautious in advocating anything of that kind. I would rather see two bad men get off than punish one innocent man; I may be wrong, but that is my feeling. I approach this clause from the practical side, so fair as I am able, and it does look to me that under this clause as it is some men and some families are going to be punished who should not he punished.
Let me draw the attention of the committee to what might occur in highly respectable families of comparatively slender means. In the northern part of Ontario, in the West and in the province of Quebec the new settler goes in and takes up a homestead. All that the man has in the world probably is a tent and some tools. There is probably ia man, his wife and several children, and they must all live in a tent until he is able to erect, perhaps, a one-roomed shack. In that one-roomed shack or house he will have to Live with his family during the first winter. It will be four or five years before that man can get a house sufficiently well built to>
accommodate his family as it 'should be accommodated. I was brought up on the 'scriptures just as much as the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), and I want to see everything dlone decently and in order, but we must not be too hard upon the poor man, honest and with the best intentions, who is compelled fer a time to live under such conditions as I have described, much against his will, much against the will of his wife, and much to the inconvenience of his family, but who, by reason of his slender means, is compelled to live in a house that does not accommodate his family as. it should be accommodated. They will have to live in a tent or .a house with one or two rooms together. Surely that man cannot be accused of vice when he has the best of intentions and lives as an honourable, upright and moral man. It does appear to me, unless you limit the term " vice " more than it is here, and unless the clause is modified in several important respects, there is danger of inflicting a wrong upon innocent people. I do not wish to be a party to that.


George Brecken Nicholson: 
George Brecken Nicholson: The reasons
for which any one might be prosecuted under this clause as specified-sexual immorality, habitual drunkenness or other forms of vice.


William Foster Cockshutt: What are the other forms?


Jacques Bureau: What other forms of vice?
Mr. iG. B. NICHOLSON: Pardon me for a moment. Is a man living with his family-under conditions that have been described guilty of any one of *lhese acts?


Jacques Bureau: That is a question for the jury.


George Brecken Nicholson: It is a question for the law. I hold that the argument is specious that any one can toe convicted of vice under the law simply because of the surroundings in which he is forced to live, provided he is a moral and clean man and lives in the best possible way he can.


Jacques Bureau: Leaving that case aside, let us take the former case that I submitted. Being drunk is a form of vice which is not an uncommon one. A man, who might toe the most respectable citizen in the place might get drunk once in his life, and (be in that condition in the presence of children, and some fellow with a grudge to satisfy might see him and institute a prosecution under this clause.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Drunkenness, to be considered as vice under this clause, must be habitual. It is other forms of vice that are spoken of, and it is only when drunkenness becomes habitual that it comes under the definition of vice.


Jacques Bureau: Supposing a man played cards in the presence of children, smoked cigars and took a drink, that would be construed as vice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the hon. gentleman must have a peculiar conception of the capacity of the courts of this country to understand the ordinary terms of the English language. I think "vice" has a very intelligible meaning to intelligent people.


Jacques Bureau: He might not be convicted but he might be arrested, and that is where the harm is done.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We cannot undertake to make any amendment to the Criminal Law under which no innocent man will ever be prosecuted.


Jacques Bureau: Certainly not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If we are going to have laws against crime we have to take the risk of some innocent man some day being prosecuted.


Jacques Bureau: Protect him as far as you can.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think we are protecting him as far as it is possible to do so, consistent with a reasonable enforcement of the law.
I beg to move that the section be amended by adding as subsection 4 the following provision:
iNo prosecution under this section shall be instituted unless it be at the instance of some organized Child Welfare Society, or Association with like object, without the authorization of the- Attorney General of the province, nor shall any such prosecution be commenced after the expiration of six months from the time of the commission of the alleged offence.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Theft of motor cars, punishment increased:


Jacques Bureau: Will the minister explain the object of this provision? Is this a punishment for furious driving?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, it is for stealing automobiles-that is, the stealing of automobiles exclusively for the purpose of taking a joy ride-and all that the 'section proposes is to increase the possible penalty. At present the penalty for this offence is a fine of $50, or imprisonment for thirty days. By this section the fine is not to exceed $500, and the imprisonment is not to exceed twelve months. It has been pointed out that this offence has become exceedingly prevalent, that in very many instances the damage to the cars taken is far beyond the $50 fine, and that there is real necessity for adding to the deterrent effect of the law.
I am in a position to give some testimony as to the prevalence of the offence, inasmuch as I have observed that recently we have had a large number of applications for ticket-of-leave, or other forms of leniency, in cases of people convicted under this section. There is no obligation upon the court to impose the higher penalty. This simply makes it possible for the court, in a case that calls for it, to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Instruments proof of house being gaming house:
Thomas Vien: I think that the words "any unlawful game" in the present law are quite sufficient to cover anything that would be objectionable. Has the minister any concrete ease which suggested the amendment to him?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The difficulty arose from the fact that a great many instruments are

capable of being used in perfectly lawful, as well as in unlawful, games. The law imposes upon the prosecution in every instance, in order to get the benefit of its provision, the obligation of showing that the instrument is one peculiar to an unlawful game. It is 'to be noticed that the provision itself only makes' the presence of these instruments prima facie evidence. It is perfectly open to "any person who has them for lawful purposes to establish the fact; but the section with., this requirement of establishing that the instruments are for an unlawful game practically nullifies itself. The purpose of the section ;s to facilitate the proof. As it stands now, in order that a thing should be prima facie evidence of the place being a gaming house it is required, in effect, to prove that the thing is of such a nature that it could not be used for anything else than an unlawful game, and, as I have stated, tnat practically nullifies the section. Nobody is exposed to any injury whatever, in the practical application of the section, by this being made purely and simply prima facie evidence. The enforcement of the law against the guilty will be facilitated, and the innocent will not be exposed to any serious consequences.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported as amended and amendments read first and second time and concurred in.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave of the House to revert to the Order for the second reading of the Bill founded upon the Resolution numbered one upon the Order Paper, in order that I may move the second reading of the Bill with the understanding that when I have finished my statement I shall move the adjournment of the debate. This will enable me to give to the House certain information requested regarding the Canadian Northern Railway system.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: By unanimous consent Mr. Maclean moves that Bill No. 87, an Act supplementary to chapter twenty-four of the Statutes of 1917, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system, be read the second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Upon the occasion of moving the resolution upon which this Bill is founded, certain information was requested of the Government by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. I now purpose giving that information and I hope that it will in every respect be complete.
As I have already stated, when I have given this information to the House I shall acquiesce in the adjournment of the debate.
The information which I am about to present will consist largely of figures and will I fear prove uninteresting, but at least it will be available in Hansard for those interested.
I was asked the other day to give the names of the directors of the Canadian Northern Railway. The Board of Directors and officers of the company are: Sir William Mackenzie, president; Sir Donald Mann, vice-president; D. B. Hanna, third vice-president; Z. A. Lash, R. J. Mackenzie, W. J. Christie, R. M. Horne-Payne, London, England; W. K. George, E. R. Wood, and Graham A. Bell. The last three mentioned are the representatives of the Government upon the Board of Directors. I have already given a list of the short term
4 p.m. maturities for this year, but in order that it may be before the House in a complete and consecutive form, I shall read the list of securities of the railway maturing this year:
Canadian Northern Railway System. Statement of Short Term Loans, March 1, 19IS.
Loan made by
No.	Maturity.	or through.	Amount.1.	Demand.	Dominion Govern-	ment, Canada	$10,000,0002.	Demand.	Can. Bank of Com-	merce, Canada	5,889,0663.	Demand.	Can. Bank of Com-	[DOT] merce, London	10,074.4084.	Demand.	Can. Bank of Com-	merce, Canada ....	1,250,0005.	Demand.	National Trust Com-	pany, Ltd., Canada. .	115,0006.	Demand.	Dom. Sec. Corporation, Ltd., Canada. .	150,0007.	March	British Empire Trust	929,53331, 1918.	Co., London 	8.	April	1,472,1679, 1918.	Lazard Bros., London	9.	April 15, 1918.	Lazard Bros., London	2,919,02610.	April 15, 1918.	Lloyd's Bank, London	5,201,40711.	June 9, 1918.	Nat. Bank Scotland,	London 	4S6.66712.	July 10, 1918.	Wm. A. Read & Co.,	New York	2,700,000
Canadian Northern Railway System. Statement of Short Term Loans, March 1, 1918. Loans made by
No. Maturity.	or through.	Amount.
13.	July
10.1918.	Wm. A. Read & Co.,
New York	 3,000,000
14.	Sept.
1,1918. Wm. A. Read & Co.,
New York	 10,000,000
15.	Jan.
10.1919.	Wm. A. Read & Co.,
New York	 1,250,000

Hon. gentlemen will, of course, understand that this is 'merely an estimate, and it will be seen that it is anticipated that there will be an estimated] deficit of over five million dollars for the year 1918, afterpayment of operating expenses and fixed charges.
The amount of $3,400,922.02 for improvements, additions and* ibetterments is allocated as follows:	For the western lines,
$2,148,589; for the eastern lines, $1,252,333.
The amount required for construction, namely, $7,185,300.21, will ibe expended in the completion of western branch lines well along in construction, it 'being very desirable that they (be completed if possible.
Since the opening of the session I think no statement showing the financial result of the recent operations of the road has been presented to the House. The fiscal year of the Canadian Northern railway ends on June 30th, iand the following is a statement of the income and operating expenses for the fiscal year ended June 30th, 1917:
Earnings	 $41,244,689	58
Subsidiary (Mis-cellaneouis
Earnings	 2>,215*0,386	98

	31,349,4-08 18
Not Earnings Fixed Changes- Canadian Northern Railway Fixed Charges- Affiliated Companies .. . Interest on Demand and Short Term Loans	
12,1415,668 38
7,690,942' 07 5,139,689 87
3,720,208 7a
Less:	Amount
chargeable to Capital on Cons truction
Account	 1,943,095 29

 14,607,805 35
Net Loss or
Deficit

	2,462,136 9*
The following is a comparative statement of the gross earnings, operating expenses and net earnings for the fiscal years 1916 *and 1917:

Gross Earnings, Operating Expenses and Net Earnings to June 30, 1917, Compared with Previous Fiscal Year.
Gross Earnings.
Per Cent.	1916.	Class.
XT.27	$ 6,128,470 76... .Passengers ..
74 87	 26,564),213 12. .. .Freight .. ..
00.64	 225,718 70

(Mails	
02 37	 839,567 69. [DOT]. .Express .. .
04.85	 1,722,314 79_____Miscellaneous
1917.	Per Cent.
$ 7,611,807	94	
17.5032,188,799	93	
74.01238,978	68	90.551,096,264	37	
00.522,359,2215	64	
05.42100.OO	
35,476,275 06
Total
4)3,495,076 56	100.00
Per Cent.	1916.	
22.60	.$ 5,899,640	27.15.69	. 4,095,746	88.02.12	. 553,075	79.51.28	. 13,384,547	71.01.45	. 379,646	48.06.86	. 1,790,188	39.
Operating Expenses.
Class.
.Maintenance of Way and Structures .Maintenance of Equipment Traffic ..
.Traffic Expenses	
.Transportation Expenses	
.Miscellaneous Operations	
. General Expenses	
19117.	Per Cent.
$	7,160,338	18	
22.84$	4,867,208	64	
15.53712,809	04	
02.2716,100,826 57	
51.36509,853	69	
01.631,998,372	06	
06.37100.00	$26,102,744 52
Total
$31,349,408 18	109.00
Per Cent.	1916.

73 58	 26,102,744 52.
26.42	 9,373,530 54.
Summary of Earnings and Expenses. Class.
. .Gross Earnings	
. . Operating Expenses	 [DOT]
. .Net Earnings	
1917.	Per Cent.

31,349,408 18	 72.08
12,145,668 38	 27.92
100.09
I now present a statement showing the estimated cost of completing lines and terminals under construction. It would take a long time to read it, and if the House will allow me, I 'Shall insert it in Hansard so that hon. members may be able to obtain tha information in detail.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Only in very exceptional circumstances may a document be placed on Hansard without having been read', but in view of the undoubted importance of these figures I assume that there will be no objection.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Moose Jaw Terminals.. ..	7.95$	461,794
7.95 $	461,794
Grand Total	l,OO2l90 $20,958,142
Mr. LEM1IEUX: Can the hon. gentleman tell when these works will be completed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot give the information at the moment, but when the second reading of the Bill is resumed later, il shall endeavour to have it for my hon. friend.
A statement was presented to Parliament last year showing the securities issued and cutstanding by the Canadian Northern system, and it may be found in sessional paper No. 237. There has really been no

change in the- amount of securities issued since that date. I wish however to submit a fresh statement showing the total amount of securities outstanding, comprising securities guaranteed by the Dominion Government and by provincial governments, -securities unguaranteed, and also the amount of issued securities held by the public, the amount pledged by the company, and
also the amount of note issues. I, of course, cannot read the whole statement, but if the House so desires, I shall be very glad to have it placed on Hansard.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Wilfrid Laurier: A great many of the securities are pledged. With whom are they pledged, and for what?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are pledged with the persons from whom loans were made by the company.


Thomas Vien: With banks?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: With banks and brokerage houses.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It seems that my hon. friend has missed some provinces. Will he name the provinces that have guaranteed securities?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Ontario, Manitoba Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: Nothing guaranteed by Nova Scotia?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. The Halifax and Southwestern railway was financed' in

a different way. No isecurities of the Canadian Northern railway were guaranteed by the Government of Nova Scotia.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about lines that were afterwards assumed by the Canadian Northern Railway system?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Halifax and Southwestern railway forms a part of the Canadian Northern Railway system, but no securities were guaranteed by the Government of Nova Scotia. The Government of Nova Scotia incurred a direct liability in connection with the construction of this road.


Mr. ROSS:: Will the minister give the grand total of the liabilities and the notes?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The total issue is $359,931,494.40.


James Hamilton Ross: And the notes are in addition?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


James Hamilton Ross: What is the grand total?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: $393,604,827.73.
The total amount held by the public is $253,922,087.28. That is the total issue less the amount pledged as collateral but unsold. I am informed' that inclusive of the equipment and temporary loans, the total would amount to about $400,000,000.


Mr. CAHILL:: Is the $98,000,000 which the minister mentions included in the $359,931,494.40 with the notes?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, it would be included in the total amount of $400,000,000.


Frank S. Cahill: According to the statement there is a total issue of securities in round figures $359,000,000 and $33,000,000 of notes, and there is another item of $98,000,000. Is the $98,000,000 included in any way in the total of $359,000,000? There are three items, one of guarantees by the Dominion Government of, in round figures, $104,000,000, one of guarantees by the provinces of $107,000,000, and a third of unguaranteed securities of $147,000,000, making in all a total of $359,000,000 up to June, 1916.
Mi'. A. K. MACLEAN: The floating liabilities are not included'.


Frank S. Cahill: The $98,000,000 is in floating liabilities?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know just what my hon. friend refers to.


Frank S. Cahill: Then there would be a total indebtedness of about $500,000,000 including the floating liabilities?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. I shall give to the house the floating liabilities in a moment. I have in my hand a condensed general balance sheet as of June 30, 1917. The report which the leader of the Opposition now has in his hand contains a general balance sheet, but as of an earlier date. This condensed general balance sheet is as follows:

Canadian Northern Railway System-Condensed General Balance Sheet.
At September 30, 1917.



ASSETS.


[Stage Direction]
Property Investment:-	$ cts.
Railway and Equipment at Cost to the System, including discount on Securities of Constituent and Subsidiary Companies and
Acquired Securities	
Other Investments	
National Trust Com-
Eany Certificates re <and Grant Bonds,
Issue 1899 -These securities held as collateral to loans	
Terminal and other Properties	
Land Assets:-
Deferred Payments and Accrued Interest on
Sales	
6,262,084	27Cash with National Trust Company account of Land Sales..	2,355,136	47Lands Unsold	
20,427,570	00
Current Assets : - Cash Held on Ac. of :
Dominion Govert___
Prov. of Manitoba... Pr. of Saskatchewan. Province of Alberta.. Province of Ontario.. Province of British
Columbia	
Central Trust Company of New-York. National Trust Co... British Empire Trust Co., Trustees Ac... Sinking Funds. ..	.
2,153,049 27 45,920 63 1,202,825 24 2,691,130 52 419,803 94
3,772,963 70
38,902 06 2,092,932 77
20,621 51 76,765 07
8 cts.
510,637,572 92 2,753,780 19
1,657,500 00 6,257,366 37
29,044.790 74
$ cts. $ cts.
Capital stock-Common	 100,000,000 00
Capital 8toek-Affiliated companies	 75,429,500 00 Less Held in Treasury. 69,482,400 00
[Stage Direction]
 5,947,100 00
Five per cent income charge convertible debenture stock	 25,000,000 00
Funded debt.
Canadian N orthern
Railway	 160,566,542 20
Affiliated Companies... 125,228,878 41
[Stage Direction]
 285,795,420 61
Equipment trust obligations	 13,526,000 00
Demand and short term loans secured by collateral	 58,056,961 11
Due to other companies on construction account (Secured)	 30,502,392 04
Current liabilities.
Pay Rolls	
2,129,912	11Audited Vouchers and Other Floating Liabilities	
17,278,583	68
19,408,495 79
Coupon and Dividend warrants due 1st Oct.
(Since Paid)		1,677,859	79
Accrued interest on bonds, loans and equipment securities :-
Operating 2,746,423 87 Construction	305,786 27	3,052,210	14
[Stage Direction]
 4,730,069 93
12,514,914 71
Value of Material and Supplies on hand....	6,083,878	74Due from Agents, Station Balances, etc..	.	2,052,591	61
Miscellaneous Accounts
Receivable	
7,111,697	09British Admiralty	664,070	84Cash on hand	
2,331,860	96Insurance paid in advance	
Ad vances by the Canadian Northern Co. to
Affiliated Companies....
Deferred Charges-Unadjusted Debits-Balance	
30,759,013 95 823;708 51
9,379,581 94
860,113 95
[Stage Direction]
Reserves: -
Steamship Replacement Fund	
Equipment Replacement Fund	
Insurance Account... Taxes Accrued	
Affiliated companies- Advances Account Surplus	
2,047,066 04
1,693,229 00 745,038 19 500,000 00
[Stage Direction]
 4,985,333 23
9,379,581 94 34,842,073 92
592,173,428 57
Certified correct,
(Sgd.) H. O. FOREMAN,
Chief Accountant.
[Stage Direction]
I might give a few details of the floating liabilities. It will not be necessary for me to state them all, 'as they would not be very informing. There is of accounts payable and audited, $5,660,000; bills, payable, $489,367; due on account of terminal properties, $1,175,000. There are other miscellaneous liabilities of various amounts totalling $10,130,000. The floating liabilities aggregate $17,278,583, as .appears in the balance sheet.
Mr. MURPHY:: Are all those figures as of Septefnber 30 last?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The balance sheet was brought down to September 30 last. The maturities are inclusive of everything down to the present date.
Upon my instructions, Mr. Hanna, Third Vice-President of the Canadian Northern Railway, was requested to prepare a statement giving information not contained in the statements I have already presented to the House, and showing particularly the gross earnings and operating expenses of the railway system since last June. I think I cannot do better than read .his letter, which is addressed to Mr. Graham Bell, of the Railway Department:
May 9th, 1918.
Major G. A. Bell, C.M.G..
Department of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-
Complying with request contained in your telegram and as referred to in my reply, I enclose herewith statement of gross earnings, expenses and net earnings for the nine months ended March 31st, 1918, compared with those of the corresponding period of the previous fiscal year, the figures being as follows:-
Ended March Ended March 31st 1918. 31st 1917.
Total Gross
Earnings.. $30,699,391 20	$30,095,886 66
Ope rating
Expenses .	28,209,439 57	22,591,432 08
Net
Earnings .	2,489,951 63	7,504,454 58
It will be seen that gross earnings increased by $603,504.54 over the same period of 1917, so that if normal conditions had continued, the net earnings for the nine months ended 31st March, 1918, would have been approximately $7,675,000. Unfortunately, however, conditions did not remain normal, winter weather of unprecedented severity was experienced, and, due also to increased fuel cost, higher wages in every department, coupled with increased prices for all materials and supplies used in operation of the Railway, the operating expenses were increased by $5,618,007.49 resulting in a decrease in net earnings of $5,014,502.9-5-a decrease of 66.82%.
The increased cost of fuel for locomotives for the two nine month periods is shown by the following figures:-
'	1918.	1917.
Fuel for Train
Locomotives . $5,241,560 23	$3,197,131 04
Fuel for Yard	__
Locomotives. .	667,919 59	340,324 47
Total. . . . $5,909,479 82	$3,537,455 51
Increase of 1918 over 1917.. .. $2,372,024 31
This is the increased cost of fuel as shown merely by the difference in the totals charged to the above two accounts and does not show up the loss in efficiency due to poorer grade of coal available, and takes no account of increased cost of coal used for operating snow plough [DOT] trains, heating buildings, etc.
Increased cost of labour accounts for increases in principal Maintenance of Way and Structures accounts to the extent of $470,715.70, and accounts which combine Material and Labour have increased by approximately the same amount.
Maintenance of Equipment accounts, including labour and material, show heavy increases. The principal accounts compared show the following increases for the nine months:-
Repairs to Locomotives.. . . Repairs to Freight Cars. . . . Repairs to Passenger Cars. Repairs to Work Equipment Mtce. of Shop Machinery..
1918.

In addition to fuel cost, other items of transportation expenses
Item.
Dispatching trains	
Station employees	
Yard employees (a/cs 377-380)
Enginemen	
Enginemen	
1918.

have increased 1917.

as follows:- Increase.

Total of these increases

[DOT] note___As regards the items shown above for trainmen, it must be explained that there
will be increases to these men which will date back to January, dependent upon the increases granted by the Director General of United States Railways.

The above are items of labour alone, and there are besides increases in other transportation accounts which combine labour and material amounting to an additional $939,861.98 of which the principal are:-	.
Station suplpies	
Water Stations	
Engine House Exp	
Train supplies and expenses
1918.

These increases in operating expenses summarised in round figures are as follows:-
Fuel	$2,370,000
Maintenance	of	Way Expenses.. ..	940,000Maintenance	of	Equipment	
1,222,000Transportation	expenses	
1,228,000Total	$5,760,000
The increase in the cost of coal during the last four years is shown by the following figures :-
Tons of Coal	Total charge to Fuel Accounts	AverageYear.	used by	for train and	costLocomotives.	yard	per ton.1915..	. . 795,054	locomotives. $2,659,712 89	$3.341916. .	. .1,097,574	3,926,697 04	3.571917..	. .1,282,341	4,82S,425 70	3.76Estimated for year	1918.	. .1,448,000	8,256,010 00	5.70
Not only are we paying an excessively high price for our fuel, but due to restrictions in 'supply from the United States, this Company has had to take freight cars out of revenue service and use them in the haulage of locomotive coal for very long distances, and this condition absolutely beyond our control, reduces our revenue as well as increases our operating expenses.
The enclosed statement showing increases in cost of some of the principal items of railway materials and supplies covers the period during which these prices advanced most alarmingly as reflected by our operating statements.
While high percentage increases in wages have taken place in the last eighteen months, yet some substantial increases were also granted in 1915 and 1916.
The following comparison of increases shows the increases on a percentage basis obtained since 1914 by the main groups of employees. Ia this computation changes in the working rules, involving overtime, etc., are not considered, which make the actual increases considerably above those shown, which			apply	to rates
alone:				
Fiscal Tears.	1914	1915	1916	1917Taken	% of	% of	and toas	Std.	Std.	Dec.standard	1917% OfStd.Trainmen	100	100	119.25	120.57Enginemen . . . .	100	117.41	118.93	130.81Telegraphers . . .	100	100.11	119.49	131.63Mechanical . . . .	100	100.59	108.13	127.00Maintenance of	Way	100	100.00	105.12	123.81The percentage	for Trainmen	in last	columndoes not include	increa'ses to be	given	dependant on increases granted by Director General 
to Trainmen on U.S. Railways from January 1st, 1918, and adoption of eight hour day. Maintenance of Way employees on Western Lines obtained increases of from 45 cents to 35 cents per man per day effective 1st January last, which in respect to the Western men would increase the above ratio to 141.14. The Shopmen on all lines have asked for a very large increase, and at the present time a board is sitting to consider the demands of the federated trades, and even if a portion of the request is granted, the increase will be serious. The Telegraphers and Maintenance of Way employees on Eastern Lines are now asking for substantial increases which, if granted in whole or in part, will considerably augment the above percentage for the present year.
As the Freight and Passenger rate increases went into effect on March 15 th-except the increase in grain rates which is not effective until 1st June next-practically no benefit is reflected in the gross earnings for the nine months.
Gross earnings, however, for April show an increase of $642,600 reflecting, to some extent, the benefits which may be expected from the rate increases. The comparative figures are as follows:
April 1918	 $3,958,100
April 1917	 3,315,500
Increase	 642,600
It is impossible to say how far the increase in gross earnffigs will go towards meeting the increased cost of operating, as the conditions affecting the expenses are altogether unusual. The best that can be said is that the same close scrutiny which has obtained in the past by the Management in respect of costs will continue in the future.
If further information is desired, we shall be glad to supply it.
Yours truly,



D. B. HANNA,

[Stage Direction]
Third Vice-President.
Attached to this letter is a comparative statement of the earnings and expenses for nine months, but that already appears in the letter as read and I need not again state it to the House. I thought it well to read that letter because it particularly brings up to March 31, last the figures in respect to the earnings and operating expenses of the road, 'besides affording other valuable information. That is all I have to submit to the House and I trust I have given all the information desired. I shall be glad to supply any further information required on the debate on the second reading of the Bill.
William Foster Cockshutt: Has the minister
any evidence, or guarantee, that all the floating liabilities have been got possession oi toy the department? If any such are not yet in, and should turn up later, what course does the minister purpose to pursue in regard to them?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Government are satisfied that they have a complete statement of all the floating liabilities of the company.


Frank S. Cahill: Would the minister, tomorrow, be able to give us a statement of what the assets controlled by the subsidiary companies consist of?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the hon. gentleman send me a note covering the information he desires?


Joseph Read: Who are the owners, other than Mackenzie and Mann, of. the one-sixth of the stock that has not been acquired toy the 'Government?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As I stated the other day, the Government now hold $97,500,000 of the $100,000,000 of the common share issue of the company. The balance is held largely in England. I was hoping to have some more definite information as to the holders of those shares tout it has not yet reached me. I will give it to the House when it is received.


Joseph Read: You did not acquire it
all from Mackenzie and Mann. Who is the other nigger in the wood pile?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not catch the hon. gentleman's question. [DOT]


Joseph Read: Apart from the $97,500,-
000 which you acquire from Mackenzie and Mann, who were the other parties from whom you acquired stock?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Government were in possession of some $40,000,000 of the total issue two or three years ago. The difference between the $40,000,000 and the $97,500,000 was transferred to the Government by Mackenzie, Mann and Company. Limited.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see that much of this information which is given toy Mr: Hanna, and which has been communicated to us this afternoon toy my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) is toeing contested at the investigation which is taking place ini Toronto *before the commission of which Sir William Meredith, Chief Justice of Ontario, is the chairman. Would it not be well to have the evidence which has been taken before that 109
*commissioni before we deal with this matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: None of the information which I gave to the House can be contested -before the commission. The general balance sheet might toe open to dispute, tout I cannot possibly think of anything else that might be open to question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I noticed the other day that the Premier of British Columbia, the hon. Mr. Oliver, contested very materially the figures which were given toy the Canadian Northern Railway representative before that commission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is true. I observed in the press myself that the Premier of British Columbia makes a claim against the Canadian Northern Railway, but I know nothing more about it than does my hon. friend. Of course, the claim is not admitted, by the railway.


Charles Murphy: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that in view of the .importance of. this matter, and as the Premier of British Columbia is at present in Ottawa, my hon. friend might familiarize himself with the details of that claim, so as'to acquaint the House with the facts before we discuss the Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will do my best, I beg to move that the debate toe now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



THE CIVIL SERVICE.


[Stage Direction]
On. motion of Hon, A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Finance), Bill No. 53, respecting Civil Service of Canada was read a second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The progress made with this Bill has been much more expeditious than I anticipated. Probably there are some hon. gentlemen who wish to offer some general observations in regard to it, and I would not like to see them debarred from giving their views to the House. I would, therefore, suggest that after the several clauses have been considered, an opportunity should be afforded members to discuss the Bill generally upon the motion to adopt the preamble.


William Foster Cockshutt: The discussion had better take place now, otherwise there can-



P.EVISED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
not 'be a general discussion on the principle of the Bill.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall he quite satisfied.


Georges Henri Boivin: Under the rules of the House, hon. members should have taken advantage of the second reading to discuss the principle of the Bill. It is only with the unanimous consent of the Committee that this general discussion ipay take place now. When it has been completed, I hope the Chairman will have the assistance of hon. members in securing the observance of section 5 of rule 13.
Mr.- MOWAT: I would like to say how gratifying it is to many members of the House that the Government has seen fit to bring in a Bill of this nature. The measure is bound to be unpopular in certain quarters because of its radical provisions, but for that reason the Government is entitled to all the greater credit for having brought it forward. Did we not have a Union Government in Canada at the present time I doubt very much whether we should have seen such a Bill introduced, in view of the manner in which the Civil Service has been administered for so many years. The fact that it has done so is to me a proof that it does not fear unpopularity. For that reason I am glad to be a supporter, for the time being, of a Union Government. Legislation of this kind is bound to make the Government unpopular in certain directions. I am glad, for one, even if unpopularity should result, because it will demonstrate to the people that even at the risk of unpopularity the Government will enact such measures at it believes to be in the interest of the country as a whole.
We are only beginning here a policy which was inaugurated in older countries many years ago and hon. gentlemen will perhaps pardon me if I give a short resume of what has transpired in Great Britain with respect to this important question. As far back as 1823, nearly a hundred years ago, the evils of patronage were first drawn attention to in the British House of Commons. At that time Lord John Russell made use of these remarks:
Offices in the Post Office and Customs are made part of the patronage of members voting with the Government. When an office is vacant the Minister seeing his advantage, writes to the member for the county and asks his recommendation.
In 1829, the Duke of Wellington said:
The whole system of the patronage is, in my opinion, erroneous.
	*
Coming down to 1849, we find that competent old statesman, Sir Charles Trevelyan, taking special charge of the question of Civil Service and of patronage. He said in a repont of that year:
The dregs of ail other professions, and young men who have no chance in open competition are attracted towards the Civil Service, as to a secure asylum.
Readers of Charles Dickens, who are familiar with the novel " Little Dorrit," will recall how he described the efforts made by Arthur Clennam to interest himself, and how Little Dorrit was uneasy, -and her great fear was that he was entering upon ia dangerous proceeding. That exhibits the Civil Service as it was then. You will remember how Clennam went to the Circumlocution Office and first saw the son of -Mr. Tite Barnacle, and how young Barnacle treated him when he began the *sentence, " I want to know "- Young Barnacle said: "My dear fellow, you must not come round here saying ' I want to know,' you know, because that's very irregular." And' so on, and how Clennam was passed down to Wobbler and then to Tite Barnacle at his house, and on to Clive, then how the old man in the other office advised him very tenderly not to proceed with the inquiry he was making because it would take a lifetime to get an answer. The writings of Charles Dickens exercised great influence in the change in the Civil Service in England. Then, in 1855, there was a joint report by Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir Charles Trevelyan, which provided for a personal examination to qualify only, and this is the same law as we have at the present time with regard to what is called the Outside Service. In the second place, it precluded a commission for interfering with the appointment of those who had the duty of nomination or appointment, and finally provided for the appointment of mature persons without examination. This consequently did not take the whole of the patronage away from political control.
Then Mr. Layard, afterwards Sir Henry Layard, moved a resolution with respect to merit and efficiency having been sacrificed in public appointments to party and family influences and to a blind adherence to routine which threatened to bring discredit upon the national character.
In 1860 a select committee recommended that a moderate and modified competition be held for these appointments. In 1870, which is a record year in the history of the Civil Service, Mr. Lowe, who

afterwards became Lord Sherbrooke, approved an Order in Council making competitive tests obligatory in certain departments of the Civil Service, and he sard- and with this I think many in this House will agree at the present time:
Men who up to twenty-two years have been in no business or profession are superior to men who at eighteen have devoted themselves to the special duties of their calling.
In other words he believed that the best kind of civil servant was a man trained not only in business but in general literature and education, and who was not appointed until a more mature age. Such a man is more valuable to the state than one who entered the service and learned the routine of business at a very young age. In 1874, under Mr. Gladstone, as a result of the work of the Playfair Commission, the Civil Service was divided into four classes. First, administrative officers, appointed by promotion on account of their ability. Sec-eond, those in the higher branches of the Civil Service who obtained their offices by competitive examination. The third class were those for the lower branches appointed after a simpler competitive examination. The fourth class were the men on day wages who were appointed upon a qualifying examination only. In 1876, followed an Order in Council providing for a higher scale of pay. Then, in 1890, Sir Matthew White Ridley's Commission mentioned that men of more liberal culture were required, and that certain special appointments required men of professional and technical knowledge. In 1910, an Order in Council was passed, amending and consolidating former Orders, and which may be looked upon as the code of Civil Service regulation in the British Empire. "
Mr. A. IC. MACLEAN: That was in 1910?


Mr. MOWAT:: Yes. In 1914, a very important report was made by leading members of all classes, including our present Governor General, the Duke of Devonshire, who devoted a good deal of thought and consideration to the report, and who, at times, dissented in minority reports from the majority of the committee. Some other members were Lord Macdonell, a very competent and distinguished civil servant; Mr. Philip Snowdon, representing the Labour party or the socialist branch of it; and Mrs. Streatfield, representing the women of the country, who have more and more shown their ability to become efficient public servants. Their report is most comprehensive in dealing with the whole question both in 109i
theory and in practice, and reference to it may be of great value to those who are considering this question. '
I prdpose to quote some extracts to the House for the purpose of emphasizing the importance of making the Civil Service of Canada not a mere trade or employment, but a profession. There is no reason why men should not go into the Civil Service profession as they go into medicine, law or engineering, because the Civil Service of Canada includes men who must be scientific in many branches, in matters of marine, of fisheries, of militia, of justice, copyright patents, and so. We cannot ex-
5 p.m. pect to obtain the best type of men unless we dignify the iser-vice and put it on a higher plane, taking it away from the influence of party politics, and giving opportunity for promotion and for increase in emolument, so that a civil servant can bring up his family in decency and give his children a good education. He cannot expect to do that unless we have a Bill which contains the principle of the Bill now 1 before the House. It is a dreadful thing to me to think of a man, perhaps a graduate of a university, spending many years perfecting himself in the details of his department, studying the general literature which pertains to that department, giving his whole life to the service of his country in the Civil Service, having some one appointed over him because that person has had more practical experience in the political field and must receive a party	reward. While	men of
that kind may be quite	as good
public servants as others-and it has proven so in our present public service- yet, taking the general run of things, the man who has devoted himself to the affairs of practical politics, and has acquired an influence which has enabled him to he shoved into the Civil Service, is not likely to be as valuable to the country as the man who has given his life to the profession. Therefore, it is gratifying to many members of the House on both sides, I am sure, that the Government have seen fit at last, after years of experiment in the Old Country and the United 'Stateis, to bring in a measure of this range and character.
Mr. Dorman B. Eaton, who was Chairman, I think, of a House of Representatives Civil Service Commission in the United States in 1880, made these remarks upon the state of affairs which had come into existence with regard to their Civil Service. After the war an innumerable number of men besieged the departments at

Washington to exercise their influence to secure appointments both for themselves and their friends, and the Civil Service got into a sorry plight; and American statesmen saw that they could not go on like that, that the public offices were overmanned, filled with incompetents and with men who did not give their whole time to the performance of their duties, and who could evade their strict duty because of the political influence they could bring to bear upon the heads of the departments. Mr. Dorman B. Baton said this:
Patronage creates a mercenary political class, an oligarchy of stipendiaries, a bureaucracy of the worst kind, which controls parties with relentless despotism, imposing upon them at the election issues which are prescribed not by the actual feeling and interest of the country, but solely by the necessities and profit of the oligarcy, while to secure this advantage, party spirit, the constant and mortal enemy of
republics, is inflamed to the utmost	
This system disgusts with politics and repels from them good citizens who cannot compete with the professional political class which gives all its time to a pursuit by which it profits.
While I do not say by any means that our Civil Service has got into any such direful condition as is depicted in that description, yet that is that tendency provided we go on with our present system. I* is quite true that many of the best citizens of our country have not 'a high opinion of our political institutions and have a distrust of the doings of politicians, in the House of Commons or the Senate, or in the Civil Service.
The reason probably is that he is unable to exercise any influence upon it; his relatives or his sons should, in his opinion, because of their possessing abilities superior to those of many public servants, have a chance to enter the Civil Service, but because they are not party politicians they cannot get a place.
The Civil Service would benefit by a system of competitive examination in the Outside Service. Since 1908 a system, of competitive examination has been followed in the Inside Service, but in the Outside Service the examination has been merely a qualifying one and is quite insufficient. The Outside Service should have the same standing as the Inside Service. The practical result of a system of competitive examination in the Outside as well as the Inside Service would be the establishing of a public service consisting of a better class of employees than those who have hitherto been appointed. It array be said that a man who, because of his peculiar facility for answering examination questions and hie kno-wledge of school and college work, may

get a good place in a Civil Service examination, and yet may not be sufficiently practical or have the qualifications required of an efficient employee in the public service. That may be true in a few cases, but what we are trying to get at is a general principle under which we may arrive at the best results. The Civil Service Commission in England, which is composed of some of the best statesmen of that country, was correct when it reported that, on the whole, men who as a result of their school and college work succeeded in the Civil Service examinations made the most competent civil servants. So that if we get nothing else from this' Bill than a system of examination for the Outside Service, we shall bring about good results. Some men who have J>een politicians and who are no-w in the Service have done well; we all know who and how competent they are; I need not mention names. But men in the Service with ambition to go ahead; men who desire to increase their efficiency and their standing, are dulled and frozen in the attempt; they become mere drones, doing their work day by day without hope of promotion or of increase in their salaries or standing; without hope of satisfying their reasonable ambition to become successful men as have their compeers and companions- in the ranks . of the private professions.
The working out of this Bill will produce complications at first; will give rise to troubles and irritations because of its newness. The same thing happened in England; the men of one department were known to resign in a body because they considered themselves unfairly treated. The member of Parliament became disgusted' because his influence waned and he felt receding from him the committees which had steadfastly supported him in his constituency because they knew that Civil Service appointments would be given them or their relatives and friends. But the member acquired) a new political backing; he acquired committees of a new kind and has been able to get very efficient political services from them-but not from those who expect to be Civil Servants. While the change, therefore, may cause temporary inconvenience and give rise to temporary irritations and opposition on the part of politicians, in a very few years it will so work out that the Service will be bene-fitted and political patronage will be forever eliminated.
A good feature of the Bill is that the status of those who are at present Civil Servants shall not be interfered with. This takes away a good deal of opposition to the

Bill. The Civil Servants of Ottawa, of whom there are now thousands, welcome this Bill with enthusiasm-not the mere class enthusiasm which might be called selfish, but the enthusiasm of men who have thought on these subjects for years, and who have groaned under the inequalities and injustices of the Service. Undoubtedly these injustices have not been deliberate; they have arisen of necessity through various circumstances connected with our present system.
Under this Bill all appointments are relegated to a commission. We do not expect the commission at once to produce the condition of affairs in the public service which prevails in older countries, but we anticipate that by fair attention to their duties, by an intelligent grasp of the needs of the Service and by loyal *support of 'the principles embodied in this Bill, they will eventually enable us to be freed from the injustices and inefficiency which have prevailed in many branches of the Service since 'Confederation.
Unquestionably a Civil Service Commission sitting in Ottawa cannot be expected to know the personal characteristics of their appointees; in that respect they will have to depend upon reports of post office inspectors, collectors of customs and other leading officials in the Service throughout the country.
I hope that the circumstances will not resnlt in the impression being created that once .a man passes an examination he is given a life job. Nothing could he more hurtful to the interests of the Service. If there is one 'thing that is a nuisance in this country it is the curt, impolite, grudging public servant. He does' exist in places; we all know him and we have all been troubled by him. If a public servant of this kind is the result of the system of political appointments, then we can none too soon get rid of the system. The public servant should understand that it is his duty to be courteous and obliging, and if this Bill fails to reach that phase of the subject the principle of efficiency in the public service cannot be fully carried out. We must have men not only who understand the duties of their office, but who have common sense, who will take the trouble to satisfy the public with whom they deal. This result is much more apt to be obtained under a commission, which, on complaint being made regarding the manners or inattention of a public servant, have power at once to " sit upon him '* and thus to make it generally known that the administration
of the Civil Service is in charge of a businesslike commission which will see to it that public servants attend to their duties as they should.
On the whole, I congratulate the Government and, in particular, the Acting Minister of Finance who introduced this Bill, on their courage in attacking a grievance, belated as this action may be. We are, of course, not yet a great country, and we naturally must be somewhat imitative of others. We all regret that. .1 regret that we have not, to any great extent, customs and fashions of our own. We depend largely upon what goes on in other countries. The great country to the south of us is richer than we are, and it has a very active life; it has its own fashions and customs, and we are naturally inclined to copy them rather than t-o have our own. I sometimes wish we copied the customs of some oldeT countries rather than those of newer countries, because we often imitate what is bad in the newer country to the South of us instead of what is good in it. Be that as it may, we cannot help being imitative, and we have now reached a stage when we are getting into this frame of mind, that we must have a modern Civil Service Bill of our own. We are ceasing to take things haphazard. By this concrete code of regulations, because that is what the Civil Service Bill amounts to; I believe we shall do good to our country and to the Civil Service; we shall elevate the Civil Service to a position it has never had before; we shall give new heart to those who have laboured for years in the service, and ten years from now, when this legislation works out as I hope it will, under the Civil Service Commission, we shall wonder why we ever permitted so long things to go on in their present shape.


William Foster Cockshutt: I desire heartily to concur in the remarks that have been made with regard to the wisdom of the measure brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean), and at the same time to agree very largely with what my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) has just said. I am pleased that the minister has allowed a little general discussion. I desire, in the first place, to approve entirely the principle of the Bill, and I think it would have been well if, in Canada, we could have had this legislation at an earlier date than this. The salaries paid in nearly all of the departments of the Government are less than they should be. Particularly is that the case in the Outside 'Service with which I am more

familiar than. I am with the salaries paid to civil servants in the city of Ottawa. But I believe, to a less or greater extent, it prevails in all branches of the service that, during war time, the men who have had to live on fixed salaries, have had very much the worst of it. 'The very high cost of living has not enabled those men to live in the comfort in which they lived in prewar days. The advances that have been made in the various branches of the Civil Service are not such as; in my judgment, should have been made, nor have they been made as readily as they should. I speak with a good deal of feeling in regard to this phase of the question. What I say is particularly true of the Post Office Department. I think within the last two years at least ten representations have been sent in to the Post Office Department as to the under-payment of letter carriers and clerks in our cities and towns. The salaries of those men are not at all commensurate with the very important work they have to do. They are entrusted with handling registered letters, money orders, postal notes and thousands of dollars' worth of other valuable property in the way of parcels, and yet their scale of pay is not as high as an ordinary labouring man could get at the present time. Further, during this war time, men, have been employed in the post office in my own district, the city of Brantford, for three land a half years, and the are still called temporaries. When the law was made in regard to temporary employees, a man was not allowed to be employed temporarily in the post office for more than six months at any one time or in any one year. That was, in my opinion a very strange law in itself; yet there are men who, during the war, have beeen acting as temporary clerks or letter carriers, that are still on the non-permanent staff and that are paid on the basis of temporary employees, and, in some cases, uniforms are not supplied as they are to the permanent letter carriers. That sort of thing should have ceased long ago, and I have put in very strong representations to all the Acting Pastmaster Generals that we have had in such plenty during the last two or three years. I regret we have not a Postmaster General to whom we can go and talk, and whom we can get to rectify these matters, but we have been in that position for a long time. I have, within the last six months, had five or si$ deputations on this matter alone, and I have told those deputations I shall do all I possibly can. I, therefore, take this first opportunity of impressing upon the [iMr. Cockahutt.]
Acting Minister of Finance, who, for the moment, controls the purse-strings of the public treasury, that he limber up a little on them, and that all of our permanent staff, whether they be in the city of Ottawa or in any of the outlying cities of Canada, or in the country districts, down to the man who carries the rural mail and the man who receives $30 a year for furnishing a place for a post office and for lighting and heating it, should receive better consideration. The whole Service is run on far too parsimonious a scale for the public to get the service we should receive. I am strongly in favour of having an all round advance for efficient service, and wherever service is not efficient, I would get rid of it. That is the way I do in business. I believe with my hon. friend (Mr. Mowat) that a man in a public office should be just as civil as if he had half a dozen others to compete with. Some public servants, by their attitude, seem to say: You can come or go; you can take this, or that, and that is all you are going to get; you will have to do as I choose, or you will not do business with me. That should not be. A civil servant is given a position to serve the public courteously, and courtesy should be insisted on in every branch of the Civil Service. Most of our civil servants treat the public in a courteous manner, but there are some who do not. I should like to see this question of pay and this question of courteous treatment to the public receive attention, and I believe that the system of promotion for fitness, for efficiency, should, as far as possible, be carried out. A man who has been doing good service should be given promotion. I have endeavoured to make myself clear in regard to the matter of recompense. I have not read the Bill very carefully all through, but I do not think the salaries to be paid are specified.
As a member of Parliament I am glad to be relieved of the responsibility of the Civil Service as embraced in my own riding. But there are some few points which, as a practical politician, I wish to fully understand. I am trying to be practical. In the first place the members of the Civil Service	Commission are located in Ottawa. I have the pleasure of knowing several of them, *and I believe they are very capable men. The Civil Service of Canada is paid by the people of all Canada, and not by the people of Ottawa, and I think every electoral district throughout the Dominion is entitled to a fair quota of men from that particular district. I Lay that down as a principle. I

think the members of this House and the people of this country will have every reason to be dissatisfied if the appointment of the Civil Service Commission is going to mean that the members* of the Civil Service in all the towns and cities from east to west and north to south lare going to be sent from the city of Ottawa. I do not know whether that is the intention or not, but I want the minister to guard against that. I lay down as* a principle that every riding is entitled to a certain number of its own people to administer its own business, subject to the rules and regulations laid down by the Civil Service Commission. That may be considered rather a narrow view, but I think .it is a practical opinion. I think in all our communities we have men who are fit to discharge the various duties in all walks of life ,and I think the people of Ottawa, as fair-minded people, should not want to add to the eight or ten or fifteen thousand people they now have in Ottawa, and they are mostly Ottawa people, the appointments in every city and town and in every country district throughout the Dominion. I think every electoral district is entitled to have a certain representation in the public service of Canada, and I hope I have the backing of my fellow-members in making what I believe to be a very fair contention with regard to the Outside Service, as it is called.
I understand from a question that was asked in the House the other diay by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) and answered by the Prime Minister, that members may or may not be consulted. Though I was in the House at the time, I must say that the answer did not appear to me to carry very strong conviction either one way or the other as to whether the member for a constituency was a proper man to be consulted as to who w.as fit to serve in any given position. If a m.ember is not a fit man to* be consulted in that matter, I think it is a reflection on his judgment and* on his standing in his own community. If he is not .a fit person I do not know who the fit man in that constituency would be to be consulted. I personally do not want to be charged with the making of appointments. It has got me into more trouble than it has ever done me good, because for every position to fill there are ten or twenty applications, hut I say that if the members of this commission want the best testimony that can be got in the average constituency, they cannot go to a better man than the member
elected for that constituency. I do not want to be considered as blowing my own trumpet; not at all. But the very fact that a member has the confidence of the majority of his constituents is a reason why he is entitled to he consulted. I do not say that his selection should he final by any means.
I think the great trouble in the past has been that members in order to pay some political debt, or for some other reason of a more or less sordid character, have not used their best judgment in making nominations, owing to pressure perhaps or some other reason. But if the member will use his best judgment he can make a recommendation that will reflect credit on the position to be filled and credit on his judgment in the selection. But if this commission are not going to consult the member for a constituency, he should certainly be relieved from all responsibility for the administration of those offices. As it is now, if there is anything wrong in the post office, customs, inland revenue, or any other department, who hears about it first? The man who has a complaint to make runs direct to the member and says: "You are supporting the Government that is giving us this administration." The trouble comes home to roost with the member at once. The principle should be this: If members are not consulted, or, being consulted, their advice is not followed, the Civil Service Commission or the Government, who stand back of them, should relieve the member of the responsibility for seeing any particular office administered as it should be. I believe first, that members *axe fit * and proper persons to be consulted, and that having been consulted, their advice should be .followed, unless for some good reason. If a member is not consulted, he should he relieved from responsibility for any action taken by the commission or whoever may make the appointment.
A man who gets a position in the public service is required to pass an examination. It may be a fairly stiff one, and that is where the outlying districts are at a disadvantage again. Here in Ottawa a large numbeT of young imen and women will be passing examinations all the time, but in the country districts the people do not hear about the vacancy until the time in which to apply has expired. There is another point. A young man or a young woman may qualify for a position in the public service by passing an examination with high honours, and then find themselves without a job. How long are they to be kept waiting? That is a .question

for consideration!. There should be a reasonable time beyond which the young men or young women who have qualified themselves for the public service should not be kept waiting. At present they may be kept waiting months or years, and eventually get tired of waiting and take something else. I do not find in the Bill any guarantee that if a young man or woman qualifies he will necessarily get a job. It appears to me there should be in every community a certain number qualifying for the positions likely to become vacant in that district, and when they have qualified themselves their cases should receive first consideration when the vacancy occurs. No outsider should be sent in until all avenues have been tried for finding a man in the riding; that is the proposition I lay down, and I think it is a perfectly proper one.
The personnel of the commission is, I think, a good one. I have the honour of knowing the chairman. He was for many years a member of this House and a minister of the Crown. He is a fair-minded, reasonable man, and I think he will endeavour to give a good account of himself.
I also know another member of the commission, and I think we are safe in their hands, so far as we can be safe under certain rules. But it must be remembered they are going to be guided by these rules, and while we all wish to have proper rules set up, they should be elastic enough to enable the commissioners to take a broad view of the matter, to recognize that it is not the money of the people of Ottawa that is being expended but the money of the people of all Canada. We are all interested in having our public servants fairly paid, and in trying to avoid a feeling of discontent and disquiet because their reasonable wants have not been met, and I do not think they have been met in the past.
I think we would do well if we got the Civil Service on a basis similar to the Civil Service in England; that we should advance our public servants gradually step by step as their length of service and ability warrants, and then they would have something to look forward to. At the present time there are men who have been thirty and forty years in the service at the same old job, and have had practically no advance to speak of during that thirty or forty years, and now in their declining years they have very little to retire on. Some get a small pension and others .nothing at all. The whole question should be taken up m a very comprehensive way.' Full salaries

should be paid for the present and the retiring allowance should be arranged for the man, or the woman, in this particular walk of life. We will have a much larger number of women in the public service in the immediate future than we have had in the past. A retiring allowance or a pension should be provided so that those people who have served the public long and faithfully may spend their declining years in comparative ease and comfort.


Mr. NESBITT:: I confess that I am very pleased to see the Government introduce a Civil Service Bill that will take appointments out of party politics. I think they could not do anything better. I have not had an opportunity of reading the Bill through and I do not know what its provisions are in their entirety but I noticed one clause to which I should like to invite the attention of the committee. It provides that, where a civil servant is transferred from one department to the other, if, in the department to which he is transferred, the salary is lower, he must go in at the lower salary. I think that i,c absolutely unfair. There is another clause saying that he shall be entitled within a certain time to increases up to the salary that he received in the position which he formerly held but in the meantime, when transferred, he must accept the lower salary. I repeat, that is unfair. I do not think that clause should go through.
As to the 'Civil Service Commission, I do not know whether they are fairminded men or not, but if they are not fairminded men we are putting ,a lot of power in their hands because influence might be exerted underneath the surface1 that ordinary people would not know anything about. If they are subject to that sort of thing, we had better consider before putting so much power in their hands. However, I take it that the idea and intention of the Government is that these men shall be absolutely unbiased and fair. But, if there is some secret influence by some members of the Government, or by some people who may be known to the commissioners', the system will be nothing but a curse and a nuisance. If they exercise this power fairly I am absolutely in favour of the Bill.
I am in favour anyway of giving it a trial. The laws that we make here are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, we can change them next year if the commission do not do what is right. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) says that we members are more or less responsible for the conditions as they exist at the present time, but if this Bill passes we will not be

responsible any more, and then we can tell those people who .are clamouring for positions that we are not responsible and that they can go down to Ottawa and get after the Civil Service Commission with a gun, ot club, or anything they like. That will be a relief to us, and as far as that is concerned I am not worrying about it. I am willing to give the thing a trial, but I would like to have some of these clauses amended.
I am entirely in accord with the general principle of taking the Civil Service out of politics. It looks to me from such consideration as I have been able to give the Bill that there is too much power placed in the hands of the deputy ministers. Suppose that a man, or a girl, in the department offends the deputy in some way or other, he or she cannot get an increase of salary or a promotion without a recommendation from the deputy. I recently had something of that kind brought to my attention and I thought the young man in that case had been treated unfairly. I think we should give that clause our very serious consideration. Some of the deputies may he large-mined men and would not take a narrow view as to those who are in their department. On the other hand, there may toe deputies who are not so liberal in their views', and we are putting a great deal of .power in their hands when we say that a civil servant of any department can only get an increase of salary, or promotion, on the recommendation of the deputy. I think we should; also, consider the provision that a civil servant, upon being transferred from one ^department to the other, may toe required to- accept a lower salary. As I have already said, I am in full accord with the general .principle of the Bill.


Mr. CRONYN:: As this is a general discussion, I desire to draw the attention of the House, and particularly the .attention of the Government, to one, matter which has already partially toeen discussed during the session, and that is the .position of those members of the Civil Service who are serving with His Majesty's forces. Under a late Order in Council, a copy of which I have not toeen able to obtain this afternoon, the civil pay of these men has been cut off and they are entitled now merely to their military pay and allowances, I have here what purports to toe a copy of the Order in Council and, for the purpose of discussion and without at all guaranteeing its correctness, I propose to read it.
1.	After the thirtieth day of June, 1918, the above mentioned Orders in Council shall be void and of no effect and no person in the civil employment of the Government absent upon service with the forces of His Majesty, or of any of His Majesty's Allies, shall receive any portion of the pay or salary which after that date would otherwise accrue in respect of such civil employment.
2.	Any person in the civil employment of the Government absent upon service with the forces of His Majesty, or of any of His Majesty's Allies, shall be entitled upon the conclusion of the latter service, to be restored to his position in the civil employment of the Government if he remains Qualified to discharge the duties appertaining to that position.
Now this question arose in a different manner during the Session of 1916 and I *cannot do better, by way of explanation, than to quote the answelr of the then Minister of Militia and Defence, the present hon. member .for Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) in answer to a question put to him:
Sir Sam Hughes: The rule in force is that members of the Civil Service who enlistel in the army prior to the 1st of November last draw their salaries as civil servants and also their pay and allowances as soldiers. Those who have joined the colours since the 1st of November, 1915, receive their military pay and an additional amount which brings it up to the amount of their Civil Service salaries, if their salaries in the service were larger than their military pay.
I tihink that succinctly covers the ground and shows what the position o-f these men was when they enlisted and went abroad. Earlier in the Session, when the matter came up, and it came up because of that difference being made, the right hon. the Prime Minister ('Sir Robert Borden), as reported at page 822, Hansard 1916, is quoted as follows:
An Order in Council was passed in the early weeks of the war providing that persons in the Civil Service of Canada who enlisted for overseas service would be paid their salaries during the time they were so serving their country at the front. At that time it was not anticipated that the war would last so long, and we had before us at that time the example of municipal corporations and railway and other corporations throughout Canada that were proposing to do exactly the same thing. The idea was impressed on the Government that the country could hardly afford to be less generous with regard to men who were prepared to make the supreme sacrifice than private corporations throughout the country.
Then he goes on to explain the reason why the Order in Council was changed *and why the date of that change was fixed at the first of November, 1915 and adds the following:
Every civil servant who has enlisted on or since that date has enlisted under terms and conditions which were perfectly well known to him at the time.

and later on :
When the war did last for such a very considerable period, in view of the increased additional strain put on the public service by reason of the duration of the war and of the greatly increased number of men we are sending, we came to the conclusion that some change should be made, and it was made along that line.
That is to say, the civil servant, instead of getting his full civil pay in addition to his military pay, was given sufficient from the civil list to make up, with his military pay, the amount of salary he had formerly been receiving.
In the same discussion, Hon. Mr. Roche, the then Minister of 'the Interior, and now the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, spoke as follows:
I have explained the reason. Substitutes for civil servants who have gone to the front have to be paid out of the war appropriation, and we felt that there was too big a drain on it. That was one reason that led us to make the change. Hon. members who have spoken seem to think that the present system is the proper one, that is, only to pay these men the difference between their military and their civil pay, but they wish to go further and reduce the pay of those who enlisted prior to the first of November. I do not agree with that proposition, because it would be a breach of contract. All those men enlisted on certain conditions, and, as they did so enlist and went overseas, to reduce their pay would not be doing justice to them; but we are not doing any injustice to those who have enlisted since the first of November, because they know in advance what pay they are going to receive.
In the ensuing debate several of the members expressed their opinion on the subject. One hon. gentleman, the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who has just sat down, spoke as follows;
If these men joined under a certain understanding or promise, I do not see how the Government can honourably go back on that promise any more than an individual could.
I am sorry I cannot advocate the cancellation of the first arrangement, because the men joined on the understanding that it would be carried out.
In other words, the member for North Oxford could not, and would not, agree that the men who first enlisted, prior to the. first of November, 1915, should be cut down to the basis of those who enlisted after that date.
In the same debate the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) said:
I think the Government should give notice in the future of any change which they intend making. Any bargain you have made should be lived up to. If a man has gone under certain conditions, the Government cannot break the engagement.
[Mr. Cronyn. j
Now, Mr. Chairman, you will understand from the Order in Council which I have read, that not only those men who enlisted at the outbreak of the war, or prior to the first of November, 1915, hut those who* enlisted subsequent to that date, are to lose their civil pay and have to be content with their military pay and allowances. I think I need only state that proposition to the House to secure the disapprobation of the majority of the members to that course. I cannot conceive of any excuse for doing what a former minister of the Crown has stated would .amount to a breach of contract. It does involve, of course, a considerable money outlay, and it may also be argued that it is a discrimination in favour of those men against any who have enlisted1, or may enlist either under the Military Service Act, or otherwise, since the Order in Council of 'the 5th of April. I do not think either of those reasons should prevail, or, indeed', should have any effect whatever. I do -not want to enlarge on it at this time, but I do urge the Government very seriously to reconsider their action in this respect, and acting on the suggestion of .a minister in the former debate who asked for a concrete proposal, I am going to submit a recommendation, which I believe would be entirely workable. They tell me there are not very many of those original men still at the front, or abroad, that many of them have returned! I think the Government should say to those of them who do not come within the terms of the Military Service Act, those of them who are not liable to conscription:	" We will withdraw you
if you so desire, from the front, and return you to your post in the Civil Service. But if you remain, you must remain upon tue terms of this new regulation, and' rece've only your military pay." That might take some little time, it would depend upon the numbers involved and the military positions held, but I think it would be dealing to some extent fairly with these men, and with the country as well. Many of them are married men who would certainly come within the Act. Some are over the age, and others might, for some reason or other, be exempt from the provisions of the Act. All of these men, in my opinion, should be given the option of returning and resuming their places in the Civil Service.
This Order in Council also appears to affect, according to the information given to me, those members of the Civil Ser-

*vice who have jbined the various postal corps throughout Canada. A copy of the Order which I read was sent to such a man who was employed in the postal corps of Military District No. 1, and who, up to the date of that Order, had been receiving a certain amount of pay from the Civil Service. He is now cut off and his statement is that he loses about $50 a month. He is a married man and he and his family cannot possibly live on the military pay of $1.10 a day and whatever other field allowances there may be. That man certainly should be given the option to return to civil life. There may not be many cases of that kind, but there is one under my hand to which that applies.
There is one other point in connection with this matter. As I understand it, although I have no authority to quote on the subject, all those civil servants who enlisted did so upon the understanding that upon their return they should be reinstated (provided they were fit of course), in the situations they held, but at the salary which they would' have normally received had they remained in the country. The civil servants, I should judge from the Bill before us, get certain yearly increases up to a maximum amount, and a man who went away receiving a salary of $1,000 and remained away three years would' come back expecting to find his salary increased to $1,150 or $1,300. If his annual increase was $50 it would be the smaller sum, and if the yearly increase was $100 it would be the. larger amount. Now, I am informed that in certain cases some of the men who have come back have been reinstated at the old salary which they received when they enlisted. That does not seem to be fair. Their brother clerks, who have stayed at home-I am not, of course, casting the least reflection on them,-have had their increases in the usual course. I think that is a point which the Government should take up, and, if I am right in my statement of fact, the wrong should be corrected.
I should also, before sitting down, like to say one other word in support of what the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) said about the salaries generally of civil servants, and particularly of those in the post office, including the mail carriers. I understand the Government is considering that point, and I hope they will deal liberally with these men. There can be no doubt, with the tremendous increase in living expenses, when we are told officially that a dollar is not worth much more than fifty cents, that these men are having a
hard time. Their case is made harder by the contrast to the man who is receiving a wage, and whose wage has largely increased. I know many institutions-some of them I have to do with myself, have since the war, allowed a special war bonus, a high cost of living bonus. And while the Government, I understand, last year, did vote a special bonus of $100, that does not strike me as being sufficient to meet the needs of the men. I have had men come into my office, who were married, with large families, and lay down their family budget, and it is quite plain on the face of it, and with the knowledge I have of living expenses, that they could not get along on the salaries they receive.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: With reference to section 9, concerning use of influence in getting appointments, I desire to ask the Acting Minister of Finance if there is any truth in the statement current around the city that the Auditor-General used undue influence upon the Government to have his son appointed Solicitor to the Commission, and then went personally and appeared before the Civil Service Commission, and as was stated, practically bulldozed the commission into appointing his son? The understanding is that the Government appointed him by Order in Council in the hope that the Civil Service Commission would not confirm the appointment. But the Civil Service Commission, having heard that the Government had anticipated such action, took what I take to be the proper course and refused to act in the premises until the Government would refuse to make the appointment. I ask the question, and if the minister has not the" information now, I would ask him to let me have it at a later stage.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not in a position to answer the question just put by the hon. gentleman. But I do not think * the Government has anything whatever to do with the matter. At any rate, I shall answer the question later.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 60, to incorporate Montreal, Joliette and Transcontinental Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Denis.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 61, respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. Stewart.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 67, respecting the International Bridge and Terminal Company-Mr. Manion-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On the preamble:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not see the promoter of this Bill. It would seem that very wide powers are being conferred on this company. Where is the line to be built?


Jacques Bureau: Who are the incorporators?	'


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would request that these Rills be distributed so that members can follow what is going on in the committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill has been distributed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the chairman of the Railway Committee can give us an explanation of this Bill, I shall be satisfied with any reasonable explanation.


John Allister Currie: This Bill, which was up before the Railway Committee, contained some contentious clauses. The railway company owning also the International Pulp 'Company at the International falls at Fort Frances', Ontario, have a railway bridge between the Canadian and American sides. This railway connects up their mills on the Canadian side. The railway crossee the bridge which the company own. This railway company and the pulp company desire to extend the railway line to a sawmill about four or five miles up or down the river-il do not know which, to provide cheap fuel for the pulp mill. They found that, under the Railway Act, they did not have the right to extend their line six miles on either side of their main line as provided in the Act. They had a charter of a bridge company which gave them a perfect right to build a railway track on the 'bridge and approaches, and they thought that, under that, they could come under the Railway Act and extend their branch lines six miles or so away from the main line on the bridge. The Board of Railway Commissioners decided that they did not possess, that power because they were not a railway with a main line. There was also, a dispute between the town of Fort Frances and this company. It appears that some 
time ago they had some' trouble, and the town compelled them to build a revetment wall along the waterfront, and they wished to run this line of railway over that waterfront. (Some clauses contained in the Bill give them the right to. run over this embankment virtually without asking the permission of the municipality, and shutting' the municipality from the wlaterfront. The municipality was represented before the Railway Board. The question was brought up there and amendments were agreed to which, I understand, were incorporated in the Bill by the clerk of the Railway Committee, and the Bill was then satisfactory to' everybody in the committee, all interests being satisfied. Mr. Alexander Smith appeared for the town.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 75, respecting the Protective Association of Canada.-Mr. Demers.
Bill No. 73, foir the relief of Frederick Ernest Zang.-<M!r. Redman.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Thomas Bailey Wainwright.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed -in Committee on Bill No. 53, respecting the Civil Service of Canada-Mr. A. K. Maclean-Mir. Boivin in the Chair.
George Green Foster: This is an innovation from the way in which appointments to the 'Civil Service have been made in previous years. That is, instead of the members undertaking the responsibility and a certain amount of worry in connection with patronage in the filling of positions, that work is now assigned to the Civil Service Commission. If that commission will give the necessary attention to this very responsible work, a considerable advance will have been made. If, however, that commission, after it undertakes the work, becomes indifferent and allows a good deal of this work to drift into the hands of the deputy ministers in the various departments, or perhaps leaves a considerable quantity of this work for the secretary to do, I question whether it will be as satisfactory as we would like to see it.
If the work drifts into the hands of the deputy ministers and the secretary, and if the commission does not give it the necessary attention, an inner circle or ring will be formed that will cause a great deal of dissatisfaction. I think, however, this is

a move in the right direction, and we should give the Bill a fair trial. If we find it is not working to the satisfaction of the members generally, some change may he made at a later date. As to beneficient action in regard to those who have voluntarily enlisted and gone overseas and those who have been drafted, I wish to compare the treatment accorded by the city of Toronto to its employees with that accorded by the Government to its employees.
I do not think the Government has treated its employees as generously	as	the city	cf	Toronto has.
At the outbreak of the war the city of Toronto continued to pay those of its employees who enlisted their full civil salaries, even in one case to the amount of $9,000 a year. These men drew their military pay as well, and some of them held pretty good positions in the army. During the second year of the war the city continued to pay them their full civil salary less the amount of their military pay, but reduced the amount of $9,000 which it was paying in one particular case, because they felt justified in making the reduction. The city of Toronto also insured for $1,000 all men enlisting in the city, iand has- paid out many hundreds of thousands of dollars in that way. This insurance is still kept up.
I have heard many complaints in connection with Government employees, and particularly in connection with the custom house. One young man that I know of in the Customs Department enlisted voluntarily and was granted both his civil and military pay, in accordance with the usual understanding that he would proceed overseas in a reasonable time. He was prepared to go overseas and so informed the department, hut after some time had elapsed and he was not sent overseas, his civil pay was cancelled and he was allowed his military pay only. The same thing occurred with six or seven others in the Customs Department. This young man to whom I have referred was made an instructor, notwithstanding his desire to go. overseas, and he still wishes to go. I got in touch with the department and suggested that he be allowed to go overseas or to revert to his civil position, but the answer was that he was to remain as instructor, and he -is still carrying out that duty, receiving only military pay. It seems to me that is hardly fair treatment from the Government. It can certainly .afford to be more generous than the city of Toronto, because of its
large revenue and its power to tax, if necessary, the lands of the whole Dominion. The city of Toronto has been very generous, and in many cases has done what really should have been done by the Government.
Many employees of the Customs Department are receiving very small pay. They have made representations to the minister oir deputy minister .at various times that they should have an .increase. I understand that many of them have not had an increase for several years. The minister may say that they were given a war bonus last year. It is true that a bonus of a hundred dollars was given, hut not to the whole stafi, for what reason I do not know. It has been represented to me that about forty members of the staff received no increase or bonus whatever, and that has created' dissatisfaction. If the Government felt they could only afford to distribute a certain amount among the employees, they should have made an equal distribution of it amongst the whole staff, instead of giving a bonus to two-thirds and nothing to the rest. I think these employees have a real grievance and I trust that in the reclassification under this Bill they will get an increase and receive the treatment they should have received long before this. The same remark applies to the post office employees, in both the inside and. the outside service, including the letter carriers. A deputation from Toronto made representations here for an increase a few weeks ago, but they received very little encouragement because the deputation was from Toronto. I understand' the Government's answer was that representations had not been made generally throughout the Dominion, but from only a few employees representing the Toronto postal employees and letter carriers. I know some of these letter carriers in Toronto who have been in the service for from twenty-five to forty years and have not received an increase for many years. Their pay, considering the high cost of living, is very small. I trust that, when this Bill is finally passed the Government will see to it that these men are treated justly, even if they are residents of Toronto. I do not think the *Government should require representations to be made generally throughout the whole Dominion. If no representations have been made by the West, it may be that conditions are better out there; perhaps they are getting better pay. I certainly think the cost of living is higher in the Bast than

in the West, and I therefore think there should be a greater increase in the East.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the West civil servants receive an increase of fifteen per cent per annum. This is due to the fact that the cost of living is higher.


George Green Foster: I sincerely trust that something will be done after the representations that have been made. This is a very important Bill, and inaugurates a new policy. There is to be a re-classification of the service, and a system of competitive examinations-. I think that is a step in the right direction, but it does not always follow that the person who comes out on top in the examination is best fitted for the position. I have seen in my time a young man who was extra bright and clever and who could pass the examination but who, when he was placed in a position, displayed no ability or aptitude for his work. Surely positions in any part of the country are not going to be given to people, whether they have ability or not, just because they have taken fairly high standing at an examination.
If a position should happen to be available in Ottawa, or Quebec, a young man living in Vancouver would be eligible to be examined for that position. He might be clever and pass the examination, and he might possibly be given that position. Why should you bring a man from Vancouver to fill a position in Ottawa or Quebec when you could get perhaps five hundred or a thousand people just as capable of filling that position tight in the locality? You should give consideration to the claims of those who pass the examination and who reside in the locality where the vacancy occurs. Surely amongst them you will get some who possess the ability as well as the qualifications which the passing of the examination gives them. While you insist on an examination to test the qualifications of the candidate, you should assure yourself of his ability to carry on the work successfully. It should not be left entirely to deputies or to the secretary. I am inclined to fear that a great deal of the work of selection will be assigned to subordinate officers instead of being carried on under the immediate direction of the commissioners. However, I trust I may be disappointed, and that my opinion a:s to what is likely to occur will not be verified. It may be that my judgment as to what will take place is not good. If this Bill works out in a satisfactory way we will all be perfectly satisfied and glad of the change.


Richard Clive Cooper: Although I have read this Bill through, I am not prepared as yet to pasis on its merits or demerits. I think that probably a year's trial will disclose its weak and its strong points. There is a question that I would like to bring to the attention of the Government, and that is the position of the lower-paid public servants. I do consider, speaking more especially for the Far West, that some of our letter carriers and men in the employ of the Customs Department are quite inadequately paid. I would like to go on record as urging very strongly that they should receive a bonus or some other consideration to meet the increased cost of living. With regard to civil servants who are also soldiers, I have been very strongly opposed to those preferred soldiers. I felt that the Government had no right at any time to give a preference to any men that fought for the country, but as the Government made the contract with these men, that contract should be lived up to. If the Government's intention is to cancel all payments to those civil servants on the thirtieth of June, any men who did not fall within the operation of the Military Service Act should be allowed to break the contract on their side.


John Allister Currie: over the country, and to whom do the people look?,. Do they look to the deputy minister? No, they look to the member and if anything goes wrong they blame him for it. Now, the members, to my knowledge, have always seen to it that the people they recommend for position in the Outside Service were invariably respectable people and well behaved, but what guarantee has the Government that all kinds of people will not get into the Outside Service now? There is no arrangement made that they shall be furnished with recommendations or anything of that kind. If a man seeks a position in the establishment of Sir John Eaton in Toronto what happens? The applicant has to give the names of two or three prominent citizens in the place from which he comes, and to each of these people will come a document from Eaton's saying, such a person has given your name as one who has personal knowledge of him, and accompanying it is a series of questions from the firm asking about that man, just the same as though he was recommended to .a position m the Government. That is not patronage, that is purely and simply >a guarantee that the man you recommend to Eaton's is a respectable person. You will not recommend a thief to go there. lit should be the same with the Civil Service. A man, unless he is carefully recommended, may have a record that ils not altogether too good, and the result will be 'appointments such as were made last year. Some appointments were made in certain departments of the Government without any reference to members, and to my positive knowledge-I do not want to name any party-two of the men that were appointed were' more fit for the asylum than for a job in the Civil Service, or any other service. There are all kinds of people chasing Government jobs, and the great difficulty is to select the proper party. When you do so you must shed a tear over his career, because you know he is being put in some place where he is not going to get what he deserves. There are meritorious people who do not get what they deserve, and often those who are not meritorious get a good deal more than they deserve. I think some provision should be made in the present Bill to meet the difficulties I have pointed out. The old Act that we have been working under gave the Government power by Order in Council at any time to place the outside service under the Civil Service Commission. That was all right, but no case has been made out for the great change which is

proposed' here. Whilst there has been lots of talk and questions raised about appointments, the only cases where difficulties have occurred by reason of appointments in the ridings have been where members of Parliament have deliberately placed their own friends in office. We will have the same thing here; a deputy minister will place all his relations in jobs under the Government, and the people from other parts of the country will not have anything to say about it.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the Auditor General?


John Allister Currie: I do not know anything about the Auditor General, who is a good old Scotchman, except that he is a very efficient officer. On several occasions in this House I have had to take his reports as proof where certain things had occurred that he would not let through. We have had him before committees on a number of occasions, and we invariably found the Auditor General was a straight and honest man. But there is a great tendency to nepotism in human nature, which extends away back to Biblical times. There is a great tendency to give jobs to your relations and I confess it is very difficult to get over at times. This tendency it will be very hard for the deputy ministers and the ministers to combat.
From my knowledge of what has taken place in this House, both when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, and when the Conservative Party were in power, I do not think that there.were half a dozen cases brought before the House in which it could be said that wrong appointments were made through the instrumentality of the members. The member is responsible, and if he recommends an evil person to take a position everybody on the opposite side of politics in his own riding will be down on him for it. The result will be that he will have to have that appointment cancelled, or insist that whoever gets it shall walk in the straight and narrow path.
There is another thing to be considered. We are now having to deal with returned . soldiers. The Government passed an Order in. Council that no one should have a position who was of military age except a returned soldier. That was very much appreciated toy the men who are fighting the battles- of this country, whether they have returned from the front or not. Many men will return with empty sleeves and wooden legs. So far this Government has provided positions for those men, and I feel satisfied that after the clamour and excite-

*rnent of war have passed these men, without exception, will do their duty, because they have learnt the idea of discipline, which ninety per cent of 'Canadians who have not gone to the war know nothing about. Furthermore, the returned soldiers will know what efficiency is. We find that this Bill makes no provision for placing representatives of the men who are at the front on the Civil Service Commission.
I have nothing to say against the present members of the commission, but I think that provision should be made for enlarging its membership whereby at least two, if not three, members should be men who have served at the front, men who have received wounds and served their country with honour and distinction. If we do not do that what is going to happen? There are going to be examinations and we hear it said that the soldiers are going to be put at the tap of the lists, and all that sort of thing. Well, we have absolute confidence in the present members of the Civil Service Commission, but none of those gentlemen have a permanent lease of life. I would not like to is-e-e them disappear, but - they are not going to live forever, and their places will be taken by others who may have no sympathy with the war or with the soldiers. The result will 'be that the soldier will 'be constantly cheated out of office by trick examinations. For that reason I would ask the minister to put representatives of the returned soldiers on the commission to see that there is no such thing as trick examinations imposed on the returned soldiers.
There are other departments! of the Government in the Inside Service where examinations have to be passed. I do not wish to mention any names, but unless a man. belongs to. a union he gets a trick examination and has no chance to get an appointment. If he belongs to a certain union, he has every chance, and if he does not belong to that order he is out in the cold. So, in this case, if you are going to give a preference to a returned soldier, and you are honest about it, and the House is honest about it, then make provision that there shall be people on this commission who will fight for the returned soldier and see that he gets his proper due. I think these are sentiments which should touch the heart of gentlemen who are sitting within the sound olf my voice, and I am not asking too much when I ask that this board be enlarged. I have no right to iask for the expenditure of a larger amount of money than the Government is providing for this measure; I would be called to ord>er by the chairman if I did. But perhaps we could have some soldiers put on. that commission who would serve for nothing and not ask fohsalaries.
I. want to refer to another point in connection with the returned soldier. The matter has been referred to by the hon. member for 'London (Mr. Cronyn), who has placed his case very clearly before the House. I have spoken already this session on this matter, and perhaps it would not be right for me to say another word. I only desire to answer the suggestions that have been made that the men who went to the front in 1914 should he asked to return and revert to the Civil Service, give up all they fought for in France, or else give up their salaries. That would affect four generals .at the front, who went over there as juniors and have received their crossed swords on the battlefield. They were men of the permanent corps holding 'Civil Service appointments. You ask these men, who are highly- -qualified officers, many of them the best officers we have, to return under this regulation, men who have been engineers in the service, qualified as artillerymen and observers. You say to them: We don't want you to serve your country any longer, you must give up what you have there and come back.
What would they get when they came back? I know one officer who went over as a permanent non.-com. in the service, a corporal of the permanent corps when he left. He went to Europe, distinguished himself, and rose to the rank of major. Through illness he w.as invalided to Canada. Whilst he was recovering an order went forth that no officers who were invalided to Canada were to be allowed to go to the front from here, and he had to remain at .home. He was not willing to do so. But what were the conditions under which be returned to duty? Although he had won his commission and crowns on the other side, he had to go back in the permanent corps as a corporal. There is no guarantee, and there has been no guarantee, provided by this Government for any man who has left for the front from the permanent corps or militia and who obtains a promotion abroad. When he comes back he reverts exactly to the rank in the army or the militia he had before the war. This Parliament might very well -have given consideration to amendments to the Militia Act in justice to officers who have gone overseas and won their promotion. But we are in a hurry to get away from here and important matters have been forgotten. If hon. gentlemen waver in the



right, .and will not live up to its .obligations, as a man. who represents the soldiers in this House I insist on justice and that the contracts are carried out. Sir John Eaton is not asking, nor is any other of the great business houses of the country, to get out of the voluntary contracts they have made with the men who left their employ for the front, and they are paying the wives what was promised when the men left. Surely this (House of Commons has not degenerated so much since the war began that it wants *to do what is a rank injustice and a breach of contract so far as the men at the front are concerned.
There are one or two other matters in connection with this Bill which I think it would be well to consider seriously before proceeding to give it its final touches, and I hope the minister will take them home to-night, and bring in a few amendments', especially that there shall be representatives of the returned soldiers appointed on the commission. We all express so much sympathy for the returned soldiers here, but he gets so little of it when it comes to practice. It is time we did something more than talk about it. There is another clause in the Bill which deals with technical men. Technical men are the young fellows who come from the universities as draughtsmen, surveyors and designers, and enter the departments, nearly all of them with the Bachelor of Science degree. They are put in Class 2 according to this Bill. Why should the best brains which enter the service-chemists, draughtsmen and men of ability-be put into the Second Division? The Bill provides that architects and draughtsmen shall be put in that division, and the hardship of it is that these men, according to the Bill, can never be put into the First Division, can never become heads of departments. I hope the minister will reconsider that. I want to assure him right now, from my experience all over the country, and from my experience as to what the soldiers are saying, the men I suppose chiefly interested in the Bill, they do not think there is any great necessity for .all this row about putting the Outside Civil Service under a commission. That is going to be a tremendous work. It should be undertaken after the war is over, when we would have plenty of time to pass a carefully
9 p.m. considered Bill. It has not been proven that there is any merit whatever in what is known as Civil Service reform, because in England and in the United States they have had to put the best men in the country at the head of their

departments. Charles M. Schwab was put the other day at the head of the ship construction.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Schwab has not entered the Civil Service. He has entered the public service, just as Sir Auckland Geddes did in England.


John Allister Currie: He is the head of a department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And so is Geddes. Mr. Sehwa,b has not become a member of the Civil Service.


John Allister Currie: Of course, these men would not ithipik of becoming members of the [DOT]Civil Service. Why should men like that want to enter the Civil Service? My observation is when it comes down to the point where we need real men we cannot get them from, the 'Civil Service. Therefore, as f.ax as this Bill is concerned, I d'o not think it has justified so xmuch stupid talk about it. I heard the speech of the hon. member for P.arkdiale (Mr. Mowat) this afternoon. And I thought if that was all that could be said on behalf of the Bill there was not very much to be said. If you pass this Bill you will get whole groups of men in office, and you make no provision to get rid of them if they aie of no use. Neither the deputy head nor iany other sub-head has any authority to dismiss a man or to establish discipline in the service, not even the minister. That is dealt with by the Govern-nor General in Council. Suppose a man away out in the country will not do what he has been ordered to do: the superior refers the matter .to the officer next higher np; that officer passes it on to the deputy minister, and the deputy to the minister; the minister puts it before the Cabinet and the Cabinet has to. decide whether a postmaster drawing $25 a year shall he dismissed. The whole thing, to my mind, is absurd. The Bill should be better framed than it is. I do not think any..argument has been advanced by either the minister or anybody in this House which has satisfied me that there is any crying desire for Civil Service reform of this kind. The ery for reform comes altogether from those people who have failed to get appointments.


Mr. HQCKEN:: I was quite surprised to hear the member for Parkdale (Mt. Mowat) say -this afternoon that this Bill would be unpopular. As far as my observations go it is popular with pretty nearly every class in the community. I do not know any class of people with whom it should be so popular as the members of this House. I

congratulate the minister upo-n the Bill which he has brought down. It is not perfect, but I do not think we should look for perfection in legislation enacted1 by human beings. However, I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a few of the imperfections by which I have been impressed.
I heartily approve of the principle laid down in the Bill that the returned soldier should be taken care of. In many parts of the country institutions are training returned soldiers who intend to take up' different occupations from those in which they were engaged before they went to the war. Many men who were not in the Civil Service before they went to the front may on their return prepare for .and perform efficiently the duties of civil servants, and in this respect there is work for the Department of Soldiers' Re-Establishment. These men have risked their lives, endured all kinds of hardship and, in some cases, of misery, in order to protect our homes, and if there is any classs of people to whom we isihould give special consideration it is the men who return from the war. This Bill provides that even if such men are not as well qualified on the competitive examination as some others may be, they are eligible for appointment. That is only fair, and I believe that such men will be most. efficient. I hope that the Civil Service Commission will make that a particular feature of their work and that they will give the closest attention to it.
I was much impressed by the remarks made by the member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt). It will not be satisfactory to send from Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton or other eastern centres, men to take up Government positions, say, in Calgary or Edmonton. Those in the locality concerned who are qualified should receive special consideration. I do not say this because I want to have anything to do with appointments in Toronto; I am delighted to be relieved of that responsibility. But the local feeling with regard to appointments of this kind should	receive
the consideration of the Government. The. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) emphasized the wide power that is conferred upon deputy ministers. I want to get away from patronage; I believe that that is the sentiment of the people. But if the people are forced to choose between the patronage system and a family-compact system, they will prefer the former. Nothing is more repugnant to public sentiment than the filling-of public offices with men connected by blood relationship, or by marriage

with some particular group of officials. This Bill puts it in the power of deputy ministers practically to take care of every relative they have, and every relative their wives have, and1 every person he is connected with in any way.


An hon. MEMBER:: How?
Mr. HOC'KEN: These appointments are made on the recommendation of the deputy minister. The man getting the highest marks in the competitive examination is appointed on probation, and if at the end of six months or a year the deputy minister wants to give the appointment to the second man on the list, who happens to be a friend of his, the probationary period may be ended with the dismissal of the man who was highest in the examination.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The. selection is made by the Civil Service Commission. The deputy minister may dismiss, but there is an appeal to the Civil Service Commission. The probation is for a period of six months or a year.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is as I understand it. Let us suppose the second man on the list is the man the deputy minister wants.
I do not charge deputy ministers with being concerned in any corrupt act, but they are just as human as we are, and if the man who comes second is a relative or friend of the deputy minister the probationary period of the highest man may end in a report by the deputy minister to the Civil Service Commission that his services are unsatisfactory; and the commission sends along the next man. The best man to determine the qualification or fitness of an employee is the deputy minister; I do not see how we can get away from that. But I should like to see in this Bill a provision that the annual report of the Civil Service Commission shall state not only the "name -. of the appointee, his salary, and so on, but also how many relatives he had by blood or by marriage in the service. In that way a check would be put on those who are disposed for one reason dr andther to create a family compact.


Samuel Hughes: If the deputy has the appointment, does that not mean that the minister will have something to say about it? because the minister has power to retire his deputy if the latter does not play the game. Moreover, is it not simply a left-handed way of letting the ministers have the patronage, instead of the members of Parliament?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The appointment is made by the Civil Service Commission, but power

is vested in the deputy minister to eliminate one man after another who may be so appointed by the commission. The suggestion which I have made would put a check on the deputy minister in the matter of his appointing half a dozen men of one family to positions in the service. If an investigation were made -of the service here in Ottawa, it would he found that in some cases half a dozen different members of the same family are in the service, sometimes in the same department. They may be qualified, but the principle is repugnant to the feelings of the people. It is the last thing we should encourage, or even permit, and if it cannot be absolutely prevented, it should at least be discouraged by such a plan as I have suggested. Then, take the appointments for which no examination is possible. I assume tlqat professional and technical men would include carpenters, plumbers, printers and men of that kind. The appointment of such men rests with the deputy minister, who makes recommendation to the commission. The Deputy Minister of Public Works, for instance, would have the appointment of I do not know how many carpenters and plumbers all over the Dominion;	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Technical men are men of special or scientific knowledge- of mining, fisheries, and things of that kind. The expression "technical officers" would not include tradesmen.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What examination can the Civil Service Commission set for carpenters? One carpenter is equal to another. How are you going to determine superiority of qualifications amongst men of that class? The same applies to printers and plumbers, large numbers of whom are employed. That responsibility all rests upon the deputy ministers, and that is altogether too much power to put into their hands, unless there is some additional check than that which is provided in the Bill as it stands at present.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Commission will find a method of appointing men of that class. The deputy minister has nothing to do with it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not understand that from the Bill.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I could not help feeling, while the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Ho-cken) was speaking about the influence that might be exercised by a deputy minister, that, as a rule, deputy

ministers are not so unkind to their relatives as to wish to have them placed in the Civil Service. I have had some knowledge of the Civil Service for a few years, and, from my experience, my advice to my friends and acquaintances has been to keep clear of the Civil Service above anything else. If you have any ambition; if you ever expect to make any headway in the world; if you place- any value on your initiative, your freedom, then, for Heaven's sake, steer clear of the Civil Service. If you want to become part of a machine by which you move along without exercising your initiative, then the Civil Service is the proper place for you. My sympathies have always been with those employed in the Civil Service. I want it distinctly understood that, if to-night I -say -anything that may, in some measure, reflect upon civil servants, I -have no intention of casting any reflection on any one who is at present or who may in the future'be in the Service. When the minister was pointing out the difference between the position occupied by Mr. Schwab and Mr. Geddes and the position, of those -in the Civil Service, it struck me that the difference was possibly an imaginary one. The minister told us that the former were in the public service, whereas the latter were in the Civil Service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What I meant was that Mr. Schwab was appointed head of the Shipbuilding Commission because he had some knowledge of that particular business. The civil servants of the United States Government have no opportunity of gaining a knowledge of building ships. That is not their business. It is, therefore, only natural that -somebody should he taken from the outside. There is -quite a distinction.


Donald Sutherland: I quite understand what >the minister had in -mind. In the positions in which Mr. Schw-aJb . and Mr. Geddes were placed, they were able to exercise their initiative, to -do things and to control those placed under them. Some hon-. members who- spoke dealt with civil servants who enlisted voluntarily and went overseas with the first and second contingents, and with whom the Government entered into a contract to pay them their Civil -Service salaries in addition to their military pay. I think that almost without exception those who spoke in reference to that matter said that it would be a -bre-ach of contract on the part of the Government with those men -if that contract was not carried out to the very letter. I hardly

look at the matter in that light. We are, at the present time, passing through a condition of change. The 'war has revolutionized everything in the world. Conditions today are not what they were six months ago or a year .ago. Changes are rapidly taking place. When these men entered the military service, we had the volunteer system. Today we have compulsory military service in this country. While it would he advisable and obligating to carry out that contract with men not eligible under the Military Service Act, as regards any man who is today eligible for service under the Military Service Act, I do not consider that this Government or any other is justified in giving him preference over any one else. The same argument applies to the clamour that is .being raised to-day throughout the country with regard to the cancellation of exemption of farmers. Some safeguards might be provided whereby, in certain instances, where a great hardship is going to ensue, exemptions might be made; but in so far as keeping faith with those men is concerned, changed war conditions have relieved the Government of any such responsibility. The -very fact that we have to-day in Canada . compulsory military service does not justify the Government in singling out civil servants and paying them salaries, in addition to their military pay. Every one in this country ought to be on an equal footing with regard to this war. We ought to. have, in so far as is possible, an equality of service and of sacrifice on the part of every one.
In my opinion, this is a most inopportune time for the introduction of a Bill respecting the Civil Service of Canada. There is no justification for taking any^ class of the people in this country or in any other country and cuddling them along and placing safeguards around them so that they are safeguarded from competition with other people. You give them privileges that other people do not enjoy, and you do a great deal of harm in that respect. It is true you kill, you strangle initiative in them, and in that way you do a grgat deal of injury to them. I should' like to see, if it were only possible, some way of providing for promotion for merit in the Civil Service. I do not believe that has always been the custom, and I do. not think it will be possible under this Bill.
By placing the Outside Service in the hands of the Civil Service Commission, we are departing from an established rule that has. been in existence in the British Empire for many years; that is, responsible and representative government. I believe a
government ought to he responsible to the people for the administration of the [DOT]affairs of the country. I do not believe you can delegate those responsibilities to any commission and say: The commission have done so and so; the Government cannot interfere in the matter, and we are not responsible for the action of the commission. We have not had a great deal of experience in Canada with regard to commissions; but there is at the present time a feeling so intense burning in the veins of our people with regard to one commission that h is been appointed in Canada, that it should cause us to hesitate, to reflect as to what the consequence may be of placing another commission in a position in which they will be able to exercise as much authority as that one is empowered to exercise, and I see that the powers are almost identical. You may rest assured that until some very serious misdemeanour is committed the Government will not call for the resignation of a member of any commission. As long as we have responsible and representative government in this country, responsibility rests upon the members who are elected to represent the people in Parliament, and a commission should not be beyond the reach of those so elected. I do not think it is right or fair that such power should he placed outside the control of the representatives of the people. A great deal has been said about the abuses that have crept in in connection with the distribution of patronage. While it may be true of certain constituencies where there is a great deal of patronage, in the inland counties, one of which I represent, there is little or no patronage,' and I do not, as a result, hold the same views on this matter that some others do. I know that if the Civil Service Commission have the right to select some one to occupy a position in the county where I live, and some one was brought in from some outside place to fill a vacancy, the people of my constituency would be very indignant indeed, and justly so, and that is the very thing likely to occur under this Act. I received in my mail only the other morning a notice from the Civil Service Commission that applications would be received for the position of postmaster at Lethbridge, and I can imagine what the consequences would be if some one from Oxford was selected to fill that position. But this is likely to happen under present conditions. My hon. fxiend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) has spoken of the influence that may he exerted on behalf of friends, and it may be that some would like to see a friend who was

not competent to fill any other place secure a position where he could be taken care of. I think there is greater danger of abuses under this Bill than under the old system. So far as the constituency I represent is concerned, I do not think I have secured the appointment of more than two from that constituency during the seven years I have been its representative, so I have no need to feel anxious about the number of appointments that would come to that constituency. In one case I recommended a very able and competent young man who had the qualifications for almost any position. He was taken on, and was later put on the permanent staff, and if ever a man was crucified that man was, and he will regret to his dying day that he ever entered the service, and I also regret ever recommending him-for that position. Outside of the two I have mentioned, two others were appointed in the railway mail service, and that is the amount of the patronage that has come to the constituency of -South Oxford during the last seven years, and I do not anticipate there would be much more come to it in the next six or seven years -if conditions remained as they were under the old Act. So I do not speak of this measure with the feeling that it will affect me in any way if I should continue ito represent that constituency.
I am -speaking in this way because I feel this is an inopportune time to introduce a measure of this kind when we have coming back from overseas every day men who are maimed for life, and who will find it difficult to follow their old vocation. These men should surely be given the preference, but I cannot see within the four corners of the Bill anything to safeguard their rights in any degree. It is true that an Order in Council has been passed, but so far as the Bill itself is concerned-I have looked it over very carefully-no safeguards have been provided. On the contrary, the examinations that may be prescribed by the Civil Service Commission will probably debar a great many of these men from entering the Civil Service, who under -present conditions might be appointed. Why is- it that to-day practically the only positions you can get for a returned isoldier are caretakers of public buildings or some other menial employment of that kind? It may be that in other parts of the country returned soldiers are being given positions, but I am speaking of what is taking place In the rural districts and smaller towns and cities.
Reference has been m-ade to the postmen of this country, who are not receiving sai-
[.M v. Sutherland. ]
aries commensurate with the work they are doing. It is true an increase was granted last yeaf, but what about the poor rural mail couriers in the country who have driven through the snowbanks all last winter and have had ito pay $1.25 for oats and a similarly high price for hay for their horses? These men have to contend with a double increase in the cost of living; the cost of living both for themselves and also for their horses has gone up. In scarcely a single instance are these men being paid anything like what is being paid to the postmen in cities and towns, and there is nothing in the -Bill providing for them. If this Bill -should become law I trust the minister will consider the conditions under which the rural mail couriers are working -and take care of them as others in the public service are being taken care of. In view of the increase in the cost of living and of everything these men have to provide, -it is a disgrace that men who have taken, contracts for four years, with a year or two still to run, should have to carry on at the same rate and at a loss under the abnormal conditions of to-day. The new contracts are being let for three, four and five hundred dollars more on twenty-mile routes than was granted under the old conditions, and the contracts in the cities and towns are being let for many thousands of doll are more than a f-ew years -ago. The only redress the rur-al mail courier -has is to ask to be relieved of his contract. New tenders will then be called for, -and someone else may be given- the position he holds, and he may not be fit to do any other work. These men find it .absolutely impossible to carry on under present conditions, and all the Government says to them is: You can resign if y-ou can't carry on, and we will call for new tenders, .and may, perhaps, -appoint somebody else. But that is not the way 'they -are looking after the people in the cities and to-wns; these are being taken care of and given an increase every year. Why not put the couriers on an equal footing with others in the Service who are receiving extra pay in view of the present conditions?
I say this is not the time to introduce -a measure of this sort. It is not'right that our returned soldiers should be prevented from occupying positions they are competent to fill simply, it may be, because they cannot spell " Bolsheviki " correctly. I say we could well afford to let this measure stand >
over -until a more opportune time, and the same remark applies to a good deal of the legislation we have had before us this session.

The times we are living in are strenuous ones indeed, and let no one labour under the delusion -that they are going to improve very soon. Let me warn the people of this country that we have not seen the worst yet. The day will come, and speedily come,
I believe, when the pepple of this world are going to have great difficulties in getting food1 to maintain themselves and their families. That is the condition confronting us to-day, and it will continue to confront us until the people of this country realize that that condition cannot he improved by getting a comfortable position in the Civil Service or some other .appointment at a substantial salary, but only by going out on the land and by hard labour produce something from the 'soil to feed the people of this country and of the world. It can only !be accomplished in that way. It cannot be done by going out and telling people' what they ought to do and how they ought to .increase food production. We have hundreds of these people well paid going around the country doing that to-day. The people must realize that they have to go out and labour on the land in order to produce food. The present condition would have come about in any event in the course of a few years as a result of the world-wide movement from the country to the cities that existed before the war, but the war has hurried it on. A critical situation stares us in the face to-day. One side or the other of the contending forces will fail in this war as a result of the food situation. It is not going to be a victory by superior force of arms, but it is going to he a matter of laying down arms from starvation. There is no getting away from that. That sage of the West, the late J. J. Hill, some yestrs ago made the prediction that the people of this world would be up against starvation inside of twenty years and it is unfortunate that it should arise at this critical time. I do not think this Bill ought to be put through thi6 House at the present session. Let it remain until we see what the conditions will be at the end of another year. Let^ there be no obstacle placed1 in/ the way of the men who are coming back from the front being placed in the positions that are covered by this Bill.


Mr. NTGKLE:: Let me assure the House that it is my intention to take up only a very few minutes of its time but as this debate has become somewhat of a general experience meeting I should like to place on record one or two transactions that have recently taken place in the riding from
which I come since the patronage was taken from the hands of the members and since we were advised by circular that we would no longer have a voice in the selection of those who were locally to occupy public office. These experiences will show that no matter how perfect a scheme may he in so far as its documentary form goes it will not amount to much unless the men who have to work it out are actuated by the purest of motives and are determined that the public interest shall not suffer from their administration. I do not know that there is a riding in Canada, in which in comparison, to its size there are more public favours to be given, more patronage to be distributed', than in the compact little riding that I have the honour to represent.
I think that probably the majority of my constituents would say that during the time of Mr. Harty, who preceded me, and in my administration of the riding, there has been a recognition at least in the great majority of the appointments, from men chosen from the political' parties in power at the time, that the public service bad not suffered by the appointments that were made. I do not want it inferred, however, that I am not in favour of the Bill. I favour the Bill and am prepared to give it a fair trial, because my political experience has taught me that from the point of view of a public man there is precious little to he obtained by him from what is commonly called the cohesive power of patronage. We all recognize that while the member was supposed to have the power of appointment, it was only the power of recommendation that was vested in him, because when you come to analyse the conditions that prevail, the member really only had the power of recommending. He had the power of recommending to the administrative officer of the Crown the name of a man who, in his judgment, would be a suitable person to fill a certain position. If a man was not able t,o do the work that was entrusted to him, the Government at all times had the right of dismissal. In connection with much of the patronage that was administered in my riding, recommendations were made to the executive officers there, they would take men on probation for a definite time, and if they were found unsatisfactory, the man responsible for the administration of the office would say: "Your selection is not suitable; the man lacks the essential qualities to win success, and I must ask him to give u/p the position and ask you to select and recommend another to take his place." 'Responsibility and power were united We had the power to make recom-

mendations, but the people held us responsible for the selection of proper men with an eye single to the public service. But, remember, all that is changed with this Bill, and we must consider it in the light of the instances to which I shall call the attention of the House. The members of this House are going to be placed in this position, that we are going to have the responsibility without the power. We, as members, are going to be held responsible for appointments , made in our ridings of which we know nothing and about which we have not been consulted. It is idle to say that we have no responsibility. Under our form of government you cannot get away from responsibility. We have a responsible government. The men who occupy seats on the front benches are only a committee of this House. The -positions which they occupy as members of the Cabinet they occupy only by virtue of the support that we give them. Let a substantial number, enough to,command a majority in this House, transfer themselves to the other side of the House for one vote and the ministry who sit before us must resign from office and allow somebody else to take their places unless we should vote to retain them in power or they are sustained by the people.
* For the appointments that are going to be made the people are going to hold us responsible. I am not asking that we be consulted but what I am asking is that the ministry in carrying out this Bill shall see that a system shall not he established by which-nepotism, favouritism and th e [DOT] power of deputy ministers be increased to such an extent as that the positions of members of Parliament shall become so dwarfed as to he a negligible quantity. The reason'why I speak of deputy ministers will he apparent when I read certain correspondence that recently passed between a deputy minister and a government officer in my own riding. Less than a month ago a complaint came to me from Kingston that a certain position in the Kingston post office had been filled by the transfer from the Department of Public Works of a stenographer. A stenographer of the Public Works was transferred to the post office in Kingston. A woman who had had so far as I know, no experience whatever in post office work was sent from Ottawa to Kingston and given a position at $1,100 a year. The people said: " Why?," when the public service in Kingston did not demand any such position being filled and there was no need of an appointment being made. They held me responsible for the

economical administration of the service in the riding and they wanted me to learn why this appointment had been made. I am not very large and I got warm right straight through because you know little bodies heat up quickly and I was quite warm. I had heard nothing about the appointment when I left Kingston, but after coming here I found why and how it had been done.
I hope hon. members will listen to this correspondence because it shows that dangers which I have pointed out are not imaginary but that they are real, and within a short time members will have nothing to do with appointments and a small group centralized in Ottawa will become all power- -ful while the members of this House will become helpless. That is why I want to read this correspondence to the House. I am going to read names and I am going to be perfectly frank in what I read. Some people are going to get hit. I am going to read the names into this debate because I want the House to realize that if we are going into Civil Service reform we must be careful lest we get instead centralized favouritism. The first letter I read stirred me up, it was a letter dated the 4th of March, 1918. It is a letter addressed to Mr. James Stewart, postmaster of Kingston, and reads thus:
Ottawa, 4th March, 1918. James Stewart, Esq.,
Postmaster Kingston Post Office,
Kingston.
My dear Postmaster:
Up to a short time ago the Deputy Minister of Public Works, Mr. J. D. Hunter, has had serving him as secretary a gentleman of the name of Mr. Narraway. Mr. Narraway volunteered for active service and his wife, Mrs. M. B. Narraway, is employed in the Public Works Department also, and is desirous of getting a transfer to Kingston, in order that she may be near her husband who is stationed there. Mr. Hunter is very anxious to do what he can to help his secretary by obtaining a transfer to Kingston for his wife, and as a matter of courtesy to another official I would like the matter to be arranged if possible. My reason for writing is to ask when you could possibly make use of her services in the Kingston Post Office.
Mrs. Narraway is a competent stenographer and her chief gives her a most favorable report. I do not wish to overload your staff, but if you could possibly help me in this matter I should esteem it a great personal favour.
Tours very truly,
Robert Fowler,	-
Assistant Deputy Minister.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will admit I am sympathetic to the returned soldier. I 9,m sympathetic to the man who is anxious and willing to do something for his country, and before I decided to bring this matter before l>he House, I said to myself: I am

going to find out how much salary Mr. and. Mrs. Narraway were getting before he undertook the responsibility of being a soldier; and I am going to see what work Mr. Narraway is doing as a soldier. I want to give the gentleman every credit. Mr. Narraway volunteered for active service. He joined the Signal Training Depot, Canadian Expeditionary Force, on the 12th of June, 1917, and when that unit left for overseas, he was transferred to No. 3 Special Service 'Company owing to his low category. That simply means, Sir, that Mr. Narraway was willing to undertake the responsibility of being a soldier but owing to the state'of his health he could not go to the front. I will give the gentleman credit for his good intentions and will say that it was his misfortune and not his fault that he did not go overseas.


Samuel Hughes: I did not catch the reason why you said he could not go overseas.
-Mr. NICKLE: He was transferred to No.
3 Special Service Company owing to his low category. He reported for duty at Kingston, and transferred to No. 3 Special Service Company on the 28th of December last, and was detailed for office work at District Headquarters. He is now paid as a sergeant as follows: Pay per diem, $1.35, field allowance per diem, 15 cents; subsistence allowance per diem, 80 cents; making $2.30 in all per day. Mrs. Narraway is in receipt of a separation allowance of $25 per month. If you will compute those amounts, Mr. Chairman, you will observe that Mr. and Mrs. Narraway are receiving $1,139.50 per year from the Government of this country in respect of Mr. Narraway's military services. 1 find on inquiry from the Auditor General that prior to Mr. Narraway becoming a soldier he received $1,150 from the Public Works Department, with the result that he was short in his pay only $10.50 by virtue of the fact that he became a soldier. He is not getting his board for the reason that he was paid 80 cents subsistence allowance, but in all probability he was getting his uniform-as to that I cannot speak definitely because I do not know. On learning the fact that he was receiving $1,139.50, in lieu of $1,150, which he had previously received, I must say that my sympathies for Mr. Narraway and his peculiar financial embarrassments were not as acute as before I had made inquiry. Now if you will refer to the letter I have juat read you will observe, the reason Mr. Hunter wanted the wife of Mr. Narraway
transferred to Kingston was so that she could be there with her husband, but the Government would have to pay $1,050 to Mrs. Narraway for the convenience of her being near her husband when the Minister of Finance is telling us that we must have economy in the public service.
Now I want to be quite frank in my recital. I took the matter up with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), who was Acting Postmaster General, and proved to my own perfect satisfaction that he knew nothing whatever about the transfer, and that it had been done behind his back. The moment he f<mnd out what had been done active steps were taken to recall Mrs. Narraway from Kingston, and within a few hours of my having put the facts before the Acting Postmaster General Mrs. Narraway was, I am glad to say, advised that Ottawa was a more congenial climate than Kingston for a woman of her temperament. Now how was the arrangement carried out? The assistant deputy minister, Mr. Fowler, told me that Mr. Narraway came to him with Mr. Hunter's card, and with a message that Mr. Hunter was anxious that Mrs. Narraway should be transferred to Kingston, and said that courtesy demanded that one deputy should pay respect to the request and recommendation of another deputy. We were not to consider the expenditure to the country That was involved, we were to consider the courtesy that one deputy owed to another. As a result Mr. Fowler wrote to the postmaster at Kingston, and let me again read the last clause of the letter:
Mrs. Narraway is a competent stenographer, and her chief gives her a most favourable report. I do not wish to overload your staff, but if you could possibly help me in this matter I would esteem it a great personal favour.
"If you can possibly help me" from the assistant deputy minister to the postmaster at Kingston. In other words, "Do what I ask you to do, if you do not want me to remember that you did not do what I asked you to do." The Kingston postmaster is a man for whom I have regard, and upon receipt of Mt. Fowler's letter he wrote the following day this Teply to that gentleman. It is dated Kingston post office, March 5, 1918:
Robert Fowler,
Assistant Deputy Minister,
Dear Mr. Fowler:-
I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your personal letter of the 4th instant.
Some few weeks ago the department gave me two young girls, but as per my conversation with you this morning-

Council to be made without examination of either officer.
2. Such exchange or transfer shall be made without increase of salary of either of the persons exchanging or transferred.
That section lays down the principle that no transfer can take place without the consent of the Governor in Council, and yet Mrs. Narraway was transferred to Kingston by the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General without any Order in Council being passed, and nobody apparently knew anything about it until I unearthed it, because nothing was said in regard to the change in her pay. And this is proved by an inquiry I made of the Auditor General. I wanted to find out in respect to what department Mrs. Narraway was drawing pay, whether the Public Works Department, was paying her, or whether the thing was being done as a .fraud on that department or the Post Office Department. I wrote the Auditor General in the latter part of April or early in May. Here is what Mr. Sutherland, the Assistant Auditor General, says in reply, under date of May 2:
Mrs. Narraway was paid as a clerk in the same department

believe, if the Civil Service Act is going to be made a success, in the first place the principle must be recognized that local appointments must be first given to those in the locality, provided they have the ability to do the work. My second principle is this, that preference must be given to the returned soldier particularly if he is disabled, and that before appointments are made careful, honest inquiry must be had to see if returned soldiers are available. My third principle is this, that too much attention must not be paid to mere academic qualifications, but that the question of personality, of individuality, of administrative force, must be considered; because I say it to-night, in all seriousness to the Government, in all kindness to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who has many appointments to make in Kingston, that if he appoints as guards or instructors or keepers in the Kingston penitentiary men who have only academic qualifications as a merit, without regard to their physical qualities and without regard to their high sense of truth and honesty, he will s<^on find a system of trafficking has entered his institution which will destroy it. I do not know how the Civil Service Commission intend to work out this legislation. I dto not know from what source they are going to get their information. I am not anxious that they should consult me. I say frankly that, if they consult me and if the people know the responsiblity is on me for recommendations and an expression of opinion, then the Civil Service Commission should act on the representations il make to them; and if they are not prepared to act on my representations, then I do not want them to ask me for recommendations.
If the responsibility for the recommendations is going to be given to me, then they must give me the privilege of having it known amongst my people that if I have the re- [DOT] sponsibility the recommendations that I make are followed, and that I am not going to be held responsible for positions which are filled, in regard to which I have nothing whatever to say.
As I began in saying that the administrative officers of the Crown in Ottawa will, without doubt, be influenced in making appointments to make selections' from those with whom they have a sympathy, I sincerely trust that what I have put on record to-night in this House will be seriously considered by the Government. v I put it on record because I want some specific instance to show that the dread expressed by the gentlemen who sit around me is 
not a mere chimerical fear, but an actual one at this particular time, that the system that we on the outside dread is beginning to get established, and if something is not dona soon, Civil Service improvement will, in my judgment, become disrupted; the people will become disgusted with the Civil Service Act, and those, of us who would like to see the public service elevated1 and improved, are going to see the whole thing brought into public indifference, if not into contempt.
_ Mr. H. A. MACKIE: I shall speak for just a minute, because the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has taken up fifty per cent of the time that I intended to occupy on this question. From what I have listened to this evening, it is clear to me that hon. members are feeling somewhat sorry that the patronage system is passing out of existence. We are absolutely losing the point of view of the Bill which is now before the House. The principle underlying the Bill is this: In the past we have- had so many people iseek-ing to get something in a manner other than the rightful manner; instead of making efficiency the qualification for a position the erroneous principle of party adherence has been a dominant qualification, knd as you had more party adherents than you had positions, the cries of those who had been denied the spoils became much louder than the shouts of exultation on the part of those who had secured positions.
The Bill which is to-day presented for our consideration is one which commends itself to every right-thinking person who wants to get away from the principle of dispensing patronage on account of the fact that you are elected a member of Parliament. All bon. members will remember the statement made in the House by Sir Clifford Sifton, whose speech on the need of Civil Service reform swept away the last vestige of Liberal opposition to the principle. Amongst other things he said this:
The present system is a source of great trouble to all, involving, as it does, the constant harassing of members by their supporters far something which it was impossible to make go round' alt.
Many cases similar to that which has been cited this evening by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) could be cited by hon. members. You 'are very lucky to have a Minister of Justice this evening, for something took place in his department that I did not like. But for a solitary case which may not be to the advantage of the constituency that I represent I'do not pro-

pose to condemn the whole Bill. If the oases multiply themselves to the extent that I see that there is not<fhone&ty nor sincerity in the Government in its endeavour to remove the evils that patronage brings, I hope I shall not lose my voice, but, like the hon. member for Kingston, let rrns tell you, Sir, some Scotchmen can rise to .a pitch of heat. It is in the power of the members of this House to take this Bill and to make of it what they like by refusing to pass clause after clause. There is in the Bill a provision dealing with returned soldiers, If it is not in accordance with the wish of the members of this House, it is within our power to say that we will not pass it as it standfe, and that we will have it passed in a certain form. I do not see why we should not pass from clause to clause and make this Bill applicable as soon as possible. There is on the part of some hon. members a desire to maintain in their control the patronage which they had in the past. I am opposed to that principle, and I shall be pleased to support the Bill.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: The Government introduced this Bill in response to what I thought was an almost unanimous request of the country, and when they find such criticism as has been indulged in to-night, not by the two previous speakers, but by others, they must think of the old couplet:
You shall and you shan't, you will and you won't;
You'll be damned if you do, you'll be damned if you don't.
We give the Government credit for endeavouring honestly and effectively to deal with this patronage question. It is perfectly true that almost any hon. member could pick the Bill to pieces if he chose, but what we want is something along constructive lines. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Maekie) referred to the deliverances of Sir Clifford Sifton on the question of patronage. He was undoubtedly a man with very great political experience and in a position to speak with authority. Sir Clifford told the country in a public address that the patronage system was a curse, and I think every hon. member, if talked to some months ago, would have agreed that it was a curse, and there went up a shout of approval throughout the country when ministers of the Union Government announced that an end was to be put to the patronage system. Now the minister has brought down a Bill. It is true that almost anybody could pick holes in it, hut let him who is disposed to
pull the Bill to pieces tell the Government what he would do under the circumstances.
I have not observed any hon. member who has risen in his place to denounce the Bill offer a valuable suggestion. We all agree that patronage has been a great curse in the past. The Government is making an honest endeavour to meet the question and deal with it fairly and effectively. We have had public deliverances of the able Minister of Pulolic Works (Mr. Carvell) on this question. Pledges have been made to the country that patronage would be abolished, and the Government is endeavouring to do it. Let us join then with the Government in at least making the experiment. No matter what we do, I do not think we could possibly have a worse system than has prevailed in the past years, and I would appeal to hon. members at least to give the Government credit for the earnest efforts it is making, and let ns deal with the Bill clause by clause and pass it. Let us make the experiment, and then I believe we shall all find that a great reform has been accomplished. I am not afraid to take the responsibility. I do not believe that all these deputy ministers are fiends incarnate. I do not believe they are going to conspire in order to "do" the people. I am sure when we listened to the petty intrigue that was displayed in the case of the deputy minister cited by the hon. member for Kingston, there must have come to the mind of every hon. member the conviction that that man at least should be dismissed from office. Public opinion is such that no deputy minister and no set of deputy ministers will dare defy it; they are amenable to public opinion. I do not fear the results of the administration of patronage by the Civil Service Commission. We have at its head Hon. Dr. Roche, a man whom I have known personally for thirty-five years, a man of the highest probity, of the finest integrity, and of spotless public reputation. I believe that as head of the Civil Service Commission he will endeavour to administer this Act in the interest of the people. Let us trust him. As a representative of a constituency, I am not afraid of having the inspector of the district in which my riding is located' come out and find the best man for any particular office. He may make a mistake. Perhaps I might make a mistake if I exercised the patronage. I shall be glad to assist him if he asks my advice in any matter. I believe if we give this commission our hearty support and our confidence we shall find we have accomplished a very much greater reform in the country than we have ever dreamed of.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Lethbridge):: I have been surprised at the diverse views expressed on this measure in committee to-day. I thought hon. members were unanimously in favour of appointments of the Civil Service being taken out of their hands and put in the hands of an independent commission. I have had very little experience with patronage, but the knowledge I have had leads me to say that I do not want anything to do with it. Another thing I should like to see in our Government service in every department inside and outside is business administration. Under the patronage system we do not get- business administration. Why should we not have the same principles adopted in our departments of Government that the Canadian Pacific adopts in its departments, or that the banks adopt throughout the length and breadth of Canada? When we have such a system, in vogue we shall have efficient administration, and men who go into the Government service will realize that efficiency will win recognition and promotion. Under the patronage system that certainly does not exist, for a man may be in the service for twenty or twenty-five years and give the best of satisfaction to the community where he is serving the Government, and some person may come along at that period and chop off his head because he does not like him. You cannot have efficiency in any department of government under a system of that kind. This Bill may be full of faults; the patronage system is certainly full of more faults. I am prepared to trust this Bill for the present, and when we find the faults we can remedy them, until we get a measure that will provide for efficient service in the departments of Government throughout this Dominion.
There is another point I should like to emphasize. I am an advocate of economy in the public service. At the same time I do not believe that we treat the efficient officials in the service of the country as we should treat them. I know of two instances in my own city where young women whp had been in the post office some years and had gained good experience, so that they were probably the best clerks in the office, have recently taken positions In banks in Lethbridge jat a considerable increase in salary. If these young women were valuable to a bank they were equally valuable to the Post Office Department, and they should have bee(n treated as valuable clerks in the service.
Mention has been made of the payment of certain grades of the service, particularly the letter carriers. I agree that those

men should be given better treatment than they have received in the past. The cost of living is .advancing all the time, but the salaries of these men and of other men in different departments of the public service are not ladvaneimg proportionately, and as a result the Government is losing the services of some of its best men, because they are attracted to other positions that offer 'better salaries. I should like to see the Government service put on a business basis, and men paid a salary and promoted according to their merits, and if this Bill will provide such a system I believe the people of Canada will strongly favour this Government for having introduced it and, I hope, for having passed it at this session.
Mr. GEORGE B. NICHOLSON:	After
the prolonged discussion we have had on the principle of this Bill one almost hesitates to interject another remark. But I feel I should be unfair to -myself and to my constituents were I to remain silent in the face of the criticism that has been levelled against the principle of the measure. As I listened to the expressions of opinion from, a number of hon. gentlemen who took part in the early discussion of this Bill, the thought came to me what a study in psychology hon. gentlemen presented. I have taken some little interest in politics during the whole of my life and I do not think I have yet heard a member of Parliament on the public platform, particularly if he was berating the party in power, who did not curse the patronage *system. That has been the theme ever since I first knew anything about politics. How are we going to get rid' of the patronage system unless we make an honeskeffort? If the details are not right, as the hen. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Maekie) and preceding speakers have said, we should go through it clause by clause and make them right. If we find when we come back here after a year that there are some things which we should amend we can then make the changes wliich are necessary. The whole argument of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) as to what took place in the Kingston post office seems to be a justification of this Bill. If the hon. member for Kingston had been a little more human, if he had had those weaknesses that are applicable to most of us, if he had had the disposal of the patronage in Kingston and if the deputy postmaster general had presented the case to him as he did to the postmaster in Kingston, in all probability the same action would have been taken and we would not

have had the hon. member for Kingston to check up what had been done. Every member of this House will have in his own hands not only the right but the power to see what is being done. If. the deputy minister of any department makes an appointment in my constituency I shall consider it my duty to find out all about it. If the members of this House are doing their duty as the representatives of their constituencies they will see to it that the appointments are as they should be and that an efficient service is given. One word with regard to the suggestion offered' by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan). I agree heartily with what he says that if we are going to get an efficient civil service reform we must put it on a business basis and get it nearer to what is being done by private companies. Instead of saying that deputy ministers are as we have had them represented to-night I would say: Place the deputy minister in charge of the department, hold him responsible for the efficiency of the organization of the department and leave the whole thing in his hands. If the Canadian Pacific railway appoints a general superintendent they will not' say to him that he cannot dismiss a man if he is inefficient.


Mr. BEST:: 
George Brecken Nicholson: I have not the slightest doubt that the Government will deal with the deputy ministers if they have done wrong. If they do not the members of the House can deal with them. I am not going to put any question to the Government with regard to what they may do about the ease raised by the }ion. member for Kingston, that is a matter between the Government and the hon. member. Both of the political parties have been clamouring for years for Civil Service reform and the abolition of patronage. Patronage has been recognized as the curse of the Civil Service, and when we are asked to take one step in the direction of getting rid of it let us respond by passing tl\is Bill.


Mr. SHEARD:: I want to say a word in support of this Bill. Representing a city where we have been administering patronage for a long while, I want to say that if there is anything in my judgment that contributes to a lack of efficiency in the public service it is the administration of patronage as in the past. Hon. members have spoken in this House about their influence in reference to patronage. I have had to do in
an indirect way with, or have seen administered, the patronage system of Toronto pretty well in all the ridings, and I do not believe there is a' single member from the city of Toronto who has had the slightest voice in the distribution of the patronage there. It is Left to the various ward associations, and the member of Parliament is almost invariably constrained to support their recommendations. Sometimes he experiences considerable difficulty because there are men pulling one way and the other and he has to do the best he can in the dilemma. I heartily commend the Bill to- the House. We should be glad to get rid of the patronage question, which I contend this proposed Bill will do most effectively if it is thoroughly and properly lived up to. It is just like anything else in that proper methods must be adopted in carrying it out. You can talk about the administration of the Canadian Pacific railway or any other business organization, but to have efficiency you must have good men and hold them responsible. You must have' first class men in charge of the various branches of the Government and hold these men responsible for the 'administration if the proper results are to be forthcoming. If you have inefficient men administering the Act, I do not care what its provisions may be, the whole thing will fall down. It is up to the Government to see to it that the deputies are thoroughly qualified to administer their departments, and if this is done we will get the service that the country demands and expects. I realize quite fully, as has 'been illustrated upon the floor of this House to-night by the case cited by the hon. member for Kingston, that there is danger. If this matter does not receive the close scrutiny of the various members of the Government there may he developed in the city of Ottawa a bureaucratic officialdom which will be twenty times worse than the patronage system, bad as it is. We have had an illustration in the question asked by the hon. ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes), in reference to the Auditor-General, in reply to which there is on record on the Hansard of this House the statement that six or seven members of the Auditor General's own family have been provided for at comparatively lucrative salaries. An hon. gentleman stated that he was a Scotchman. I do not want to reflect on some of my hon. friends opposite, but somebody lias defined the Scotchman as a man who kept the Sabbath and everything else he could lay his hands on. This



gentleman, being a Scotchman, and true to bis principles, seems to be tenaciously bolding on to everything he can, and be seems to have a sort of family compact under bis own roof. I have no hesitation in saying, irrespective of what his nationality may be, that he is utterly unfitted for the public service if that is his idea of the proper administration and enforcement of the law in any department of the Government.
With reference to the question raised by the hon. member for Kingston, if the facts are as stated, I unhesitatingly say that it is the duty of the Government to dispense with that man's services without any further delay. We want the ministers to understand that they must instruct their departments to carry on the public service in such a way as to produce efficiency, and if they do they will toe supported by the country and toy the members of this House.
While I say that I want to add that there are some branches of the public service that are suffering. Reference has been made to the services of the postmen. The postmen are scandalously underpaid in the city of Toronto. You 'have postmen who have toeen working in the city of Toronto for ten or fifteen1 years receiving 1700 a year and trying to live and pay the high Tents of that city, something which is an absolute impossibility; you cannot do it in the large centres. The postmen should be well paid-every one working for the Government ought to toe well paid. If a man is efficient he ought to be promoted and he should know that from the time he enters the public service, and as long as he discharges the duties of his office faithfully, the country will appreciate and promote him and he will eventually receive the highest position available in the work in which he is engaged.
If you are going to put over his head people coming from outside, you will be doing something that will not contribute to the efficiency of the service, and I think that in this Bill the Civil Service Commission should be instructed to consider the appointment of local men to local positions as far as possible. There are cases where that is not possible, but if it is at all possible regard should be paid to that policy.
Now, with reference to the question of examinations. I have been conducting examinations of students for over thirty years, and I desire to say in reference to examinations in medicine, as illustrated1 in the colleges of this country, that if I wanted a man who was most impractical, the most

inefficient, as a rule, for practical work, I would take a student who had confined himself to preparing to pass an examination, and I would probably get the most impractical man I could possibly get for a practical job. I would twenty times rather have a man who had good common horse sense, integrity and alertness, and an eye which was pretty keen and cunning, and give that man charge of a department. In scholastic attainments-in reading, writing and arithmetic-he might be lacking and might probably not be able to do a single sum in quadratic equations or algebra, but he would make a mighty efficient, good public servant, and I think every corporation in the Dominion will bear me out when I give such testimony on the floor of this House.


Mr. CROTHERS:: What kind of an examination would you subject him to?


Charles Sheard: 
Mr. PARDEE:: Much has been already said, and practically very little remains to be said on the subject of this Bill. Doubtless, as we consider the measure clause by clause, we shall find many provisions that are not workable. But there can be no doubt about the fact that there has been a demand throughout the country for many years that patronage should be abolished and some measure of Civil Service reform brought about. That was .a pledge that was given to the country, and something to which I personally pledged myself. I have always been desirous of Civil Service reform, and am equally strongly in its favour to-day. The Bill may not be perfect, there are undoubtedly some provisions that are imperfect; but we owe it to the country, whether this Bill he perfect or imperfect, that a start shall be made in the way of abolishing patronage and introducing Civil Service reform.
We have heard from the hon. member for North Sdmooe (Mr. Currie) to-night the statement that he could look through the window of a departmental office and see from twenty to thirty clerks, not one-third of whom would be wbrking. To my mind that is one of the principal objections to the present system of patronage, which simply means this: That the member, and the Government through the member, is very often overwhelmed with applications to appoint this man or that man to office because his financial position is not such that he can continue to keep himself. As a consequence what happens? From goodness of heart, from motives of humanity- and very often, and very largely, through political considerations-men are put into departments of the service who are no more needed than the fifth wheel of a coach. I venture to make the prediction that if a proper Civil Service Bill is finally enacted by the House-not perhaps this session, but with amendments next .session, and amendments the session after that, if necessary-a saving can be effected in the civil list of this country of from thirty to forty per cent. If you take the cost of the whole Civil Service of the country as it stand's to-day, and our overhead charges generally, they run into figure's that are absolutely astonishing. Hon. members owe it to the country to aid in curtailing expenditure in every way they possibly can in order to meet -the great needs of Canada both now and in the time to come.
Therefore, I say again that although there are some provisions in this Bill that I do not agree with at all, we will have an, op-

portunity to discuss these when the Bill is: taken up clause toy clause. Too much power is placed in the hands of the deputy minister, because although it is said that the commission finally has the appointment, yet, mark you, Sir, the appointment is made through the recommendation of the deputy minister, which leaves in the deputy's hands very great power. I do not believe, so far as I can see at the present time, that the method of taking a person from Toronto and transferring him to Windsor or Sarnia or somewhere else is practicable. It appears to me there are just as good brains in Toronto as in Ottawa, and vice versa-just as good brains in one part of Canada as in another part. Under the proposed system of 'competitive examinations there will toe a waiting list, and the Bill should empower the commission to see to it that appointments to local offices shall be made from_ successful candidates in the locality where the office is to1 be filled. To my mind, that is the only way to work it out. I shall not discus's the sections farther until the Bill is taken up clause by clause. I heartily agree with all that has been said regarding the returned soldier. I want to refer to the circular mentioned toy the hon. member, for Kingston. We were all told that the department sent out a notice, very properly to my mind, that the returned soldier when competent should be appointed to any vacancy occurring in the Civil Service. In some way, Sir, that has yet to- toe worked out. We have no right, nor should we have a right, to ibreak in any way the implied contract made with these men who are deserving of it. These remarks, I know, do not touch the very essence of the Bill, but to my mind that is something that the Government ought, and must make an effort, .to do, and in doing which it will toe commended toy the members of this House and toy the country generally.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I support the principle
of the Bill. Personally, I have not been troubled with patronage in my riding, and I cannot fall in line with the gentlemen who have spoken of the tribulations coming through it. I want to make a plea that may come before the members of the commission and the Government to deal with the under dog in. the matter of salaries. Take the letter carriers in the cities, the rural mail delivery men, and the collectors of letters, and all the inferior services, where men are working for 312 days in all kinds of weather throughout the country at the munificient salary of about 
$700 a year, many of them with a wife and four o.r five children. It is about time that the country awakened to the great disparity in p.ay and salaries between the officials I .see about Ottawa, who are ensconced in their lovely offices supplied with all modem conveniences, and the men in the country who have to plod wearily through wet and snow .and .heat and cold doing the drudgery work of the country on a mere pittance of $700 or $800 a year. I hope the Civil Service Commission which, to my mind, j.s composed of a splendid body of men- men of careful habits1, kindly disposition coupled with, I think the necessary firmness to do a splendid duty-will
11	p.m. take- note of the remarks that have been made by many members not only as to Jhe returned soldier hut as to those other branches of the service which are so badly underpaid. I would like the minister to take note of the branch I have referred to and go over the whole range of it and see if a better scale cannot be brought forward so that the country will not be held up to opprobrium and shame for the way they are treating what may be called the " inferior " service though their service .is extremely valuable. I agree with the remarks made and the points raised by the hon. member for Kingston, which seem to show the necessity for this Bill. Such grave irregularities could not have happened under the Civil Service Commission's administration; 'no deputy would have dared to do what was done.
Mr. A. K. MiAOLEAN:	He would not
have the power to do so under the proposed law.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like to ask the minister if the system is going somewhat to pieces because the Postmaster General, Mr. Blondin, is not at home. If he had been at home, does the minister believe that any deputy would have dared to do what was done? "When the cat's away the mice will play." Why is the Postmaster General not here? Why is his position not filled? There are plenty of Liberal-Unionist members on this side of the House; there is lots of room for them in that place. I think it is a public scandal that the position is not filled to-day. Who is it being kept open for? I think that is a matter that had better be attended to, so that the Government shall be complete. I also wish to argue the same point with regard to the deputies. It is all right to say that the Civil Service Commission have the power; they have not the power. Humanly speaking they cannot have the power to override the deputy. The Civil Service Com-

mission is a tribunal -with mixed powers. There is a quality of power. When the clause comes up, I propose, if I can, to shift the responsibilities and the privileges that are being given to and imposed upon the deputies' to the ministers themselves. I think the ministers should take the responsibility of recommendations to the Civil Service Commission. You may tell me: "Oh, the minister doesn't know." Well, he has to know, and, to my mind, he has his deputy, and the deputy will know, and he will tell the minister. If we are going to have an up-to-date, efficient reform in the Civil Service there must be ministerial responsibility and not deputy-ministerial responsibility, and I propose, to argue as strongly as I can that the minister, not the deputy, shall take the power and bear the responsibility. As to the commission itself, I heartily approve of it. It is about time that efficient administration in the public servce is brought about, and I believe the Government are on the right track. They have a good personnel in the commission. There is no mention in the Bill as to what the secretary of the commission shall be paid. There is provision for the salaries of the commissioners-


Samuel Hughes: It should be increased.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member says
it should be increased. As a corollary to my argument about the under dog, I would like to put on record what I find to be the salaries paid to some of the deputies. The Paymaster General, Militia, gets $6,000, and the Accountant General, $6,000. Other salaries are as follows:	-
Commissioner of Commerce, $6,000.
Railways':	General Consulting Engineer,

Chief Engineer, 'Western Division, $6,000.
Military Hospitals Commission. Director General, $6,000; Under Secretary, $5,000. I
I have never heard who the Under-secretary of the Military Hospitals -Commission is, but he gets a pretty fair salary.
Deputy Fuel Controller, $6,000
Chief Commissioner, Railway Commission, $12,500 ; Assistant Chief Commissioner, $9,000 ; Deputy Commissioner, $8,000 ; two Commissioners, each $8,000.
International Waterways Commissioners, each $7,500.
What have these commissioners been doing-for the last two or three years? Have they had sittings? Have they made a report? This commission, I understand is in idleness, and the country is paying them this money. This list proceeds:
Secretary, War Board, $6,000.
Cost of Living Commissioner, $7,000.
Chairman, Scientific and Industrial Research Commission, $1-0,0 00.
Assistant to Minister of Railways, $5,000.
Chief Engineer, $5,000.
Law Clerk. $5,000.
Chief Architect, Public Works, $5,000.
'No -building is going on; everything is tied down in the Public Works Department, but the salaries are kept going.
Chairman of Food Board, $7,000.
A very important position,; the Department of Food Control is one of the biggest departments we have.
Pension Commissioners, each $5,000.
-Several others are also- paid $5,000 a year. Meanwhile Tural mail carriers get $450 a year for travelling twenty miles a day, winter and summer, wet or dry, in heat or in cold. Postmen who trudge through the streets- of cities, most of them married men with large families, get $2.75 or $3 a day. These are the under dogs, I have given only the fringe of the long list -which I have before me. It ie a public scandal and a shame if the Civil Service Commission and the Government cannot get together and do something to give these men better remuneration, allowing those who receive the larger salaries which I have mentioned- a reasonable -competence to Hive upon. With reg-ard to the returned soldier, I agree that the examinations should not be too hard. I have confidence in the personnel of the Civil Service Commission; I believe that they- will do the fair thing f-or the returned *ol-di-er. It is unfair to say in advance that they w-ill set trick questions; I have too high a regard for the men who constitute the Commission at present to believe that. They are men of methodical -habits and kindliness of disposition; they h-av-e the best interests of the country -at heart. The returned- -soldier wild find in the Civil Service Commi-s-sion -a friend -at court who will give them a f-air show and do all they -can for them consistent with their fitness for an-y position-s for which they are applicants-. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill and in commending the principle of it and I hope that we shall be able to get its various clauses in such shap-e that the country's interests may be served and the Service benefited.
Mr. A. K. MA-CLEAN: This afternoon I requested one of the members of the Civil Service Commission to prepare -a statement showing, as far a-s was possible in the short time given him, wh-at work had been done

by the Commission since the passage of the Order in Council on the 13th of February, and the manner in which that work was done. I have that statement under my hand, but before reading certain portions of it I want to* say a word or two with reference to the principle of the Bill. I believe strongly in the principle of this Bill and trust that the House will accept it practically as it has been presented. Members of Parliament should, I think, more than any other class of the people, support any legislation which has in view the elimination of patronage. It is not fair to members of Parliament or to the country that the representatives of the people should waste their time over matters of patronage as they have in years gone by. Public servants are selected to perform a service to the State, therefore the State should select them in the manner which seems best and which will produce the greatest efficiency. The member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) expresses the view that this is an inopportune time to introduce a reform of this character. On the contrary, I believe that this Bill is introduced at an opportune moment. It is the first time in the history of our country that such legislation has been possible, and when this Parliament expires, having passed this Bill, it will have rendered a greater service to Canada than any Parliament that has existed since Confederation. Not only is it desirable politically that this Bill should be enacted; it is an econopic necessity at this period in our history. Greater efficiency in the public service will result, and the public business will be disposed of much more economically than it has been in the past. The case to which the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) referred is a very regrettable one indeed, but under the patronage system that same thing has happened every week of the year. Under the present Bill that could not possibly happen. The section of the present Civil Service Act to which the member for Kingston referred was not applicable to the case at all; nothing in the present Civil Service Act would prevent the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General from doing what he did-at least, that is my reading of the Act. Nevertheless, I thank-the member for Kingston for bringing the facts of this case to the notice of the committee; he has simply performed his duty in doing so, and his action cannot fail to have a salutary effect.
There is a misapprehension, I fear, in the minds of some hon. gentlemen as to the scope of this measure. It is not in-

tended that all appointments to the service shall be by competitive examination. Section 41 says:
Except as herein otherwise provided, and except in the chse of deputy heads, appointments to positions in the public service shall be by competitive examination which shall be of such a nature as will determine the qualifications of candidates for the particular positions to which they are to be appointed, and shall be held by the Commission in accordance with regulations to he made by the Commission and approved by the Governor in Council.
Provided, however, that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to positions in connection with the Government railways or any railway owned or controlled by His Majesty, or to any position on any ship of His Majesty until the Governor in Council otherwise directs, and the Governor in Council shall have power to make this Act apply in whole or in part to any of the said positions. Provided, also, that in any case where the Commission decides that it is not practicable to apply this Act to any position or positions, the Commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may make such regulations as are deemed advisable, prescribing how such position or positions are to he dealt with.
There must inevitably be a great number of appointments made to the Civil Service under the regulations provided for by this section, particularly as regards the class of employment which was referred to by an hon. gentleman a short t'me ago.


Jacques Bureau: Who has the appointing power under this Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Civil Service Commission.


Jacques Bureau: Under what section is
that provided for?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Subsection 3 of
section 42. The hon. member (Mr. Morphy) seemed to be under the impression that deputy ministers recommended all appointments to the commission. That is not correct. Any department requiring the appointment of an officer makes a request to the commission for an appointment, and the commission proceeds to make the selection and appointment.


Jacques Bureau: Subsection 3 of section 42 reads:
Prom the list of successful competitors the Commission, on the application of the deputy head, shall supply the required officers, clerks and employees.	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is on the application of the deputy head.


Jacques Bureau: The deputy.heads do not appoint them?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That means that the deputy head informs the commission

that there is a vacancy to foe filled or that a new office is to he created. The commission makes the appointment. The deputy head does not even make a recommendation. There is, however, one exception to that general statement. Section 16 provides that:
In any case where, in the opinion of the Commission, the knowledge and ability requisite for any position in the public service are wholly or in part professional or technical, the Commission, on the recommendation of the deputy head, may appoint a person to such position without reference to the age limit.
It is only, therefore, when persons having professional or .technical knowledge are to be appointed that the deputy head is permitted to make a recommendation. In all other cases the appointments are made by the Civil Service Commission, and the deputy heads have no power of recommendation whatever.
The statement which I desire to read to the committee will indicate the policy now pursued by the commission in carrying out the Order in Council.
No permanent appointments have yet been made in the Outside Service by the Civil Service Commission, except in the case of rural postmasters. Temporary appointments only have been made by the Civil Service Commission since the Order in Council of the' 13th of February, 1918. Altogether, since the passage of the Order in Council, 465 permanent appointments and 2,409 temporary appointments have been made. The document from which I am reading will explain why so many temporary appointments have been made. It may be of interest to the committee for me to read the names of the departments in which permanent appointments have been made by the Civil Service Commission.


William Foster Cockshutt: How long will a temporary appointment last?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It will last only until there is available a list of qualified persons, and that list should be available very shortly, because examinations will soon be held at many points in Canada.


William Foster Cockshutt: There is no specified time limit for a temporary appointment?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, and the temporary appointments have all been made on the express understanding that they are but temporary, and the incumbents of the office so understand it.	,


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Supposing there are
no applicants, as will be the case in some instances, what will happen?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot understand that ever happening.


John Archibald Campbell: I have known instances of that kind where it was necessary to go *after someone to take the position.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Commission will have to meet that difficulty when it arises. This is a statement of the permanent and temporary appointments made by the Civil Cervice Commission since February 13, 1918:
	Permanent	Temporary
Departments.	employment.	employment.Agriculture 	3	81Auditor General ....	1	-Canada Food Board	-	49Canada Registration Board	iiCivil Service Commission 	3	7Customs	1	10External Affairs....	-	2Finance 	-	390House of Commons.	1	-Indian Affairs 	1	5Inland Revenue ....	1	1Interior	4	282Justice 	1	1Labour 	1	2Library of Parliament 	1	4Marine 	- -	15Militia and Defence.	1	161Mines 	4	5Naval Service 	-	76Post Office 	439	938Privy Council	2	13Public Works	-	125Railways and Canals	-	18Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment ....	_	93Soldiers' Settlement Board 	_	STrade a.nd Commerce	1	42War Purchasing Commission 	_	21War Trade Board. .	-	49-465	2,409


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Who made all the other appointments under the Canada Food Board?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They were made before the passage of the Order in Council, and I think they were probably made under Orders in Council on the recommendation of the Canada Food Board.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: After the passage of this Bill, by whom will such appointments be made?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: By the Civil Service Commission.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will they be brought into the inside service by this Bill5


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, they do not become a part of the Civil Service, but all appointments to the war commissions are to be made hereafter by the Civil Service Commission.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The outside service is not brought into the inside service by this Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The distinction between the outside service and the inside service still remains, but appointment by competitive examination and promotion by merit are now being made applicable to the outside service whereas they are now applicable only to the inside service.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Under this legislation?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What about section 55?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall refer to
that later.


Mr. FIELDING:: Have these appointments been made after examination?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The persons appointed permanently must have been qualified. The temporary appointments are made because there is not available a list of persons qualified for permanent appointments. Hereafter, examinations will be made at any point in Canada upon request of five candidates.


Jacques Bureau: What was the test in these examinations?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
William Stevens Fielding: Does it touch rural postmasters?
Mr. A. K. MiAiOLEAN: When the Order in Council was passed the- Civil Service Commission requisitioned the assistance of the post office inspectors in the several provinces. I think the Civil Service Commission make requests for recommendations from the post office inspectors of the several provinces. This form of letter is sent out to the post office inspectors and possibly to other people:
Ottawa	
Dear -Sir,-
The Postmastership at	
having become vacant through	
the Civil Service Commission has been asked to make a new appointment. I am directed by the Commissioners to ask that you will be good enough, by inquiry in the district, to secure the name of a suitable candidate for office, and that you will submit such name or names for their consideration with the least possible delay. The essential requirements are (a) that the candidate should possess the ability and education to efficiently perform the duties of the office (b) that his character and habits should be vouched for by three reputable citizens of the community. It is, of course, understood that where a returned soldier is available and qualified, he should be given the preference, that no personal or political favouritism is to be exercised, and that your recommendation of any candidate should include substantial reasons for his selection.
Yours truly,
Secretary.


Jacques Bureau: Tb whom is that letter addressed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: To the post office inspectors of the several provinces. It is hardly wortth (while discussing the full scope of the Bill, I do not purpose referring -to -any of the sections of the Bill at the present time but we will discuss them clause by clause -as we proceed. Sub-

stantially the Bill is the same as the present Civil Service Act. There are very-few changes. The Order in Council is being given statutory effect, and to accomplish that end it was necessary to insert in the Act new sections. The Civil Service Commission is substituted for the Governor in Council in every case where the latter approved of any appointment, or made any appointment. Outside of that the changes are not very substantial and I think the Committee should deal very expeditiously with the Bill when we come to consider it clause by clause.


Frank S. Cahill: Were the appointments of registrars for taking the man power of the country made by the Civil Service Commission?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not knew, but I think not. I would hardly suppose that the registrars would become part of the Civil Service.


George Green Foster: How were they made?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not knew how they were made, but they were not made by the Government.


George Green Foster: I would like to know how they were made.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They were appointed by the Registration Board, of which Senator Robertson is Chairman* I did not know who were appointed even in my own county.


Jacques Bureau: The same here.


George Green Foster: Before the appointments were made I received a communication asking if in the previous enumeration the returning officer had been satisfactory. I answered that he was not quite so, and I named for the place a returned .soldier who had been in the trenches for eighteen months, and who was one of six brothers who had gone overseas, one missing, one killed, one in hospital, one on his way over and one returned.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think my hon. friend is mistaken in saying he had that request from the Civil Service Commission.
It was from the secretary of the Registration Board.


George Green Foster: It was from the secretary, Mr. Foran.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Foran is the secretary of the Civil Service Commission.


George Green Foster: Well, that is the man who signed the letter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. BOYCE:: The person who signed the letter I got was Mr. Hoey. I recommended the appointment of our returning officer and he got the appointment.


George Green Foster: I recommended the returned soldier of whom I have spoken a man who was. quite qualified to occupy the position. The doctrine has been preached, and the departments have concurred in it, that where he had the qualifications, the returned soldier should be given the preference. Notwithstanding the fact that I named a returned soldier whose family had made such a sacrifice, he did not get the position, but one whom I did not recommend did get it. I do not know who made the appointment. If I ,am asked to give information again in view of this experience, I do not know that I shall comply with the request.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should be sur-, prised if the hon. gentleman received a request for a nomination from the Civil Service Commission, but I should like him to advise me to-morrow about the matter. The requisition, in all likelihood, was from the secretary of some office of the Registration Board. However, I am very sorry that the nomination made by my hon. friend was not acted upon.
Mi. D D. McKENZIE: I might say that I had a s-omewhat similar experience to that of the non. member who has just spoken.
Mr. 3. R. WILSON: As coming from Saskatchewan, I wish to voice the view which ?s held by the people of our province in regard to the .proposed legislation. Not only on the platform, but throughout the press of our province during the last election, the view was expressed that the abolition of patronage would be one of the greatest and most needed reforms that could be brought about. There is no well-informed person but has realized that under the old patronage system the country was net getting that efficient service from its employees that it should get. Mierit was not taken into consideration when appointments were made, but if regard was paid to anything it was the faithful services that had been rendered to the party. Only from a government constituted like the present could we expect such a needed reform, and, as the present seems to be an opportune time, I am glad that the Gov-

eminent lias taken advantage of it to introduce this legislation.
I was very much surprised to hear certain hon. gentlemen this evening endeavour to throw cold water on the Bill. If a measure of Civil Service reform is not passed by the present Union Government, when may we expect to see it enacted? In connection with the matter of salaries I would urge upon the Government that they should not deal in a penurious way with the Civil Service. At present there are a number of federal employees who are giving good service to the country, but who are unfortunately underpaid. We hear of many business concerns who have had to increase the salaries of competent men in order to retain their services, but that policy hasi not been followed in the Civil Service. According to the statistics furnished by the Labour Department, the cost of living in 1914 for a family of five was estimated at something over $14. In 1917, the cost for a family for food, including rent, but excluding clothing and other necessaries, had advanced to $19.33, an additional cost per week of about $5.05. Now, there are a number of employees under the Post Office Department who deserve consideration, and notably the letter carriers. The letter' carriers, I understand, receive about $2.50 a day. A war bonus has been granted of about $100 a year, or $8.33 per month, making their total earnings $73 and some odd cents per month. According to the cost of living figures, not reckoning the expense of clothing, doctor's bills, and other incidentals which are bound to occur in any family, no matter what care is exercised, the outlay per week is greater than the amount that is allowed by the Post Office Department to the letter carriers. These men are performing important duties and they have to turn out in all kinds of weather, and they should certainly be given a living wage. They should be given more than that: The stipend which they receive should be such as to permit them to lay by a little for a rainy day. The same thing might be said with respect to the clerks who occupy positions of importance and responsibility in the post office itself.
I think the case of the country postmasters should not be ignored. They have to turn their residences into what might be termed " public buildings." They have to be on duty all hours of the day to hand out mail for the public, and to discharge the duties required of them, and in return they receive the munificent sum of $50 per annum. In some few instances the remuneration is $75; I know of one man who
is getting that much per annum. I do not think a department such as the Post Office, which is able to exhibit a substantial surplus every year, should remunerate the worthy people who render such important service to the public by paying them such a comparatively insignificant sum.
Reference has been made to the appointment of registrars in connection with the registration of man-power. I wish to say that if the appointments made are as satisfactory as in the city which I represent, namely, the City of .Saskatoon- although I had nothing to do with it-every person will be perfectly happy. I notice from a newspaper received to-day that a returned soldier was appointed in the city of Saskatoon. In my opinion that appointment is a very worthy one and will undoubtedly prove satisfactory.
There seems to be a great deal of fear as to the appointments to be made by the Civil Service Commission. My experience as a member only dates from the 17th of December last, and if other horn, gentlemen have had the same experience as myself-even although I have not had numerous applicants for positions-they will feel very pleased to foe rid of the responsibility of having to recommend men for positions in the service. Viewed from any angle, the change which is proposed ought to afford members great relief. Judging from the experience of the past, for every friend a member makes when he recommends an .appointment, there will be forty or fifty disgrunitled1 constituents. Therefore, I do not think any member should feel that he is being deprived of a privilege but rather of a burden to be relieved of patronage. We want to see the public service run on business principles, and in that way obtain the best results. In my opinion the method proposed by the Bill tends to bring that about, and we may therefore look for a great improvement in the public service.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I was reminded of my own position by the observations of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Foster) that he was consulted about a certain appointment, and after he had given his views they were not followed. I was not looking for or expecting any patronage; but the returning officer appointed in my county last year, appointed., of course, without consulting me, was a very good respectable Tory. They appointed sixty enumerators also, every one of them Tories of the highest orthodoxy. We were told that everything was to be "fifty-fifty," but that is the kind of " fifty-fifty " we got. I

did not complain; I was not disappointed; I was looking for that kind of thing. After appointing this returning officer-and I hold the acting minister (Mr. A. K. Maclean) responsible for it, he is the only minister we have in the province except the Prime Minister, who has other things to look after; patronage of this kind, I believe, is handled by the Acting Minister of Finance.


Mr.  A. K. MACILEAN@: What kind of patronage?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Later I was asked to say if the man appointed returning officer would be satisfactory to me. I wrote back: Certainly. When L was going to get Tory anyhow, I preferred a decent Tory; so I said, yes, the old man was good enough for me. But was he appointed? No, he was too good, too decent. They went to the poorest kind of a Tory they could get and appointed him over the head of the other man. So* I sympathize with my good friend who is disappointed, for I am in exactly the same position.


George Green Foster: Not exactly. In my case tlhe man is a returned soldier who should have been appointed.


Mr. BLAKE:: There has been a lot of talk about patronage to-night directed at this Bill, but it has not hit at the mairk at all. The patronage which is objected to is not the few appointments made by the member. I have been in control of the patronage in my constituency for four or five years, and I don't think I secured appointments for more than one person each year to post offices and so on, and there never has been a complaint against one of them, although I turned down dozens and dozens of men. That is not what the people are kicking so much about to-day, but rather at the matter of letting contracts to friends at exorbitant prices with the object of having some of the money turned back to the party funds. I do not see anything in this Bill to remedy that state of affairs. That is the big thing the people mean by " patronage," and not the few appointments made here and theie by members. When there is an appointment to be made of a postmaster in some rural constituency, who knows better than the member where that post office should he situated if a new post office is to bb opened up? I think that members*, with the majority they have behind them this year, and the independence which characterizes members in this House, would feel that they could defy their constituency, or 
one or two people here and there, and be big enough to locate the offices where they would best serve the community. There is an injustice done here, and under this so-called reform havoc will be wrought in the Civil Service and a great deal of displeasure and more harm caused. I think that, where there is more than one application for a postmaster, at least the opinion of the member should be taken. It is not only a matter of shifting a man into this department or into that. The Bill as constituted is an excellent thing. But where there are more than two applications for a post office, or where there is a vacancy for a postmaster caused by the opening of a new office or by death, I think the member could be consulted first and no harm result. If this Bill is to fulfil the promises* of the Government, something should be put in it to provide that every tender for dredging or any other work or for any supplies should be sealed and left in a designated place until the time comes to open it, and it should be opened in public. In that way we will get away from patronage in the big sense of the word.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is provided for in other legislation, by Order in Council. It has nothing to do with the Civil Service Commission.


Matthew Robert Blake: That is a form of patronage that may well be embodied in this Bill instead of in an Order in Council. I am not taking up the cudgels about Orders in Council; I have endorsed some of them. But this is going out as a Civil Service Bill, and is not a complete reform of patronage.
I have no* doubt that the intention of the Government, as enacted by Order in Council, will be followed out faithfully and to the letter, and that the lowest tenderer will receive the contract in each case. That would, accomplish the strict abolition, of patronage.


Mr.   MIJRPHY@: As* many members began work in committees at ten o'clock this morning, and it is now midnight, and I assume we will be adjourning before long,
I do not wish to take up very much time. With the general .principle of the Bill I am in hearty agreement, as I said when, it was (first introduced. Anybody who was born in Ottawa and has lived here all his life, and who has had anything to
12	m, do with politics must assuredly welcome any measure to put an end to patronage. The very fact that a man has been born in Ottawa and lived here all

his life and has had something to do with politics makes him look at a measure of this kind even with a more pritical eye than that -of my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Blake), who has just spoken. I agree with him that what the public understand in the talk' about patronage is the wider meaning covering every kind of distribution of party or Government favours such as my hon. friend indicated.


Jacques Bureau: The prevention of graft.


Charles Murphy: The hon. minister who
is in charge of this Bill read to the committee a statement from the Civil Service Commission purporting to detail what they have done since February 13 last, when the management of the Civil Service was practically turned over to them-and as my hon. friend said just now this Bill proposes to give statutory authority for the power that was then vested in the Civil Service Commission. I presume that, owing to a rush of work, the Civil Service Commission overlooked an important part of their work with which I think I should acquaint the committee, because I think it has an important bearing on the Bill. It has this bearing on the Bill, that unless something is done to give the House and the public some assurance that different methods will prevail, the^ Civil Service Commission is not likely to meet the views and the wishes of the people who desire that patronage should be abolished. The Order in Council transferring the management of Civil Service affairs to the commission was passed on February 13 last, I understood my hon.' friend to say. On February 18, five days after the commission was put in sole charge, they issued a circular and blank form, which I hold in my hand, and on which applicants for positions were expected to give their name, address, age, position desired, experience, and itwo classes of references, one as to ability and one as to character and habits. In the city of Ottawa, I am informed, hundreds of these forms were sent out, and each person who received one received at the same time a circular from the Civil Service Commission in these terms:
The enclosed form of application for temporary employment is sent you at the instance of Mr. A. E. Fripp, M.P.


Edmond Proulx: No!


Charles Murphy: Yes.
It should be filled in and returned to the Office of the Civil Service Commission.
Patronage was supposed to have been abolished by this Order in Council on February 13 last.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who issued that letter?


Charles Murphy: The Civil Service Commission.


Mr. CALDER:: It is an application form? Mr. MURPHY:	Yes, and a covering
letter is sent with it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It does not sound like anything that would come from the Civil Service Commission. I do not doubt that the letter is authentic, but I hardly imagine that it was issued by the Civil Service Commission.


Jacques Bureau: Unhappily these things
are judged not by sounds but by words. '


Charles Murphy: I am assured that that
is where it came from and that the forms, as this circular states, were to be filled in and sent to the commission.


James Alexander Calder: Is that the original document?


Charles Murphy: Yes; I will send it to my hon. friend. Even assuming that this circular was not sent out by the Civil Service Commission, it requests that the forms shall he filled in and sent to that body. The Civil Service Commission, therefore, cannot be absolved of all connection with the transaction.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It may not have been very objectionable, anyway. Perhaps the Civil Service Commission desired to establish a list of those who would he available for temporary employment in Ottawa. Quite likely they have lists in some of the departments, hut the commission may have required further information. I will make inquiries and say something a-bout the matter to-morrow.


Charles Murphy: The reason suggested
by my hon. friend is a most extraordinary one. What necessity was there for the Civil Service Commission sending out a circular saying " the enclosed form of application for temporary employment is sent to you at the instance of Mr. A. E. Fripp, M.P.." If this was done because of the reason suggested by my hon. friend, that the commission desired to establish a list of those desiring temporary employment-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not say the Civil Service Commission sent it out.


Charles Murphy: Why the mention in this circular that it was sent out at the instance

of Mr. Fripp? These forms, when signed, were returned to the Civil Service Commission, which, on the date on which this letter was issued, February 18, were in complete control of the situation. The Civil Service Commission will be no more in control of the situation after the passing of this Act, than they were on the date mentioned. What guarantee have we in the Act that practices such as this will not be continued after the Act shall have been put in force? I do not cite this occurrence for the purpose of objecting to the Act or of putting any obstacle in the way of bringing about the reform that we all desire. 1 am simply pointing out that even after this reform was supposed to have been instituted, we had an occurrence such as the one that I have acquainted the committee with. I am told that these forms were sent to hundreds of people in Ottawa. I draw this to my hon. friend's attention so that the matter may be considered during the discussion of the Bill and so that some provision or provisions may be inserted in the Bill whereby the public wall have a guarantee that neither the Civil Service Commission, nor a member of Parliament, nor any individual can do anything, of this kind in the future. The acting minister will agree with that most heartily, because I am sure that he is seriously desirous of effecting the reforms which this Bill aims at. Like some other hon. gentlemen, I have been disappointed that those on the other side who have criticised the Bill- because the discussion has been carried on chiefly by supporters of the Government- did not offer some suggestions to take the place of the sections to which they have objected. Possibly that may be done in future; in any event I hope it will.
'The CHAIRMAK: If all hon. members who omitted to speak on the second reading have now spoken, I am sure I shall be pardoned if, before taking up the Bill clause by clause, I read paragraph 5 of rule 13. It is as follows:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
On section 2-definitions:


Jacques Bureau: There will he some discussion on this clause. We meet at 11 in the morning, and many hon. gentlemen were called to committees, at 10. I think that we ought to adjourn.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should like to pass section 2. It is a short one.
[Mr. Murphy.!


Jacques Bureau: There will be some discussion on it; it deals with definition of Inside and Outside Service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If hon. gentlemen insist, I agree.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Mr. A. K. Macleani, the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m., Saturday.
Saturday, May 11. 1918.