1918-05-13

OFFICIALS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker informed the House that he had directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the Table his recommendation and the clerk's report in the matter of the promotion of Mr. W. H. Dickson, Chief Reporter of the Committees of the House, to the position of Reporter of the Official Debates of the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor-General) presented the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and moved:
That the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be talcen into consideration on Thursday next.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: From the
tenor of this motion I cannot tell whether my hon. friend intends to move that the report be concurred in. If he has no such intention, I think it would be advisable to have the evidence printed before we take the report into consideration.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: No evidence was taken before the committee. The only document before the committee was the official return which has been printed and distributed amongst hon. members. Apart from that, we only had the statements of the parties concerned and of their counsel; I believe those statements were taken down and would he available if desired. It is not

my intention to move that the report of the committee be adopted by the House, because I do not apprehend that it is my duty to make such a motion. As chairman of the committee it is my duty to report to the House the committee's finding, and also, as laid down in Bourinot, on page 553:
It is usual for the Chairman to move, after he has presented his report, that it be taken into consideration on a future day, and it shall be placed on the Order Paper for that day. After that motion, when it is on the Order Paper, it is open to any member of the House to make such motion in regard to its adoption as he sees fit.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: It is not a very graceful way of dealing with a report.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) confirms my understanding that strong arguments have been made on both sides of the question, and as notes have been taken of ithe argument I think it would be advisable to have them printed for the information of the House.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I do not know to what extent they are available, but I shall confer with the Solicitor General, and if the statements are available there is no reason why they should not be printed.
Motion .agreed to.



REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Abstract of statements of insurance companies of Canada for the year ended December 31, 1917.-Hon. Mr. Reid.


Hon. FRANK CARVELL ( Minister of Public Works):: I beg to lay on the Table interim reports Nos. 2 and 3, by Mr. Sanford Evans, of the Georgian Bay Canal Commission. A number of copies of the first report were printed, and I understand there are still on hand some 2,113 copies of that report in English and 1,369 in French. I therefore beg to move:
That five thousand copies of these two reports be printed in English and five hundred in French, and that Rule 74 be suspended in connection therewith.


Mr. MURPHY:: I would suggest that
the number to be printed in French be one thousand.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no objection.
The statement which I have had prepared at the request of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mir. Lemieux) shows the
tMr. Guthrie.]
number printed in French and English is: English 7,800, cost $2,045; French 1,900, cost $787.
They were distributed as follows:	English 5,347; French 491. The demand for French copies was very small and I believed that 500 would have been sufficient but I have no objection to accepting the suggestion of the bon. gentleman.


Charles Murphy: The demand might be
larger now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It might be larger now
and I will make it a thousand in French and 5,000 in English. The motion will therefore read:
That 5,000 copies of these reports be printed in English and 1,000 in French, and that rule 74 be suspended in connection therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion that Senate Bill No. 88 to amend the Judges' Act be read the first time:
Rodolphe Lemieux: That Bill was debated last session by the House of Commons. It had been grafted on another Bill introduced by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). I see that the Hon. Senator Ross of Halifax has introduced the same principle in this Bill by itself. If my hon, friend the Minister of Justice would explain to the House whether this Bill is objectionable and, if so, how, it might be possible for the House to dispose of it now. As I understand, the Bill is not distributed yet.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Properly speaking the
order should stand because on the first reading there can be no debate.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I am not prepared to
say at present in what respect the Bill is objectionable or if it is objectionable. Before taking it up there axe some matters which it raises that require consideration. I would like to look into them before taking a position oh it and that is the reason I do not desire to take the Bill up at the present time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



FIRST READING OF SENATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 95, for the identification of traders in German goods.-Mr. 'Currie.
Bill No. 96, to incorporate the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood.-Mr. John F. Raid.

[Stage Direction]
Ob the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: I have been requested to ask what time and place have been fixed by the Government for dealing with the delegation of farmers who are to be in Ottawa to-morrow.
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN: Really, I do not know. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) will be glad to give that information later on. He has had the matter in hand.


Mr. CAHILL:: With the consent of the
House might I ask the Prime Minister if lie would now give am answer to the question put by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) as to the meeting place for the farmers? I see the Minister of Agriculture is now in his seat.


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: The Department of Agriculture has secured the Russell Theatre for the forenoon and afternoon, and I understand it was arranged that whatever members of the Government could attend would meet them there at 11.30 a.m.



CENSORSHIP REGULATIONS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North 'Simcoe):: I would like to ask the Government a question with regard to the position of the Order in Council No. 915 brought to the attention of the House on April 16, 1918. This Order in Council dealt with the publication of information and also the expression of opinions by people throughout the country. I want to know whether the Order in Council has been laid on the table of this House and if so has it been disposed of in any way.


Robert Laird Borden: It was brought down and laid on the table of the House. I do not quite understand the other part of my hon. friend's question^. The Order in Council has been operative since it passed.


John Allister Currie: If an Order in Council or regulation of a department adopted under a statute, is objectionable, according to the authorities-May and Redlich-it is competent to take action with regard to that Order in Council or regulation on a motion for an address'. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, some time before to-morrow, to consider that point, to consult the English authorities and to find out whether it is competent for a private member to move an address upon the order for motions dealing with a document of that kind provided no minister has done so. Mr. SPEAKER: I shall make inquiry.



BELLEVILLE PRINCE EDWARD BRIDGE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Richardson the House went into Committee on Bill No. 28 respecting the Belleville Prince Edward Bridge Company-Mr. Porter-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Directors to have power to regulate tolls.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Have the tolls mentioiied in the Bill been agreed to by the opponents of the measure? I understand there was very strong opposition to this Bill from the people of Belleville and the surrounding municipalities.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: 
Mr. BUREAU:: Within six months.


Robert Lorne Richardson: They have six
months in which to make the purchase.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was the price fixed?


Robert Lorne Richardson: The price was fixed in the Bill, and the bridge can be taken over at any time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is- the price?


Robert Lorne Richardson: The price is $72,500. The chartered accountant who was asked to look into the matter, reported that if the -estate who- own the bridge were allowed six per cent on their money, they would receive $117,000, and if allowed five per cent -the amount would be considerably less. There were certain disputes as to when the period should begin, but the amount fixed was a compromise arranged between the parties, and all those interested agreed That the increase in tolls was a fair one, and would not produce more than five per cent on the money invested.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was Mr. Parliament, the local member for Prince Edward, a party to the arrangement?


Robert Lorne Richardson: He was a party to it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did he accept the tolls agreed upon, and also the price?


Robert Lorne Richardson: He did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the new conditions?


Robert Lorne Richardson: He accepted the price and the tolls. The ex-reeve of the municipality was also present and also agreed that the tolls were reasonable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then the objecting parties were satisfied?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member for Maisonneuve has asked if Mr. Parliament attended the Committee. I do not believe he was before the sub-committee, or at the last meeting of the Committee, but he was present previously. The city of Belleville was represented by its solicitor and mayor, and the township o-f Prince Edward by Mr. Dempsey. The Sutherland estate was represented by one of the estate and by their solicitor, Mr. Kilmer. By arrangement, Mr. Clarkson, accountant, was chosen to make an investigation, and the subcommittee reported that all the interested parties had agreed, although I may say that the city of Belleville gave instructions to Mr. Pringle not to consent to anything. But we put the restriction within the Bill that within six months the municipalities would have the Tight to purchase for the sum of $72,500, and to complete the purchase within one year. So as to make the terms more convenient between the parties, the tolls, which were based on recommendations made by Mr. Clarkson, and which permit of a reasonable profit figured at five per cent to be made by the operators of the bridge, will not * 
come into force before three months from date. The object of this is to allow all parties to get together, and take advantage of the provision which was introduced into the Bill, that upon giving notice by any municipality interested in the bridge within six months it can be purchased for the sum of $72,500. Nobody was left in ignorance on the matter, everybody interested was invited to state their views, and the sub-committee reported, after all the evidence had been taken and everybody had been given a chance to present their claims.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I might further explain that the municipalities interested sent representatives to wait on the Ontario Government to see what assistance they would grant, and that government agreed to assist to the extent of at least forty per cent, with the object that the parties concerned might be able to so arrange it that the bridge would become a public work.


Charles Murphy: We may assume then that whatever objection originally existed with respect to the tolls to be charged has disappeared, in view of the compromise arranged in regard to the purchase of the bridge?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Absolutely.


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


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 89, respecting The Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill No. 90, respecting The Church and Manse Board of the Presbyterian Church in Canada-Mr. Nickle.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Francis Newman.-Mr. La'lor.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Henry Emei Saxby.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 93, respecting a patent of Jacob David Wolf.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 94, to incorporate L'ordre des Dominicains ou freres precheurs au Canada.-Mr. Chabot.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks).

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What is the total amount paid or payable for the services of the several Exemption Tribunals in the County of L'Assomption-Montealm?

2.	What amount has been, or is still, payable to each of these tribunals for rent, fees for judges and salaries of other employees?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the persons who have been so paid or to whom amounts are still due?
4.	What amount has been paid', or is still due. to each of these persons, and for what service?
Hon, Mr. DOHERTY:
1 and 2. Tribunal No. 129, $542.50; tribunal No. 130,	$349.16; tribunal No. 156,
$457; tribunal No. 157, $65; tribunal No. 158, $516.65; tribunal No. 159, $256.68.
3.	Tribunal No. 129: J. E. Duhamel, TAssomption, Que., services of member, $50; J. S. Rivest, TAssomption, Que., services of member and stationery, $122; Louis Potras, TAssomption, Que., services of constable, $58; E. Marcelois, TAssomption, Que., services of member, $120; corporation TAssomption, TAssomption, Que., rent and beating, $120; Jules Jairy, TAssomption, Que., services clerk, $72.50. Total, $542.50.
Tribunal No. 130: D. Locat, Laurentides, Que., services of clerk, $60; L. Desmaris, Laurentides, Que., services of member, $120; G. Brossard, Laurentides, Que., services of member, stationery and postage, $126.16; corporation Ville de Laurentides, Que., rent, $40; Jos. Paquette, Laurentides, Que., services of constable, $53. Total $349.16.
Tribunal No. 156: J. H. Lesage, St. Jacques, Que., services of member, stationery and postage, $160; J. A. D. Forrest, St. Jacques, Que., rent, $80; Albert Dugas, St. Jacques, Que., services of constable, $62; J. B. Dugas, St. Jacques, Que., services of member, $155. Total, $457.
Tribunal No. 157: D. Beauchamp, St. Donat, Que., services of member and rent, $40; J. H. Lavoie, St. Donat, Que., services of member, $25. Total, $65.
Tribunal No. 158: John Copping, St. Patrick de Rawdon, Que., services of member, $150; Ed. Morin, Rawdon, Que., services of member, $150; J. B. Morin, Rawdon, Que., services of clerk, rent, postage, etc., $216.65. Total, $516.65.
Tribunal No. 159: J. A. Perrault, services of member, $79.18; Jos. Beaudry, services of member, $75; I. Beaudry, services of secretairy, $37.50; Emile Efhier, services of constable, $30; E. Ethier, rent and caretaking, $35. Total, $256.68.
4.	All accounts received from the above tribunals have been passed for payment, but amounts due cannot be ascertained until further accounts have been reoeived.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Have all the Judges of Exemption Tribunals established under the Military Service Act, 1917, been paid the fees to which they are entitled in connection with their work?
2.	If not, when does the Government intend to settle with them?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	All accounts received have been paid or are in course of audit and payment.
2.	Any accounts not paid will be paid as soon as the amount justly chargeable can be ascertained.
M. D. No. 4 ADVANCES.


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Has the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence been called to the two items which appear in Vol. 4 of the Auditor General's Report, recently tabled, under the expenditure for the Fourth Military Divisional Area (Montreal) : Capt. W. H. Suckling, advance unaccounted for, $5,500, Hon. Lt.-Col. Du Verger, advance unaccounted for, $1,000'?
2.	Have the above amounts unaccounted for been remitted?
3.	If so. when?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	These two items represent advances on account of recruiting expenses, 242nd Battalion, $5,500; 150th Battalion, $1,000. Both items have been under observation. Capt. Suckling has submitted vouchers which were returned for correction on February 27th last, to the headquarters of the Battalion in France. The Paymaster, Military District No. 4, submitted vouchers from Lt.-Col. Du Verger on 18th March last, for additional information. No replies have come to hand in either case. A reminder has been sent out in both cases.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


THE PARASITE'S PROHIBITED.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the Government suppressed or Forbidden the circulation of a book or pamphlet edited by the Rev. Benjamin Spence, Toronto, containing an article wholly or in part written by Arthur Mee. on Temperance?
2.	Was such book or pamphlet printed in the city of Toronto?
3.	Was any member of the Government aware of the fact that such book or pamphlet was being prepared, before the same was in print?
4.	What action has the Government taken to suppress such book or pamphlet?
5.	Will the Government produce the said book or pamphlet for the information of the members of the House?
6.	Is a criminal proceeding now pending against the Rev. Benjamin Spence for publish-

ing and circulating such book or pamphlet? If so, what are the grounds for such criminal proceedings?
7. Was the said book or pamphlet published or circulated by the Rev. Benjamin Spence with the knowledge or sanction of any member of the Government?
S.	If so, what member of the Government was aware of its publication or circulation?
9.	Has the said Rev. Benjamin Spence or any of his friends interviewed or conferred with any members of the Government regarding the criminal proceedings now proceeding against the said Rev. Benjamin Spence? If so, w'hat took place at such interview or interviews?
10.	Has the said Rev. Benjamin Spence written or communicated with the Premier or any members of the Government regarding the criminal proceedings which are now pending? If so, what was the nature of such communication?
11.	Did any members of the Government answer in w'riting any of the written communications received in connection with the book from'the Rev. Benjamin Spence, or any of his friends? If so, what wag the nature of the replies ?
12.	Has any member of the Government interviewed or conferred with the Censor regarding the said book or pamphlet edited by the said Rev. Benjamin Spence?
13.	Did the Censor make any report to the Government for the suppression of the said book or pamphlet? If so, what was the nature of the report?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Suppressed under the authority of the Censorship Regulations.
5.	As distribution of the hook was prohibited it is obviously undesirable to have it produced.
6.	It is understood that the local authorities instituted proceedings.
7.	No.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9	and 10. A lawyer representing Mr. Spence saw the Minister of Justice and suggested that in view of Mr. Spence's submission to the Order criminal proceedings be dropped, and was informed that action in such a matter was a question for the Attorney General of the province and the Government had no desire to interfere.
11.	Various letters were received and some answered. It was pointed out to Mr. Spence that it was not considered desirable to remove the decision arrived at.
12.	The Chief Censor conferred with the Secretary of State and recommended the suppression of the book.
13.	Answered by No. 12.	.


MR. E. BEAUFORT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PROULX [DOT]
Referring to the tanswerg of the Hon. Mr. Burrell to questions regarding one E. Beaufort, as reported on page 1413 of Unrevised Hansard :
1.	Did the said Beaufort go to Halifax to perform work in that city while he was employed on the Chief Press Censor's Staff?
2.	While so employed on the Press Censor's Staff did any letters, telegrams or other correspondence of the said Beaufort come into the hands of the Chief of the Dominion Police?
3.	If so, would the said *correspondence have come into the hands of the said Chief of Dominion Police if Beaufort had not been watched or placed under surveillance?
4.	Since the said Beaufort has represented the Christian Science Monitor in the Press Gallery of the House of Commons have any letters or other correspondence between him and the Christian Science Monitor come into the hands of the said Chief of the Dominion Police?
5.	Is it not a fact that within the week ending March 23, 1918, the Chief Press Censor stated publicly and within the hearing of more than one person on a street car in the City of Ottawa, (a) that Beaufort had worked on his staff; (b) that he had in his possession letters and telegrams compromising the said Beaufort, and (c) that it was in consequence of this correspondence and of the general suspicion attaching to him that Beaufort had been dismissed or let out-or let go-or words to the like effect?
6.	Before recommending the said Beaufort for appointment, did the Chief Press Censor look into his Winnipeg record?
7.	What was the total amount paid Beaufort by the Government?
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1, 2, 3, 4. Matters of the character alluded to aie necessarily confidential.
5.	The Government has no such information.
6.	Yes:
7.	SI,322.93.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT.-CENTRAL APPEAL JUDGE.
Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Has the attention of the Government been drawn to an article in the Montreal Star of April 27, 1918, under the heading:
"My Canadian Visit-Continued."
"/By the Right Hon. Sir Frederick Smith, Bart., His Majesty's Atttoi'ney-General, Treasurer of Gray's Inn, Hon. Fellow of Wad-ham College, Oxford", and containing the following:.-
"Thursday, January 2'4.-In tihe morning we skated again.
"We lunched at the new hotel, the 'Chateau Laurier,' with the members of the Canadian Club. Judge Duff, one of the ablest members of the Bench, who is to-day sitting in Anal appeal over the decisions of the tribunals in the Province of Quebec, was in the Chair, Sir Robert Borden and many other ministers were present."
2.	Did any member of the Government inform Sir Freedrick Smith that Judge Duff ) c 1 to

deal only with appeals from the Province of Quebec ?
3.	Was any such instruction or direction given Judge Puff as Central Appeal Judge under the Military Service Act?
4.	If so, wliat other Judge was appointed to deal with appeals from the other provinces?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	No.
2.	No. Mr. Justice Duff, under the provisions of the Military Service Act and as Central Appeal Judge, deals with the appeals from all the provinces.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


Mr. BROCILLARD:: 1.	Is the Government aware that Mr. Justice Duff, appointed Central Appeal Judge under the provisions of the Military (Service Act,, is also President, or Chairman, of the Round Table Club or Circle, of Ottawa?
2.	Is it not a fact that one of the chief features of the Round Table Club propaganda is to promote in the Dominions Overseas the policy of Compulsory Military Service?
3.	Has the attention of Mr. Justice Duff been called to the impropriety of acting as Central Appeal Judge as long as he remains President, or Chairman, of the Round Table Club?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1 and 2. The Government has no information.	.
3.	No.


POST OFFICE LOWER L'ARDOISE.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	Who is the Postmistress at Lower L'Ardoise?
2.	When was she appointed?
3.	Who are her sureties?
4.	Have any complaints been made to the department regarding the said Post Office?
5.	What was the nature of the complaints?
6.	Has the money order service at said Post
Office been discontinued?	*
7.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Mrs. Sophia Sampson.
2.	On the 20th January, 1917.
3.	The postmistress is insured in the Post Office Guarantee Fund.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Yes.
7.	Because of irregularities in connection with the money order accounts.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT-QUEBEC.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is there an officer called Capt. Grenier employed in the office of the Registrar of the (Military Service Act at Quebec?
2.	If so, what salary does he earn?
3; By whom was he recommended?
4.	Is he of military age?
5.	In what medical category is he?
6.	Has be obtained his exemption?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$40 per week.
3.	Was on staff of the late Colonel Jones, district military representative, and has continued his work. Is on command from M.D. No. 5.
4.	Yes; 30 years of age.
5.	Category C-3.
6.	Exemption automatic until category C called


Air. POWER:: 1 Is there an officer called Capt. Couiliard employed in the office of the Registrar of the Military Service at Quebec? ,
2.	If so, what salary does he earn?
3.	By whom was he recommended?
4.	Is he of military age?
5.	In what medical category is he?
6.	Has he obtained his exemption?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$50 per week.
3.	Was on the staff of the late Col. Jones, then District Military Representative and has continued this work. Is on command from Military District No. 5.
[DOT] 4. Yes; 26 years of age.
5.	Returned overseas officer.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is there an officer called F. J. Belanger employed in the office of the Registrar of the Military Service Act at Quebec?
2.	If so, what salary does he earn?
3.	By whom was he recommended?
4.	Is he of military age?
5.	In what medical category is he?
6.	Has he obtained his exemption?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$50 per week.
3.	Was on a staff of the late Col. Jones, District Military Representative, and has continued since on command from Military District No. 5 and is now Assistant Deputy Registrar.
4.	Yes; 28 years of age.
5.	"A-2."
6.	Is an officer of the Canadian Expeditionary Forc.e.	.


Air. POWER:: 1.	Where are the offices of the Registrar under the Military Service Act at Quebec situated?
2.	Are certain premises being leased for the purpose of the Military Service Act?
3.	If so, what price is being paid and to whom ?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	On seventh and eighth stories of the Chateau ' Frontenae.

2.	The Department of Public Works is endeavouring to arrange for suitable quarters for the registrar's office in place of the present quarters. Arrangements not yet completed.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


CASUALTY REPORTS.
*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Was Mr. Frederick Lalonde, of the 38th Battalion, C.E.F., enrolled as Number 410,524?
2.	If so, was the soldier in question reported as a casualty, and when?
3.	If the said soldier was living- at the time of last report, what was his address?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Was Mr. Mark Norman, of the 2nd Divisional Remount Depot, enrolled as Number 49,475?
2.	If so, was the soldier in question reported as a casualty, and when?
3.	If the said soldier was living at the time of last report, what was his address?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.	.
2.	Yes, June 7, 1917.
3.	Address on last casualty report was Canadian Convalescent Hospital, Epsom, England.


*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Was Mr. Robert Cleland Killen, of the First Pioneer Battalion, C.E.F., enrolled as Number 487,327?
2.	If so, was the soldier in question reported as a casualty, and when?
3.	If the said soldier was living at the time of last report, what was his address?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, January 8, 1917.
3.	Address on last casualty report was Moore Barracks Hospital, Shorncliffe.


*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Was Mr. Harry Cecil Bull, of the 4th Brigade Canadian Field Artillery, enrolled as Number 84,108?
2.	If so, was the soldier in question reported as a casualty, and when?
3.	If the said soldier was living at the time of last report, what was his then address?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, September 4, 1917.
3.	Address on last casualty report was Military Hospital, Shorncliffe.


PRESS CENSORSHIPS.
*Mr. CHISHOLM:: 1.	Have the Press or Cable Censors for Nova Scotia at any time during -the years 1917 or 
1918 reported to the Chief of the Dominion Police or to the Chief Press Censor regarding communications addressed to a person in Halifax and signed in some instances "Five" and in others "Beaufort"?
2.	If so, what action was taken with regard to such report or in connection with the said communications ?


Martin Burrell: 1 and 2. It is not customary or in the public interest to disclose particulars regarding censorship matters.


TRANSFERS FROM ROYAL FLYING CORPS. TO C. E. F.
Mr. NICKLE:: 1.	Has a Canadian, while in Canada, enlisted in the Royal Flying Corps or Royal Air Force, the privilege of transferring to the Canadian Expeditionary Force?
2.	Has the Canadian Government jurisdiction or control over Canadians in the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Air Force?
3.	Is a Canadian, while in Canada, enlisted in the Royal Flying Corps or Royal Air Force transferable against his wish to the British Infantry or other units of the British Forces, if he does not wish to continue as a member of the Royal Flying Corps or Royal Air Force?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	He has no right of transfer.
2.	No.	.
3.	No.
Lt. BERTRAM DIMOCK


Mr. Du TREMBLAY:: 
MAJOR F. W. D. BREMNER.
Mr. Du TREMBLAY:: 
EXEMPTIONS IN BERTHIER.
Mr. GERVAIS:: 1.	Has the Government, through Mr. Arthur Ecrement, a Notary of Montreal, and a defeated candidate in the Constituency of Berthier at the elections which took place on the 17th of December, 1917, or any of its members received exemption demands from certain conscripts residing in the Parish of St. Cuthbert in the Electoral District of Berthier?
2.	If so, has the Government or any of its members granted, or are they willing to grant said exemption or exemptions asked for?
3.	What are the names of the conscripts who have also been exempted through said Arthur Ecrement?
4.	Has the Government or any of its members authorized the said Arthur Ecrement to state that the electors of the constituency of Berthier who had voted in his favour at the last election would be exempted, and that those who had voted for Dr. Gervais would be enlisted as conscripts?


Robert Laird Borden: Stand.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am informed
that many persons are exploiting the good faith of the farmers by promising to secure exemptions for them. If a statement were made bo the House and the country that such methods as are mentioned in this question should not be adopted, I think much good would result.


Robert Laird Borden: This question
relates entirely to the enforcement of the Military Service Act, and should be answered by the (Minister of Justice, who is* of course, prepared to make a statement. Indeed, the statement can now be made. No person in this country has the slightest authority to promise exemption by the tribunals; it is entirely out of the question that there should be any such condition. The stand taken by the members of the Government with regard to this is that such matters must be determined by the tribunals according to their best judgment; the Government will appeal whenever it is considered desirable in the public interest that appeal should be asserted. But no person, I repeat, has any right, through members of the Government or otherwise, to influence the decision of the tribunals in respect to. exemption.


THE KENT HOUSE.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Has the Government considered, or is it considering the proposal of taking the Kent House and adjacent buildings and cottages at Montmorency Falls, near Quebec City, toy the purpose of using same for a military hospital?
2.	If so, what does the proposal consist of in the way of rent or other conditions?
3.	Is the Government aware that the Kent House is a summer resort visited each year by thousands of people, is situated at a short

distance from the golf links, and offers too much .attraction and noise to turn same into a hospital?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes, an offer has been made.
2.	A rental of $6,000 per annum is being asked by the owners.
3.	The Board of Medical Consultants have reported strongly in favour of its use as a hospital, but no decision has yet been arrived at by the Government.


MEMBERS OF T.M.C.A. AND SALVATION ARMY IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOY.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many persons formerly in the employ of the T.M.C.A. are now In the employ of the Government? What are their names?
2.	How many former officers or employees of the Salvation Army are now in the employ of the Government?
3.	Were all these appointments made on the recommendation of the President of the Privy Council?


Martin Burrell: If the hon. gentleman will make this question a little more specific, it will be possible to answer it. Otherwise, it should stand as an Order *for Return.
Question stands.
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS. Mr. CURRIE:
For a copy of all correspondence between the Registrar, E. Hart Nichols, under the Military Service Act, Halifax, N.S.. and the Military Service Council or any member thereof, during the years 1917 and 191S ; concerning non-compliance with the Military Service Act in Lunenburg County, N.S.; also for copy of ail correspondence between the Military Service Council, or any member thereof, or the Minister of Justice, or the Deputy Minister of Justice and Mr. William Duff, M.P.. Lunenburg, N.S., during the years 1917 and 1918 ; also a copy of any statements, affidavits and declarations now on file in the Military Service Council in respect of the administration of the Military Service Act in the County of Lunenburg and more particularly in respect of any alleged interference by Mr. William Duff with the proper enforcement of the said Act.


John Allister Currie: For a copy of the contract made between the .Government of Canada and Mr. Mosher of Feltzen South, in the County of Lunenburg, for the carrying of His Majesty's mails between Feltzen South and Rose Bay, in the County of Lunenburg. Said contract being executed during the month of September, October or November, 1917, and having as one of the bondsmen on the said contract Mr. Wm. Duff, of Lunenburg, in the County of Lunenburg!


Mir. McKENZIE:: For a return giving a copy of all complaints, correspondence, letters, memorials, telegrams, etc., since the 1st day of September, 1917, passing between the Post Office Department, the 
Post Office Inspector for Nova Scotia, and any other person or persons relating to the Post Office at Lower L'Ardoise, Nova Scotia.
Mr. ARCHAMiBAULT :
For a copy of the Order in Council appointing Mr. Main Johnson and passed under the War Measures Act as mentioned by Hon. Mr. Rowell on page 1350 of Unrevised Hansard.


Mr. CANNON:: For a copy of all documents or correspondence between the Hon. Albert Sdvigny and the Director General of Government Railways or the Superintendent of said railways ; also copy of the reports or inquiries held in connection with J. W. Boivin, Transcontinental Agent at St. Malachie, Dorchester County.
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS:


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER:: 1.	Is the Government aware that in the past sixteen months in the Cities of Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, the following quantities of foodstuffs are reported to have been ordered to be destroyed as unfit for human consumption:-
(a)	Meats: Winnipeg, 7,262 lbs.; Hamilton, 4,874 lbs.; Toronto, quantities not given in lbs., only sides, quarters, legs, etc.; Ottawa, 7,787 lbs. ; Montreal, 105,898 lbs.
(b)	Poultry: Winnipeg, 11,364 lbs.; Hamilton, 8 fowl; Montreal, 2,344 lbs.
(c)	Fish; Winnipeg, 9,066 lbs.; Toronto, 74,587 l'bs., weight not given, only number of packages for remainder; Montreal, 137,903 lbs.
(d)	Vegetables:	Winnipeg. 265,565 lbs.;
Toronto, 5,855 lbs. cabbage, the rest weight not given, only crates, baskets, etc., also recently 48,010 lbs., or 24 tons of food unfit for human consumption; Montreal. 13,940 lbs.
(e)	Eggs: Winnipeg, 3,013 lbs.; Hamilton, 40 doz.; Toronto, 1,050 doz., 6 tubs, 1 pail, and 8 gallons yolk.
(f)	Butter; Winnipeg, 3,374 lbs.; Hamilton, 22 lbs.
(g)	Fruit (fresh and dried) :	Winnipeg,
fresh, 46,375 lbs., dried, 37,207 lbs. ; Hamilton, fresh, 12 baskets ; Montreal, fresh, 3,362 lbs.
2.	If so, what action does the Government propose taking to -prevent a continuance of such waste?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Referring to the statements appearing in a despatch from Ottawa to the Toronto Globe, on Friday, April 19, 1918, in regard to Power for Munition Needs and the Government's connection therewith:-
L To what extent has the Government assisted the Imperial Munitions Board financially?
2.	When was Sir Henry Drayton appointed Power Controller?
3.	Had he been investigating matters connected with Power for Munitions or other important undertakings in advance of his appointment as Power Controller? If so, for how long?
4.	Had Sir Henry Drayton any actual previous experience operating large steam or water-power producing machinery?
5.	Did Sir Henry Drayton in or about the month of November, 1917. direct the Toronto Power Company to deliver a large amount of

power to the Ontario Power Company or to the Hydro Electric Power Commission? If so, upon what authority was the direction or message based?
6.	Has the Toronto Power Company rendered bills for supplying the power referred to in Question No. 5? If so, what is their total amount?
7.	Did the Power Controller make any arrangements whatever for the payment of the bills referred to in Question No. 6 either at the time referred to in Question No. 5, or at any subsequent time? If so, (a) what arrangements were made; (b) when were they made, and ic) what amounts, if any, have been paid and upon what dates were they paid?
8.	If Sir Henry Drayton failed or neglected to provide in advance for the payment of the bills in question will the Government or the Imperial Munitions Board be compelled to deal with them?
9.	The public press of April 19, 1918, credited Sir Henry Drayton with the following statement :-"I am sorry to have to report that, so far as hydraulic power is concerned, no more power is at present available." Upon what date did Sir Henry first learn that no more hydraulic power was available?
10.	Has Sir Henry Drayton authority to enforce the carrying out of any order or other direction, to (a) The Ontario Power Company, and (b) to the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, to deliver power to essential munition works or to other important war undertakings? If so, has he issued any such directions?
11.	When and in regard to what works or other undertakings were such orders or directions issued and have they been obeyed?
12.	Referring to another statement credited to Sir Henry Drayton in the public press of April 19, 1918, as follows ;-"The power shortage on the Hydro lines has to be admitted as resulting from contracts the Hydro has already made or assumed,"-can the Power Controller or the Government provide any measure of financial relief to those with whom the Hydro has failed to execute its contracts?
13.	Has the Power Controller issued lists of specific places or works to which power must be supplied in advance of all other places or works, on account of their importance as war works or necessities?
14.	If so:-(a) What places or works were enumerated? (b) Upon what dates were the lists issued? (c) How many horse-power were involved? (d) How many of the orders were obeyed, and when, in each case?
15.	Referring to the statement attributed to Sir Henry Drayton in the said Globe despatch of April 19, 1918, "that munitions plants were being insufficiently supplied with power, and that the nation's war effort was thereby hindered and impaired,"-upon what date did the Imperial Munitions Board first make such complaint?
16.	Referring to Sir Henry Drayton's statement that power had been supplied to the American Cyanamide Company, which was making fertilizers, but "in view of the emergency this supply was very properly cut off,"-did Sir Henry Drayton have anything whatever to do with the cutting-off of power to which the reference is made?
17.	When was that power first "cut-off," and what are the names of the more essential war works to which the power in question was diverted?
18. Referring further to the alleged statement by Sir Henry Drayton that "under an order made toy me, electricity is continued to be supplied by the Canadian Niagara to the Power Commission,"-has Sir Henry made any provision, upon which the Canadian Niagara Power Company can rely, for payment for the power to which he refers? If so, what are the details thereof?


PRIVATE BILLS LEGISLATION.
Robert Laird Borden: That owing to the advanced period of the Session the following Rules relating to Private Bills be suspended' for the remainder of the Session, viz:-Rules 28, 28A, 52, 10'3 and paragraph (a), subsection 3 of Rule 89 ; and that Private Bills reported on Private Bills days by any Select Standing Committee ibe placed on the Orders of the Day of the same day for consideration in Committee of the Whole amongst Private Bills, or if reported on days other than Private Bill days then immediately after Routine Proceedings.
He said: This is the motion which stood over Saturday at the request of the leader of the Opposition.


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope that my right hon. friend will not persist in this motion, which has reference to the safeguards which are provided in the rules of the House with regard to Private Bills. Many of the Private Bills which come before the House affect the rights of third parties-divorce Bills, for instance, or applications for patents, which we have before us very often. All the rules mentioned in this motion safeguard the rights of third parties who may have objection to such Bills. Without going in particular into any one of these rules, let me call attention to one or two. Rule 52 says:
Every Bill shall receive three several readings on different days, previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary occasions a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.
If we dispense with this rule a Private Bill may be railroaded through the House and a party who may desire to present his objections to it will have no opportunity of doing so. This rule has very seldom been departed from.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it has been usual at the end of each session to make some departure from the strictness of the rule.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not so wide a departure as this.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps this motion goes too far. I am not very familiar

with its terms; it came to me from the Private Bills Committee. Possibly it may require some modification.


Wilfrid Laurier: I should say so. Of course, in the case of a Bill of special urgency, it might be necessary to dispense with the rule that every Bill shall receive three different readings on different days, but to dispense with the rule altogether seems to be a very dangerous proceeding.


Mr. STEELE:: As Chairman of the
Private Bills Committee, I wish to say that if we are going to finish the business of the House this week, as I am sure every hon. member desires, practically all Private Bills will, unless there is some suspension of the rules, be blocked from now on.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many Private Bills are left?


Michael Steele: Quite a number. There are the Bills on the Order Paper to-day, and there are still some others to come over from the Senate. Under the ordinary rules it will be quite impossible for any of those Bills to be considered by the committee, brought hack to the House, put through the House in the usual way, and then go to the Senate and pass there. With the suspension of some of the rules, thus enabling the Bills to come'before the House without the delays consequent upon the rules, those Bills can be got through.


Wilfrid Laurier: Le,t my hon. friend bring his suggestion before the House in regard to each Bill. While there are many Bills, such as Bills of incorporation, to which I am .sure no objection can he taken, which do not affect any private rights, there are other Bills, such as Bills for divorce or for renewal of patents, in regard to which the rules should be rigidly enforced, because rights of third parties may be affected by them. If my hon. friend, who is Chairman of the Private Bills Committee, will explain the nature of such Bills, I think, by unanimous consent, they could be passed. It would be better to let the motion stand for to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: I entirely agree that the rule as to the readings might be eliminated from the motion, because that is a matter of importance.


Wilfrid Laurier: It w'ould be better to let flbe motion stand for to-day, so that the Chairman of the Private Bills Coro-
mittee may inquire to see how far his wishes may be met.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember ever seeing rule 52 suspended with regard to Private Bills. It seems to me that my right hon. friend is quite right in regard to that. The House, in regard to each Bill, should and can determine by unanimous consent. As far as the other rules are .concerned, I do not .see that there is any great importance connected with them. I have looked over them just now, and they seem to relate altogether to details, such as posting and other matters of that kind, which are really not very essential, because my impression, from more than twenty years' experience in this House, is that very few members go to the trouble of ascertaining whether the matter is posted or not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Unless a member has a Bill .of his own.


Robert Laird Borden: He will do so with regard to his own Bill, but as regards Bills of other members, he does not pay much attention to. those details.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. member (Mr. Steele) who so efficiently presides over the Private Bills Committee, attends the sittings of the House when any of the Bills come up, the House will accept his word that all interests have been safeguarded, and we can then proceed with the Bills.


Michael Steele: Besides that difficulty, there is the difficulty of getting the Bills before the House. Under the rules, the Bills which are on the Order 12 noon. Paper to-day, which came over from the Senate, cannot be considered by t.he Committee for at least twenty-four hours. That will preclude the report of the Committee on those Bills coming before the House until Friday evening, the first occasion on which, after Tuesday, Private Bills can be considered. One can well understand, if the House is to prorogue on Saturday, that we cannot deal with them after that.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think that perhaps the suggestion of my right hon. friend would be fulfilled if we..struck out rule 52 and paragraph 3, subsection (a) of rule 89, with regard to fees. Those would properly be determined in respect to each Bill. The other rules relate only to matters such as posting and other details, which, while very desirable, are not absolutely essential at this stage of the Session. The motion would then read:

That owing to the advanced period of the Session the following Rules reflating to Private Bills be suspended for the remainder of the Session, viz.:

Rules 28, 2S-A, and 103; and that Private Bills reported on Private Bills days by any Select Standing Committee be placed on the Orders of the Day of the same day for consideration in Committee of the Whole amongst Private Bills, or if reported on days other than Private Bill days then immediately after Routine Proceedings.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


THE CIVIL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
BILL to amend the civil service act

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 53, respecting the Civil Service of Canada.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair (From May 11.)
The CHAIRMAN:: When the Committee
rose on Saturday, we had reached section 35. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) had moved, in amendment, that subsection 2 of section 35 be amended by striking out all the words after the word "shall" in the second line of the said subsection, as far as the words "be dismissed from the public service" in the last line, so that the said subsection would now read:
Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall (be dismissed from the public service.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the section, as amended, be adopted?


Mr. TURRIFF:: I was not here on Saturday when this section was adopted. Was subsection 1 passed as it is in the Bill?


Georges Henri Boivin: Section 35 has not been adopted as yet.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think subsection 1 should be amended to provide that all civil servants appointed in the future should not have the privilege of voting. The Civil Service should not have the vote, but I should not like to take the vote away from any of those who *were appointed in the past when that was the law of the country. But if we now amend the Act to provide that any civil servant appointed in the future should not have the vote, then no one would have anything to complain of . because, if a person wishes to retain the vote, he need not take a position under the Government. It would be much better for the Service and for the country if the Civil Service did not have the franchise. We now propose to bring the Outside Service under this Act, and the Government is taking over a big mileage of railways and we shall have thousands and tens of thousands of officials under the Government, so that the question of this vote may be a serious one. It has been found better in the Old Country that civil servants should not vote. Very few of them now vote, and there is no doubt, if civil servants did not have the vote, we would have a better service, and there would be less politics in the Service and fewer dismissals of officials when there is a change of Government. I should like to see that subsection changed.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: It was the desire of the Government, in presenting this Bill to Parliament, to avoid the introduction of [DOT] any new matter other than was -absolutely necessary. My hon. friend's suggestion involves a very important principle, which will have to be considered some time, but I would not be disposed to view it favourably this session. When the Government, consolidates its railway interests in this country, it is probable that some provision will have to made- in respect to the railway employees voting at elections. In one of the provinces of Australia, I understand the railway employees have the right of selecting a parliamentary representative from among themselves. I do not know just what the details of the legislation are, but there is undoubtedly something to be said in its favour. For a great number of years the civil servants in England were debarred from voting; that rule was afterwards relaxed, but in the last fifteen years I understand that efforts have been made on many occasions by members of the British House ' of Commons to revert to the old rule. Ho-wever, I think it is too late in the session to take into consideration a matter of such importance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
.Mr. BUREAU: Before proceeding with the next section I would remind the minister to what took place last Saturday in connection with section 30. I took exception to that section -as not being absolutely in line with the principle of the Bill, which was to abolish the abuse of patronage, and the minister said :
Mr. A. K. Maclean: Let us pass the section, and we will revert to it later.
Mr. Bureau: How can we revert to It if we pass it?
Mr. A. K. Maclean: By consent of the committee.
Mr. Bureau : I understand that the idea is to pass the Bill to-night, and then we shall hear no more of it. If the Bill is not to pass to-
[Stage Direction]
night, all right; I reserve the right, with the consent of the Government, to coijie back to this section later.
I should like to come back to this section for just a moment. The exception I took to this section on Saturday was this: During the general discussion of the principle of this Bill it was staked by every member who addressed the committee that the object was to make the Civil Service a career so that the best possible men would come into it, and with that in view, political influence was to be abolished in the matter of appointments and dismissals. I am in favour of that principle, and in favour of this Bill, hut I do not want a sham Bill, or a Bill whose pretended good effects will disappear as soon as the legislation has been prut on the statute book. The great complaint about patronage in the past has been not so much concerned with appointments as with dismissals; lor every ten lines of Hansard relating to appointments there are ten pages relating to dismissals'. I claim that if we want to make the Civil Service efficient, if we want to induce men of ability to enter it-, we must give these men some protection. Now, this section gives no protection whatever to the men who enter the Civil Service. Of course, I may be told not to think that the heads of departments are going to act in an arbitrary way. But we never know What may happen. We have seen things dqne in the last few years which we never would have dreamt of. But assuming that the head of a department or the deputy head will never *arbitrarily dismiss a man, there nevertheless remains the fear in the heart of a man who may seek an appointment that he is liable to be dismissed at the caprice of the minister or the whim of the deputy head. When I brought this question up on Saturday the minister said that he did not see how the section could be amended. The power to dismiss must remain in the Government, he said. I do not share the view of the minister. The object of this Bill is not only to control appointments, hut to show the people of this country that the Union Government is determined to carry out its promise of abolishing patronage. I understand that its object is to better the conditions o-f the Civil Service so that men of ability will be induced to devote their services to the country, that salaries will be increased, and that there will he a more careful picking of tthe best men. The Minister of Customs said on Saturday that he did not see how the section could be

amended very well. Now, I have prepared an amendment which I am going to submit to the committee. If it is rejected I shall nevertheless feel I have done my duty by trying to protect the Civil Service as far as possible. I therefore beg to move that the following be substituted for section 30:
Subject to the provisions of section 3 of this Act the power to remove or dismiss any deputy head, officer, clerk or employee shah vest in the Commission.
Before exercising such power the Commission shall require a statement in writing from the minister in the case of a deputy head, and1 .from the deputy head in all other cases, giving the causes, reasons and facts invoked for such dismissal. Upon receipt of such statement in writing the Commission shall forthwith communicate a copy of same to the deputy head or other employee whose dismissal is sought. The deputy head or employee shall within three days after the reoeipt of copy of said statement file with the Commission a statement in writing in answer to such charges, in default of which the Commission may proceed on the statement submitted' asking for dismissal.
That provides for notice being given to the man whose head is at stake that he is charged with such and such an offence, and gives him the opportunity an accused enjoys in any court of law of making answer to those charges. If the accused does not submit an answer within three days, the commission can proceed ex parte on the statement submitted asking for dismissal. I think this amendment, if adopted, will protect the civil servants; it will also serve to test whether this Bill has not been brought forward knowing that it is lame in many respects. If we are going to improve the Civil Service we want people to know that the country is willing to protect the members of the service, and we do not want to leave in the hands of a minister or deputy minister the right to dismiss an employee at will. Some one may object that section 30 does not provide for dismissal by the minister or deputy minister, but by the Governor in 'Council, but we all know how that works out. The Cabinet is now composed of twenty-three or twenty-five members, and each member has ten or a dozen commissions to supervise, as well as the legislation of his department to look after. The consequence is that when a minister comes before council with a recommendation for such a paltry thing ias the dismissal of an employee, the recommendation will not be inquired into very closely, and the minister's colleagues will let it go through as a matter of courtesy. My amendment may be voted down, but, I repeat, I have submitted it for two pur-

poses, first to protect 'Government employees and secondly, to test the good faith of those who are promoting this Bill. _
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not understand why it is necessary to .suggest that the amendment is submitted to test the good faith of those who are promoting this Bill. My hon. friend, I think, is illogical there. It is quite true that the question of dismissals from the Civil Service has been more or less a political question. But the Governor in Council has never been in the habit of diemissing employees of the Inside Service; at least, I know of very few cases in which any employee of the Inside Service has been dismissed by the Government except for cause. I think that every regard has been paid to that part of the Civil Service in which appointments are made by competitive examination and promotions made upon merit. Inasmuch as the system of competitive examination and promotion by merit is to be applied to the Outside Service, I think it is not necessary to suggest that the power tof dismissal be placed in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. Many hon. members have been protesting against this Bill on the ground that it will create a powerful bureaucracy. This is carrying that idea farther. I .think it is perfectly sound to say that the phwer of dismissal should rest with the Governor in Council. Civil servants are employees of the Government, and I do not think the power of dismissal should rest anywhere except with that body. I do not think the civil servant would suffer in any respect whatever by the power resting with the Governor in Council. It is preferable that it should be there.


Mr. H. A MACKIE:: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau) allow his amendment to stand until we have had an opportunity of seeing it in writing and studying it? Some of the things suggested by the hon. gentleman commend themselves to me, but I would desire to criticise some other portions of the amendment. I do not, however, feel like doing so until I have had an opportunity of seeing the amendment in writing and considering it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We will revert to that when we reach the end of the Bill.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Might I suggest to the hon. member (Mr. Bureau) that he shonld shorten his amendment and confine it to the question of whether the power of dismissal should rest with the commission or the Government; leaving out the provision that in each case there should be 117
a trial to determine whether a man should be discharged or not? That seems admissible to a certain extent, but it might not be a good idea to have a trial in every particular case. It seems to me that that would be impracticable. If the amendment could be confined to the question as to whether the dismissal should be made by the commission or by the Government, and if that question were dealt with by itself, it would perhaps be better.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend (Air. Bureau) might have copies of his amendment made at noon and circulate them among the members. We shall revert to that clause when we come to the end of the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: I just drafted the clause since I came into the Chamber, but I bavie thought it over. I am willing to accept any suggestion, the adoption of which will ensure the protection; of the civil servant. I do not object to the power of dismissal remaining in the Governor in. Council, but I think we should make a provision that when a minister makes a recommendation to Council fox the dismissal of a civil servant the brief of the employee answering the charges made against him should be attached to the recommendation so that the Governor in Council may have both sides. The 'hon. the Acting Minister of Finance says that I am illogical, but my position is this:	This Bill is brought before the House for the purpose of keeping a political pledge, and if so all these various clauses are useless. The pledge that was made, as shown in the Order in Council of the 13th February, 1918, and in the words of the Prime Minister was "Civil Service reform with the view of .extending the principle of the Civil Service Act to the Outside Service." I want to impress the Committee with a realization of the meaning of these words; they mean abolishing patronage. The promise was made that patronage should be abolished and that the Outside Service, as well as the Inside Service, should be brought under the Civil Service Commission. If that is all you propose to do, 1 do not see why you should pass this Act. On the other hand, if your object is to improve the Civil Service Act, I would say: Let us go into- it, make our suggestions, discuss them and see whether we cannot improve the existing Act. It has been stated by the Acting Alinister of Finance that there are only a few clauses to be changed. I think -we ought to change more if we are going to take the matter up. I believe in improving the Act, and I



believe in doing it this session. To say that we can amend the Act again next session, is no reason why we should not pass the best Bill that, in the limited time at our disposal, we can agree upon.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We will let the clause stand and I will confer with my *hon. friend with regard to it.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 36-record of attendance:


William Garland McQuarrie: The punctuation of this section is defective. If you will look at the last part of it you will see that it says:
At such times as are determined by the deputy head ot the department or some other device.
I take it that the other device is not going to determine the time, but that it means that there shall be a book or some other device or system' for keeping a check on the attendance of employees.


An hon. MEMBER:: A time clock.


William Garland McQuarrie: A time clock, for instance; I suppose that is the idea.
Mr. A. K. MA'OLEAN: Yes, that is what is used now.


William Garland McQuarrie: I suggest that after the word " determined " in the 43rd line you put in a semicolon, or some other proper punctuation.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Is it not the rule that time clocks are used for this purpose in almost all departments of the service?


John Gillanders Turriff: Under this clause as it is proposed each department will be able to have a different system. At present there is a great deal of difference in the manner *in which the departments record the .attendance oLdtmir officials. Usually there is a 'book to be signed. In some of the departments the officials have to sign the hook when they come in, when they go out at noon, when they come back after lunch and when they leave. In other departments the official signs the book when he comes in the morning and when he goes in the afternoon but at no other time. In some of the departments at half past nine a red line is drawn below the signature of those who have come in on time and all those who are late sign under the red line, thus there is a record showing whether they are late or not.
In other departments there is no red line drawn and no record taken. The official is allowed to mark his time whenever he likes.
f(Mr. Bureau.]
If he comes in at 9.30 a.m. and chooses to mark hie arrival at 9.15 aim., that is all there is to it and he gets no black mark. I claim there should be some uniformity in the system that is followed. If only to sign twice is the proper thing, well and good, but have it apply to every department. I think it is a mistake to leave it to the deputy minister, or the head of the department, to say what system shall be followed. The Civil Service Commision should have the necessary power, and there should be one uniform rule for every department in the Service.


Mr. MORPHY:: I would suggest that the best way to fix the matter would be to have a short section reading something like this:
There shall he kept and' used in each branch of the Civil Service a hook, system, or device, approved toy the Commission, for preserving a record of the attendance of officers, clerks, and employees.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am willing to accept that amendment.


Georges Henri Boivin: The section as amended will now read:
There shall be kept and used in each branch of the Civil Service a ibook, system or device, approved by the Commission, for preserving a record- of the attendance of officers, clerks and employees.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 37-Part of Act to apply to
officers of Parliament.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is the same as the old section.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We are retaining control of the employees of the House of Commons and the Senate?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 38-Work during recess.
John Gillanders Turriff: Will the minister explain just what privileges the staffs of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Parliamentary Library, enjoy during recess.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A number of the staffs of the Parliamentary Library, the Senate and House of Commons are only employed for a few months of the year, or, perhaps, during the session only. In the case of some employees their remuneration is a per diem one, and the present provision is to enable them to take outside work at the close of the session. The clause is an old one.


John Gillanders Turriff: The leading officials of the House of Commons, the Senate and the

Library are all permanent officials, as I understand, and are paid salaries on the same scale as the officials in the other departments-I mean deputies, chief clerks, and the higher classes of officials. They are paid annual salaries and are not employed simply for the session.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I suppose the
Hansard reporters come under this clause?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Hansard reporters have always been permitted to work outside after the close of Parliament. That has been the rule. But the number who are continually employed is growing, I understand, each year. I do not know much about the personnel of that part of the Civil Service.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It seems to me that all these officers should come under the supervision and direction of the Civil Service Commission. It may be that we pay large salaries to a large number of these officers, for the few months of the session, sufficient, perhaps, to keep them. Then, if they are able to earn other large salaries, perhaps their income is too great. I think they should be put under the control of the commission, so that the commission may see that the country avails itself of the services of these officials during the period they are not working for Parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will
see that we must not curtail the privileges enjoyed by the House of Commons and the Senate. We must observe the traditions which exist not only here but in England. We have the same traditions as they have in England, and there the Hansard reporters are on exactly the same footing as they are here. Take, for instance, the Hansard reporters: they work during the session, and everybody will admit that they do excellent work. After the session, what prevents them from being engaged in repor-torial woTk, for instance in investigations and matters of that kind? They are supposed to he the most expert stenographers in the country, and, for my part, after they have done arduous work during a long session, I would not object to their acting as reporters in investigations.


Charles Murphy: The information sought
has reference not to exactly the class of officers of which my hon. friend from Maisonneuve has just spoken, but to the staff employed by the Parliamentary library, I understand, having regard to the wording of this section. My impression is that in addition to the regular and well known employees of the library, with whom
13 7i	;
all members of Parliament and the public generally, are constantly in contact, there are several extra taken on during the session, and that a distinction obtains with reference to their employment under this section, and that it applies rather to that group. HoweveT, I would suggest to the acting minister that .he might make inquiries and inform the committee this afternoon. ,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think a great deal will depend upon what salary is paid the officials of Parliament and of the Library. If they receive a very substantial salary, then I think their whole time should be devoted to the public, service. The Speaker of the House of Commons is now engaged in the preparation of a report upon the reorganization of the staff of the House, and while I am not sure that it will be presented to Parliament this Session, i,t will be next Session; and after we have received that report we may take into consideration the suggestion to amend this clause.


John Allister Currie: Is this the same clause we have been working under in the past?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is an old clause; there is not a word changed.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Because it is old may be a very good reason why it should be changed.


John Allister Currie: So far as I can see this affects the reporters and the sessional clerks, and assistance brought in during the Session. There has been no complaint that officers who are getting large salaries go away and leave the Library or other offices in the interval between the Sessions and neglect their work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are doing excellent work.


John Allister Currie: Yes; and the Library is open during the Recess as it is during the Session. But after the Session is over, there will be nothing for the Hansard reporters to do but to sit down and waste their time around here, and they are not paid sufficiently well to warrant the House in retaining their services. They go outside and do outside work as the ex-minister has stated. 1 think it is only fair to them that they ishould be allowed to do that extra work, because if we do not allow them to do that, we must substantially increase their salaries; which would involve adding fully one-third more to the expenditure of the House.

Mir. A. K. MACtLEAN: We must have the clause in in some form.


Robert Lorne Richardson: On the assurance of the minister that we shall get a report from the Speaker-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Speaker is now engaged in the preparation of a report on the organization of the House.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If this House could get a report from the Speaker, or some authoritative official, as to the number of men included in this clause, the salaries they get, and the amount of work-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The character of the service.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The character of the service, and the period of service they render to this House, I would be disposed to withdraw any objection. But I do not agree with my hon. friend from Maison-neuve that we should have any particular regard to British or any other traditions. What this House wants is service, and service from all officers, and if it does not geit it they should be dismissed. We should insist on service.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think the minister's idea of waiting for the report of the Speaker of the House is a very good one. I have not the slightest intention of interfering with the official stenographers during recess; they work here, I understand, by the day during the session. Under this clause as it stands, the permanent officers of the Senate and of the Commons and of the Library of Parliament, drawing from $2,000 to $5,000 a year in salaries, can, this year, for a ten months' interval, go out and compete with others who have not a big Government salary at their back. I do not know that they do that; I have never heard of their doing that; and I do not think it is likely. At the same time, it is quite possible for them to do so under this clause, and I think iit should be amended in that respect. It is .all right now, -when labour is scarce, and when several departments are looking for workers all the time, for these officials to do extra work. But, ordinarily, it is not fair to the outside public to have an official drawing a big salary from the Government go out and compete with ordinary labour during one-half of the year.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: For the benefit of the Civil Service Commission, I would like to speak of a practice that prevails here in

Ottawa. The employees of the Members' Stenographers' branch in the House receive $75 a month, and I believe they occupy their- positions only temporarily. But some of the departments of the Government aTe very bard pressed to get stenographers and are paying $1,200 a year, whereas the employees I have referred to, during the temporary period, which period usually brings larger pay, because Parliament cannot go on without them, are getting $900-


Mr. McISAAC:: At the rate of $900 pe<r year.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes. I mention the fact so that the Civil Service Commission can consider the anomalous situation which apparently exists. I know tlhat some m-ambers of that staff have been here for some years, and were induced, through the importunity of the chief of the members' stenographers' staff, to -leave positions paying them $1,200 to come and work here.
There came a time during this session when the staff was thirty short, Mr. Smith told me that it was very difficult indeed to get the number necessary to complete his staff; he had to advertise for them throughout the country. The efficiency of this service is impaired because of the fact that those engaged in it are not sufficiently paid.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the deficiency was due to the fact that the several War Commissions required large numbers of stenographers. They employed their own stenographic staff before the passage of the Order in Council, but since that date employees of these commissions have been appointed by the Civil Servce Commission, and there is not that wide discrepancy in the salaries that prevailed last year. I think $900 is the maximum ordinarily given to stenographers, outside of these commissions; though possibly in some of the departments where experts are required higher salaries are paid.


James McIsaac: This section provides that Hansard reporters may engage in 'other work during the recess. Doe's this mean governmental work-in connection with investigations or such work as the Government may have-or outside work? [DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They may engage in private work.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 39-Civil Service list:
Jacques Bureau: What changes have been made from the old Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: "April" is substituted for "July," in the provision as to the date of submitting the report. The words -"the appointments and promotions made" have been inserted in line 39; the words "transfers, exchanges" in line 41, and the words "both Houses of" before the word "Parliament" in line 44.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I wish to move an addition to this clause, in the following words:
2. The Commission shall prepare a report separate from the Civil Service list of Canada, giving the names of all appointees for the current year, the positions to which they have been appointed, and their salaries; also the promotions, transfers and exchanges made during the year and the names of any of the relatives by blood or marriage that any of them may have in the Civil Service or the public service at the date of their appointment, promotion or transfer.
My object is to give publicity to the names of appointees who have relatives in, the service. The proposal is not to exclude from the service any person who has relatives in it, but to provide a check on the deputy ministers, which is possible only through a report to Parliament.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If we are to have appointment to the service on the basis of competitive examination or of promotion by merit, surely relationship to somebody else already in the service should not make any difference. My hon. friend's suggestion is rather destructive of the principle of appointment to the service by competitive examination.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not agree with that, because if the Act passes in its present form a deputy minister may set aside, after a short period of probation, the man standing highest in the competitive examination and put somebody else in. This Act puts the whole service into the hands of the deputy ministers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Everything is done on the recommendation of the deputy minister; in the last analysis he has control of the appointments. The fact that an efficient man might not suit him is recognized by a provision that a man selected by the commission and rejected by the deputy may appeal to the commission. There cannot be any objection to our getting full information with regard to appointments and promotions, and that information should include a list of those appointed under the 'competitive system and of those who, selected [by the commission, have not been found satisfactory by
the deputy minister and have been replaced by some one else.


William Garland McQuarrie: It does not make any difference how many members of one family or how many persons of one relationship are in the Service, provided each one is capable of carrying out hie duties properly Something has been said by way of criticism of the Auditor General because a number of his relatives are in the Service.
I do not know anything about the facts of that particular case or the capabilities of the different [members of his family, who are in the Service, but the point is whether of not they are doing their work properly^ I think that this part of my hon. friend's proposed amendment should, in any event, toe struck out.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: Is it possible, in the ordeT of selection by the commission, that relatives of those already in the Service can, have precedence over .anybody else? If. it is possible, in the making of selections, for heads of departments to choose whom they please, then my hon. friend's amendment is apropos; if not, T do not see that it is necessary
Mr. A. K. iMAOLEAN: The heads of departments make no appointments. They make recommendation for promotion, but that is subject to the approval of the Civil Service Commission. If they desire the appointment of an official, they make a request to the Civil 'Service Commission for such an appointment, and the commission proceeds to make the appointment. My hon. friend from West Toronto ('Mr. Hocken) seeks to destroy nepotism by publicity-I presume that is the purport of his amendment-but it is open to the objection which I stated a few moments ago. Under the Civil Service Act, appointments are to be made upon the competitive system. If that principle is sound, then I think relationship with any others in the Civil Service should hardly be a bar to promotion or appointment.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the objection?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There was some criticism of recent appointments made by the Auditor General, and perhaps that criticism may be well founded. Generally speaking, however, I do not think there have been in [the past years abuses of that kind in the Inside Service at Ottawa. At least, I have never heard of them.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Although I have been in the House only a few days, I have heard


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I beg leave to withdraw
my amendment.
(Motion agreed to.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I now beg to move that section 39 be amended by adding after the word " made " in line 39 the following:
-and the names of any relatives by blood or marriage that any person so appointed, transferred, or promoted may have in the Government, in the Senate, in the House of Commons, or in the Civil Service at the time of such appointment, transfer or promotion.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the object of the amendment?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is to have a report by" the Civil Service Commission of the number

of relatives that each person may have in the Civil Service at the time of his appointment, transfer or promotion.
iMr. JOSEPIH HEAD: I presume the object is to obviate nepotism, which is so rampant at the present time.


Frank S. Cahill: What has that got to do with this Bill?


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: It is an effort to
put a stop to nepotism.


Frank S. Cahill: I do not think it matters whether a m.an has relatives in the service or not. We should trust the Civil Service Commission and the officials of the Government.


William Foster Cockshutt: It can do no- harm.


Frank S. Cahill: What good can it do?
'Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:	It seems to
me we would make very much more sensible progress, to say the least, in discussing a matter that deals with the whole Civil Service of Canada, embracing some seventy thousand employees, if we came down from the air and treated the whole subject from a practical point of view. Just such a step as is contemplated by the amendment was taken by some of the large corporations in this country some twenty or twenty-five years ago but it was found to be absolutely unworkable and inapplicable. The plan followed by the most successful corporations in this country in employing men is not to discourage the appointment of those who have relatives in their service, but just the reverse. They do not consider it a detriment to a man to have relatives already in their service. To my mind the amendment would bring into contumely efficient public servants just because they had in some other department of the service a cousin or a brother or a father. The whole thing is entirely out of harmony with what in my judgment should be the aim in securing an efficient public service. If the apprehensions that have been expressed on the floor of this House with regard to the deputy ministers and those in charge of departments are justified, I think it is time we set about to find a group of honest onen to place at the head of those departments. Personally it has not been either my pleasure or my misfortune to be brought into, very close touch with the cloven-hoof breed from which these men are evidently recruited if they are what they have been represented to be. If they are of that breed, we should certainly try to find means of getting rid

of them, because in an efficient public service it is necessary to have honest -men at the head of departments. I do not wish to be understood as casting reflection on these men. I have heard them referred to in commendable terms as being efficient, honest, hard-working and painstaking officials, anxious to do- their duty to their country. But to entertain the suspicion that they are constantly trying to load the public service with inefficient employees just because they happen to be their relatives is to my mind an insult. That is what the amendment is to my mind. If the men at the head of departments of the public service are so small and narrow as to be influenced by considerations of that kind, we had better get rid of them and find other men big enough to do the work.


Mr. HENDERS:: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Nicholson). If the Civil Service Commission has not for its object the elimination of the evils that are sought to be prevented by this amendment, I fail to see of what use the commission is. As the commission is to hold competitive examinations they and the deputy ministers and the ministers should be responsible fox seeing that the proper persons are appointed to the .service, and if the commissioners do not do their duty the Parliament of Canada can get others in their place.


Mr. MANION:: In what way would the commission find out what relatives a man had in the public service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Personally I am not favourably disposed towards this amendment, and I fail to see how the commission could get the information. They may be able to get it to a certain extent, but it would entail a great deal of work and, I should imagine, an increase in their staff.


Robert James Manion: If this amendment were carried it seems to me it would be simply putting a premium on lying. The only way the commissioni can find out the relatives of an applicant is by asking him, and if the man happened to be inclined to tell a lie would simply say he had no relatives in the service, but if he is truthful, and says " I am a cousin or a distant relation of the Minister of Finance " why should we cast a slur upon him? His appointment might be just as legitimate as that of anybody else to the service. I do not think the amendment is a. good one.
Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR: I wish to record my opposition to this amendment. It is not so important that we should spend
a great deal of time in discussing it, but I do not think it adds anything to the Bill, and it would be rather undignified for the House ito pass it. The responsibility must rest upon the commission to appoint the best men they can get. I do not care who the man may be related to if he happens to be the best man available for the position. The only party that would be accused of nepotism in connection with appointments to the public service would be the party in power. The ministers of the Crown are the parties who have the say as to whether 'a man -should be appointed ot not, or who would have any opportunity of influencing the commission. I regret that the hon. member for West Tbronto (Mr. Hocken) has so little confidence in the administration as to move such an amendment as this.


John Allister Currie: I do not think this amendment would have been moved had it not been- that 'several times during this year the question of nepotism has come up in this House and has caused what we might call a mild form of scandal. There is the case o-f the Auditor General, a man whom we all respect. It has heen stated in this House that he virtually compelled the commission to appoint his sons to lucrative office in the public service. The Auditor General is the man Who supervises the service of everybody in the department, and he would he a rash man, indeed, even if he weTe a minister, who would refuse him an appointment. Another case is that oi my esteemed and gallant friend, Colonel Labatt. Colonel Labatt is a man who is quite capable of standing on his own merits anywhere, but he has the political misfortune to be related by marriage to three ministers of the Crown and his case has been cited all over the country as being one of nepotism and favouritism and -sneers have been indulged in with regard to his appointment. In view of the.fact that these prominent cases have come to our attention, I think the time is opportune to take some stand with regard to the matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Civil Service Commission never issued any certificate in connection with the appointment of the son of the Auditor General.
Mr. -CURRIE: How did he get the appointment?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He did not get a
certificate.


John Allister Currie: He did not need a certificate because, being a lawyer, his technical qualifications were such as to qualify him for the job.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The case is in dispute yet.


John Allister Currie: I do not object'to Mr. Fraser's son getting an appointment; he may be the very best man in Ottawa for it. I do not think this case should influence anybody but still the fact remains that it has had a certain effect upon the public mind. The suggestion is made that when the House is dealing with this matter now it would be advisable to have something put in the Act as a check, or a brake, on deputy ministers so that they would not put all of their own families into office. We are all human; everybody is human. This would not prevent a deputy minister from putting his son into a job in the service that possibly called for a very high salary, such as a position in the first division, but if the deputy minister knew that he would have to state that the man whom he had appointed was his son and that that report -would be presented to this House, he would hesitate. It is puerile to say that all this information cannot be easily obtained by the Civil Service Commission and that before a man is appointed the commission cannot ascertain whether he is the relative of any person already in the service, whether he is a Protestant, a Roman Catholic, or a member of any other religion, his age and whether married or single. To find that out does -not require a staff of 300 or 400 people. In view of the agitation which has gone out all through the country because some of these things have come to the attention of the public within the last four or five months, we should do something to avoid any complaint in the future as far as nepotism is concerned. Everybody knows that possibly 65 per cent of the deputy ministers of the Crown are either ex-members of Parliament, defeated candidates or men who have been in politics. I think they are a very efficient lot of men but my experience is that both out of office and in office they are very strong partisans. I found during the regime of the old Government that when I recommended an efficient man for appointment to the service, because he belonged to one party and the deputy minister belonged to the other, the appointee's tenure of office would only be a few months. Some excuse was found and he would be put out of his position. Those deputy ministers be-

long to the old regime. Until we create a set of deputy ministers who are neutral we will have this strong party bias manifested in the administration of the departments. The old political parties are not dead yet. There is a lot of the old Adam in people at the present time and you cannot eliminate it. Perhaps after all, it is better that we should stick to the party system because my researches in history have shown me that the only safety for the people's liberties lies in party and not in faction.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I fail to see that there is anything wrong with this amendment. I have not heard any strong argument why such an amendment should not be passed, and I think some very forcible arguments have been presented why it should be passed. There is no doubt that in the public mind the idea is that nepotism and favouritism exist; that is the putting into positions, 'sometimes with large emoluments, of people who have nothing to recommend them except the pressure and influence exerted by their friends. It is no doubt true that in the city of Ottawa there are many families who have extraordinary advantages, in that members of these families have been placed one after another in positions in the Civil Service. Living next door to a widow with a couple of girls who have no influence, no one to go and put in a word for them, you may find a family with six or seven members in the Civil Service and another one growing up and also getting into the Civil Service, while the widow and her two children have no chance whatever. It is all very well to say that this is done by examination. Of course it is, but the fact remains that one can bring pressure and influence to bear and the other cannot. I do not say that necessarily the commission would be unduly influenced, but, as the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) says, we are all human. The principle of the amendment offered by the hon. member for West Toronto is something that this House and the country can understand. What wrong will be done by giving the lever to the Civil Service Commission that this amendment will give, and enabling it to say, when somebody -wants to get a position, "It is true you have passed the examination, but here is a person who has also passed the examination; you have six members of your family in the service already; you cannot get the position." It is about time that somebody took hold of the affairs of the country along the line which the amend-

ment suggests, so that favouritism shall be *abolished.
What do to hear every day from the military service point of view? The cry is put up: This family has two hoys gone to the front, you should not .take the last one. By analogy I would like to see-when a family has been well taken care of in the Civil Service by a number of its members being employed,-the same principle act in the opposite way, and have it declared: You shall not go into the Civil Service, because there has been enough done by the country for your brothers and sisters.
I find myself in this matter desirous of corroborating the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), because to my knowledge, obtained in a casual way, there is a great abuse in the practice which is aimed at and sought to be stopped by this amendment. It does seem to me that unless some sound reason to the contrary is furnished, the amendment should be adopted. It does not do merely to say that because certain persons are competent to do the work, that therefore they should he appointed. I am assuming the competency of ten members of a family, but I do not see why those ten persons should be given positions when there are other persons standing by who ought to be chosen, who are equally competent, who have passed the necessary examination, but are not able to get a hearing before the powers that he- they have not got the aggression or knowledge of the way to go about it,-and, therefore, they suffer.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It seems to me that we should not worry about the possible effects of this amendment. It is not going to interfere with any appointments that are being made, it is not going to prove a bar to the appointment of even relatives. Hon. members who have studied the Civil Service, and know anything about the condition of affairs, will agree with me that we ought not to be too delicate about hurting the feelings of civil servants in this country. We have had whole families living at the public crib; sisters, cousins, and aunts, have all piled in. The average member of Parliament knows nothing about this, but it is an absolute fact. The amendment of the member for Toronto is only designed to guard against a certain state of affairs, and to protect the public and the Civil Service itself. As I said, it is not going to prove any bar to the appointment of any person to the Civil Service, but the amendment embodied in the Act will be a deterrent to deputy
ministers and to other civil servants, and through its agency we will probably put a check upon nepotism. Those of us who know anything about the conduct of the Civil Service know that nepotism has been rampant in the country for the last thirty or forty yeare. We need not worry aboht whether there is a precedent for our action or not. This is a Union Government, composed of, and supported toy, two parties, and it can afford to establish precedents. What do we care about British or other traditions in connection with this matter? We are trying to do the best we can for the people, and God knows they need some service at the present time. If, by the introduction of this amendment, we can prevent nepotism and assist the people of the country in saving a little money, by all means let us adopt the amendment.


Frank S. Cahill: As I apprehend^ it, the
Civil Service Commission are to conduct examinations and pass on all appointments.
I, for one, am assuming that the Civil Service Commission is composed of honest and honourable men. If they are, I cannot understand why we should clutter up their report with the names of aunts, cousins, brothers, sisters or any other relatives that .may be in the service of the country. If there is an application from a person to be appointed to the Civil iService, and he is not qualified, having a brother or a cousin already there is not going to get him into the service. If he is qualified for the position the Civil Service Commission will recommend him, otherwise they will not.


Henry Arthur Mackie: If there were ten
relatives of an official of the Government who made application for an examination, and all passed, how will the amendment prevent any one of them from being appointed?


Robert Lorne Richardson: It does not prevent their appointment; that is why I say it should pass.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Then what is the use of the amendment?


Robert Lorne Richardson: It would not prevent it if there were fifteen such persons. Even supposing there were twenty-four members of a family, coming, say, from the province of Quebec, where they raise large families, they might all get into the service, and this amendment would not prevent it. But surely there is no harm in adopting the amendment eo that a light should be

thrown on what is being' done, and, moreover, as I say; it constitutes a check upon nepotism.


William Garland McQuarrie: The remarks I made this morning upon a previous amendment *apply equally to the present one, and I *have been wondering whether the mover of the present -amendment has really considered what it means. It provides that upon the appointment, transfer or promotion of persons the names shall be given of any relatives, by blood or marriage that any of them may have in the Civil Service or public service. In my opinion, the thing is absurd. Take my own case, for instance. My wife has sixty first cousins, and I have about thirty. Besides, there are uncles and aunts, and grandfathers and grandmothers.


An hon. MEMBER:: And grandchildren.


William Garland McQuarrie: And grandchildren.
It seems to me there must be some limitation to the degree of consanguinity in applying the word "relatives." Otherwise, you impose a task on the Civil Service Commission that would take up all their time.


Jacques Bureau: They would need a staff of investigators.


William Garland McQuarrie: They certainly would need an additional staff to work out the family tree for generations back, and include it in this report of theirs. Speaking seriously, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that, the amendment is impracticable, and that it is a joke.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I did not have the good fortune to hear the discussion on this *question this morning, as I was attending the sittings of a committee of the House, buit I can see very little abjection to the amendment which has been offered. We were given to understand that one of the objects of the Bill was to do away with the influence that might be exerted in securing appointments. Now, we are told that it would be a reflection on some people if lists of their relatives were published.
I have -been in public life, more or less, for sixteen years-including service in the provincial as well as the Federal House- and during that time, so far as 'I know, not one relation of mine, either by blood or marriage has occupied a position in the service, of either the province or the Dominion. Therefore, I am not as sensitive *about publication in this matter as some other gentlemen may be. There is a suspicion in the minds of the people, and it is useless trying to ignore it, that friends of the Government have received favours in-
directly at the hands of those who have a right to recommend appointments. You cannot pick up a newspaper these last few days without reading a reference to something of the kind. I think the amendment is a very good one, and it will tend to check anything of that nature. I regret that it should be necessary to provide such safeguards, but I have no more confidence in the Civil Service Commission than I have in a great many other people, and for that reason I do not see any reason why the light of publicity should not be flashed upon -every appointment made to the Civil Service in Canada.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: My main reason for not supporting the amendment is that I do not see what purpose will be served by it. As my hon. friend from Edmonton has said, there will be nothing to prevent the appointment of nine or ten members of the same family provided they pass the required examination. The amendment will not remedy the evil complained of. As to the evil of nepotism in the Civil Service and its elimination, I agree entirely with the hon. gentleman, but it should be made a matter of a special amendment, as it is in the American Civil Service Act. There is a -section in that Act providing as follows :
9. That whenever there are already two or more members of a family in the public service in the grades covered by this Act, no other member of such family shall be eligible to appointment to any of said grades.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: As to, the objection offered by the hon. membeT for New Westminster (Mr. McQuaxrie) a few minutes ago as to the meaning of the word " family," I notice a decision Which has been rendered stating:
The family consists of those who live under the same roof with the pater-familias-those who form. .. .his fireside; -but when they branch out and become heads of new establishments they cease to be part of the father's family.
So my hon. friend's *conscienoe need not be troubled.


William Garland McQuarrie: If the hon. gentleman has reference to me, I did not speak about the meaning of the word " family," but the word " relative." That is quite a different thing.


Ernest Lapointe: I see the difference.


William Garland McQuarrie: I agree with the hon. gentleman regarding the word " family."


Ernest Lapointe: It would be easily overcome by using the word " relative','' instead O'f " family." So I will say to my hon. friend that if, instead of pressing his amendment, he moves to have a special clause in the Bill similar to that in the Civil Service Act of the United States, I shall be inclined to vote in favour of it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There is nothing in my amendment which will prevent the hon. member introducing a clause such .as he suggests, and it might very well supplement my amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw yours.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member for Algoma that I am trying to exclude a man from the public service who already has a relative in the public service. That is not the purpose of the amendment at all.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no advantage secured by the hon. member's amendment, and it will cost several thousand dollars a year to get the information.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr.  A. K. MAGLEAN@: It would cost several thousand dollars, and it would probably require volumes as large as the thrde volumes of the Auditor General's Report.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. A. K. iMAGLEAN:	Two thousand
have been added to the Civil Service since the thirteenth day of February by the Civil Service 'Commission, and it may very well happen that in a full year five or six thousand would be appointed. If such appointees had relatives to the number the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) has intimated, a simple mathematical computation would ascertain what size of a volume it would take. Did my hon. friend hear the section which is in the American 'Civil Service Act?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: 
Horatio Clarence Hocken: 
William Garland McQuarrie: I did not mean that exactly. What I meant was that you would require a family tree for every man and woman in Canada if this law went into force.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You would not require anything of the kind, Mr. Chairman. Here is a point I would like to submit to the House. I have never found any objection on the part of any man to the widest publicity if he has done anything that he can defend, Now, whether we are going by this Act to establish a system that will result in a very serious degree of nepotism can only be ascertained from the information we wsuld get in this report. As the Civil Service stands to-day you can go over the Civil Service list with some person in the service familiar with it, and pick out a great many cases where there are four or five, or half a dozen or more, of the same family in the service. To make an investigation of that kind would be an exceedingly difficult thing to do, and take months to complete. But if we get a report such as I am suggesting every year we would be able to tell each year how far this practice of nepotism is getting into the " service. If it is not getting into any degree which seems to us to be dangerous, that ends it. If it is getting in, we will have the information in such a way that we can see it at a glance. If that happens-and we are making it a possibility under this Act, Mr. Chairman-and we discover it in the first, or the second, or the third year, then this House will take some action to put an end to it. Unless it has that information the House cannot proceed at all. 1 submit there is no other way, no better and no cheaper way. The acting minister says this will take one large volume, perhaps two. That only proves my case, because if they are going to make so many appointments that it will take two or three volumes to print the names of their relatives already in the service we ought to know it. I do not think there is any information that will be more desirable or interesting to this country than would be contained in those two or three volumes. If the cost will be as great as to require the [DOT] printing of two or three volumes, it would

be necessary for this House to take some action at the next session of Parliament.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I would like to understand the hon. gentleman. He says that if we found a great number of such appointments we would- put an end to it. Suppose he found there were five or six relatives of an appointee in the service already, would he propose to throw them out?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would submit, in
answer to the hon. member for Red Deer, that, if it is found from these reports presented to this House from year to year that the practice is going on of filling up the service with the relatives of deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and other men in important positions of that kind, there would be an amendment to this Act, and it would be based upon the information obtained in the manner I propose. I do not propose that if a man is appointed he shall be dismissed because he already has a relative in the Service. I say we do not need to go that far, but we can prevent it going any further.


Mr. ROBB:: A few moments ago the Acting Minister of Finance made a statement as to the number who had been added to the Civil Service list since the thirteentn of February, and there seems to be some doubt on this side as to the correctness of the figures. Would he mind repeating the statement?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I said two
thousand had been appointed since the thirteenth of February. There were 465 permanent appointments and 2,409 temporary appointments.


Mr. FIELDING:: If this Bill has any merit at all-as to this some hon. gentlemen seem to have doubts-it is that we are to abolish patronage and favouritism; that we are to have a free-for-all, the best man to win. If the Bill does not mean this, it is all humbug. This being our object, why should -we stop to inquire about a man's relatives? The motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) implies that it is a great wrong to have several members of one family in the public service.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It does not imply anything of the kind.


William Stevens Fielding: Then why does my hon. friend want the information? Appointments to the public service are not to be viewed as favours; they go to those who receive them as a matter of right, on their

merits and qualifications as disclosed by the examinations. If that be the case, why should we inquire whether one, two, or a dozen members of the same family aie in the Civil Service? If the principle of examination and competition is to prevail- and that is professedly the very essence of this measure-surely we do not need to inquire how many relatives the candidate has in the public service. Reference has been made to the' Auditor General. I have not looked into his case; I only know that he Is an able and faithful public official. But i-f any son or daughter of the Auditor General submitted himself or herself for examination and won the prize legitimately, why should he or she not receive the appointment? 1 Is the member for West Toronto not defeating the whole purpose and intention of this Bill in the amendment which he hias submitted? True, he does not say that you must not appoint more than one or two members of the same family, hut if his amendment does not mean that, what is the object of getting all this information, of investigating family trees and holding these inquests from ocean to ocean? If the principle of this Bill is not that of establishing a system of open, free, public competition, then, as a distinguished statesman once said, " There hain't nothing to it." Let men be appointed simply on merit, regardless of colour, creed, politics, or relationship.


Charles Murphy: May I suggest to the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding), who was not here on Saturday evening, that the striking out of section 9 robbed this Bill, of the only principle which .my hon. friend rightly says entitles it to consideration?


Jacques Bureau: The member for North
Perth (Mr. Morphy) said that he had heard no reason why the amendment should not go through. It is for the mover of an amendment to make good his case, and in the remarks which the member for West Toronto (Mir. Hocken) has made I see no reason why the amendment should be accepted. !He suggests that the Acting Minister of Finance has proved the worth of the amendment by saying that, if it were accepted, it would cost the Government a lot of money to carry it out. I do not think that that proved the case at all. Investigation may be made whether an applicant has a relative in the Senate, the House of Commons or the Civil Service, and it may be shown that he has none;

without. the services of a large staff of inbut in every case a special staff of inquisitors will be required. It has been pointed out that if you rely on the statement of the applicant as to his family connections, you open the door to his giving false information. In other words, the making of this provision would be detrimental to the country, first, because of the expenditure involved in carrying it out, and, second, (because of your opening the door to a man's .avoiding the truth in order to further his own ends. It would give members of this 'House a chance to vent grievances they might have against other members or to hold other members up to the country as having come into the House for the purpose of getting their relatives into the Civil Service. I can speak on this subject quite freely, because I have not a relative, either near or distant, in the Civil Service. I do hope, for the sake of my relatives, that they never will be in the Civil Service. I do not say that as a disparagement to any one. We want civil servants, and we want good ones, but they should not be subjected to the criticism of members of Parliament because they happen to be related to members of the Civil Service Commission, deputy ministers, or members of this House or the Senate. It seems to me that the only object of this motion is to give to those who desire to obtain political advantage the chance to come into the House and say: So-and-so has been abusing his powers, So-and-so has come here solely for the purpose of getting members of his family into the Service. 1 agree with all that has been said by the member for Shelburne and Queens. This legislation is either a camouflage or the basis of a real law. I think it is to be a real law, and that everybody in the House is endeavouring to do the best he can to make it a gOud law, in the short time that we have at our disposal. I look upon this motion as a reflection on the motives of members of this House. It suggests that gentlemen come here with no other purpose than that of getting their relatives into the Civi1 Service, and if onlv for the sake of the dignity of the House, I shall oppose the motion.


John Gillanders Turriff: The member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is putting up a man of straw for the purpose of knocking it down. There would be no difficulty whatever in getting the information. When a candidate for a position applies to the Civil Service Commission he has to answer certain questions and if he were asked what relatives he had in the Service, the information could be obtained without expense and
quisitors. Moreover, two or three volumes will not be required to publish the names. The suggestion that a report of this kind would be voluminous, is in itself a reason why the amendment should carry.


Jacques Bureau: That is locking the barn when the horse is gone.


John Gillanders Turriff: Those who have been in Ottawa for years and know something about the Civil Service realize that members of the Civil Service themselves have far more influence in the matter of appointments than all the members of the Senate and the House of Commons put together. The amendment is not designed to prevent any class of persons from entering the Service.
I would not for a moment suggest that a man should be debarred because he has two or three sons or daughters in the Service, but there is no reason why the information referred to in the amendment should not be given to the House and the country. That is why I support the amendment.


Jacques Bureau: If this amendment is intended to combat or to prevent an evil, let-us determine by legislation the degree of relationship that will prohibit a man's entering the Service. This amendment is designed either to prevent nepotism or to serve some ulterior purpose which has not been divulged.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: The member for West Toronto suggested that I had misunderstood the object of his amendment; that it was not to prevent those who had relatives in the Service from retaining the positions which they had or from obtaining appointments. I appreciate the intention of my hon. friend's amendment. If it is not to prevent persons who have relatives in the Civil Service from obtaining appointments, it is at least to provide a means by which odium can be oast on efficient public servants, and is based purely on the assumption that when a man enters the public service he gets something in the nature of a gratuity. My understanding of the relationship between employer and employed is that the employee gives, not the employer. The whole thing narrows itself down simply to this, that by this amendment we say that, if a man who is in the public service, permits a relative of his also to get into the public service, reflection is going to. be cast on either the one or the other. With regard to the opportunity for ascertaining whether a man has a relative in the public service or not, I question very much whether the hon. member for West

Toronto (Mr. Hocken) could tell us where all his blood relatives and the blood relatives of his wife happen to be.
Mt. HO'CKEN: There are none of them in the public service.


George Brecken Nicholson: It is absolutely necessary that you know where they are if you know they are not in the public service.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend means the Inside Service only.


George Brecken Nicholson: I refer to the employees of the Crown from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Is there, in this House, an hon. member who can say that there is no relative of his or his wife, distant or near, somewhere employed in the public service?


Jacques Bureau: Somebody unknown to him.


George Brecken Nicholson: Who may not be known to him. This amendment, however, implies that you must give all this information. It has been said in this House that the whole country is agitated on account of the degree to which nepotism has already existed. The whole country may possibly be agitated, but if it is agitated at all, that is due to the unwarranted emphasis which has been placed by hon. members on the fact that some of our public servants may have a relative somewhere giving service to the people of this country.


Mr. PROULX:: I do not approve the
amendment moved by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). A more effective measure to include would be a provision, like the one in the United States Civil Service Act, limiting the number of the members of a family who can obtain employment in the Civil Service.


John Allister Currie: The United States will allow only two.


Edmond Proulx: I understand so; in the same grade.


Ernest Lapointe: In all grades.


Edmond Proulx: That is only the same family, those living under the same roof.
I would approve a provision, if the minister would include it in this Bill, limiting the number of the members of the same family who could obtain employment in ithe Service.


John Allister Currie: That would have to come under another clause.
[Mr. G. B. Nicholson.}


Edmond Proulx: After this amendment is disposed of, we could add another clause. I do not think we should extend this provision to the Outside Service, but in the Inside Service we could very well limit the number of members in a family who could obtain positions.


Frank S. Cahill: If this amendment does not assume that the same old patronage is to prevail, how is the commission to be influenced by members or senators? I have no relatives in the Civil Service, and I am satisfied that several hon. members who have spoken in opposition to this amendment have no relatives in the Civil Service. But we shall have this list before us next year, and we shall have some cheap political sniping at people in the Civil Service by hon. members who have nothing better to do, just as we have heard during the consideration of this Bill, imputations being made, against certain men who are employed in the iService. If you have any charge to make against members of the Civil Service, make it, but do not make imputations against them.


Michael Clark: I have listened very carefully to this discussion, and I must say that I feel disposed to vote against the amendment. It appears to me that both the mover of the amendment
4 p.m. and his chief supporters put it up and then ran away from it.
I put to the mover of the amendment a direct question as to what its effect would be upon relatives already in the Service, and he obviously shrank from saying that he -would take any steps to remove people who are now in 'the Service. My hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson), and my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), said that they would not take any steps to prevent, or they did not understand that the amendment, if carried, would prevent numerous members of a family from being appointed. Then in the name of common sense, what would it do? The only possible answer is that given by my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), who, I think, put his finger on the real objection to the amendment *when he said it would afford an opportunity for holding up to odium those who are already doing good honest public service; otherwise, I presume they would not retain their positions. Not only would that apply to the discussion in this House, but the members of the public would have recourse to this public list, and animosity, strife and trouble would be raised without the supporters of the amendment doing any-

tiling to cure the evils created hy this method of appointment. The evil exists, and yet my hon. friends shrink from saying they [DOT]would cure it as far as it already exists. This evil has grown up under both political parties and under the Government of this country. The only purpose of this amendment would be to cure this evil, but it would not cure it. The only practical suggestion I have heard has come from my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe). Without stirring up strife and animosity and raising invidious comparisons between the families of the country, let us be practical and bold. If there be ,an evil, then do not let us go on the limping logic of my hon. friend. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) says, in one sentence: I do not want it passed because it would prevent ten relatives being appointed to the public service. In the next sentence he says: It would be a good cheek on nepotism. If you are going to make it a check, do not make it a check on future appointments, drawing from it the possibility of dealing frankly with past appointments. Let it be a workable check, and if we can, let us adopt the provision in the American Act to which my hon. friend has drawn attention.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I remember there was at one time a discussion, in connection with Government matters, as regards a certain appointment. I had the honour of pro-posing a gentleman with a very distinguished Canadian name, and the question was raised: How many of the Casgrain family are to be found everywhere in the Dominion? I thank God for it, men of that ability and character can be found, and it would be better if more of them could be found. The Casgrain family was mentioned then and I hope I may be excused for mentioning it here. The point is not that there are many members of a family in the Civil Service, but that sometimes improper means may be taken to put them there. Then it is time for the Government to know that. The question is not whether a clerk may happen to have two or three brothers or sisters in the Service, but whether the power behind those people is improperly used to get those positions. I have had occasion to refer to a particular pase in this House, and I maintain that improper influences are used to get members of certain families in this country in certain positions. I do not want to blacken the name of any civil servant, but I do want, if possible, to stop-and this Civil Service Bill, I presume, does so,-those
people getting their friends into positions through improper influence. I understand the Civil Service Commission was bulldozed by a gentleman holding a prominent position in Canada, to make an appointment which they did not consider advisable to make. That was improper influence. I do not see anything whatever in the amendment.
Amendment put to the vote in the Committee. Amendment negatived: ayes, 19; nays, 73.


William Foster Cockshutt: I would like the annual report of the commission to show the number of 'transfers made from the Inside to the Outside Service and from the Outside to the Inside Service, with the origin and destination of the transfer in each case. I do not think there can be any objection to that. It would not require a great deal of extra work and would enlighten the country to what extent transfers were being made from Ottawa and other large centres to the country districts. That is valuable information, and though its publication would not prevent the transfers being made, it would inform the members what was being done, I beg to move therefore that after the word " appointments '>
in line 39 the word "transfers" be added.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Lorne Richardson: The report has to contain the names of the successful competitors and candidates. I think the word "and" on line 38 should be "or." Otherwise the names of all unsuccessful candidates would have to be published, land there might be many thousands of them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I beg to move that the words " competitors and " in lines 38 and 39 be struck out.


Mr. BLAKE:: I think it is very important to leave the section as it stands. It is very necessary that we should know who tried the examination. If everybody passes, the examinations would simply be a farce and not worth the time and trouble. We should see that the examinations are being conducted properly.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The section as it stands does not require the names of the unsuccessful candidates to be given.


Matthew Robert Blake: I would understand it to mean that the names of all the candidates should be given.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not the purpose of the section.


Matthew Robert Blake: Will the number of those rejected be given?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. '
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 40-regulations:
Jacques Bureau: Is that a new clause?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. I beg to amend this section Iby prefixing to it the words, "The Commission with the approval of," by changing the word "he" to "it," and by adding after the word "Act" the words "and such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette."
Mr. McKENZIE .[DOT] Would the minister object to having a copy of the regulations laid before Parliament? That is done as a rule.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is provided for in section 39:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not quite sure
' whether that would cover it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Section 39 provides that the "regulations made during the year respecting appointments, promotions, etc., shall be presented- to both Houses of Parliament."	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister thinks that covers it, I have no objection.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why should the Governor in Council have the initiative? Why not say the commission shall recommend to the 'Governor in Council?


Mr. A. F. MACLEAN:: That is the effect of my amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not see that that gives the commission the initiative. I would say "the commission may recommend to the Governor in Council."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The commission can make regulations, hut before they become effective they must be approved by the Governor in Council. That is tantamount to a recommendation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 41-appointments to be made by competitive examination:
William Garland McQuarrie: I propose two amendments to this section. I beg to move:
That section 41 be amended by inserting after the word "'Council" in the eleventh line thereof the following- words:
1Mr. A. K. Maclean.]
''Except as to the city of Ottawa all such appointments in any province shall, so far as possible, be made from bona fide residents of that province; and that there be inserted after the word "practicable," in the twentieth line the words "advisable or expedient."
It is hardly necessary for me -to elaborate on what the effect of the first part of the amendment would be, namely, that all -appointments should, as fax as possible, be made from residents of the province in which the appointments are to be made. It may he said, perhaps, th-at I am drawing upon my imagination in suggesting that there is any real necessity for a provision of this kind. When applying; within the last two or three days, for an additional stenographer in one of the offices in New Westminster, I was told that if -another stenographer was needed we cottld have one, but that one w-ould have to be sen-t from Ottawa instead of being appointed from my own constituency, where a number of capable stenographers are available. A provision of this kind is a very reasonable one. When it comes to appointments in the city o-f Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion, where so many of the head offices of the departments are situated, it would be objectionable to provide that all appointments should be -from residents of the province of Ontario. I know very well that, in so far as we o-f the province of British Columbia are concerned, it is very easy for the people of Ontario and Quebec to -forget that we are in existence .at all. It seems to be the tendency for people in Ontario and Quebec to think that they constitute the whole of the Dominion. I say that without any disrespect at all, because I happen to come from the -province o-f Ontario myself; I was born in the city of Ottawa, about 200 yards ,aw-ay from this very building. But when you have the Civil Service Commission composed of residents of Ontario and Quebec, as I -suppose it, perhaps, always will be-


Jacques Bureau: There is no Ontario representative on the commission.


William Garland McQuarrie: They are all from Quebec?


Jacques Bureau: They are all western
men.
-Mr. McQUARRIE: Oh, no. They are likely to forget that there is such a province as British Columbia, and they will make all the appointments from -the East.
I am not going to elaborate on that argument; the point is self-evident to- every-

body. If you are in favour of it you will support it; if hot you will vote .against it.


William Foster Cockshutt: Would the hon. gentleman object to treating this as two separate amendments? The amendment deals with two separate questions, and if he would deal with them separately he might find that some hon. gentleman might support one and not It/he other.


William Garland McQuarrie: I shall be glad indeed to accept the suggestion.
The 'CHAIRMAN:	Is it the pleasure of
the committee that the hon. gentleman has leave to divide the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. McQuarrie moves that section 41 be amended by inserting after the word " council " in the 11th line thereof the following words:
Except as to the city of Ottawa ail such appointments in any .province shall, in so far as possible be made from, bona fide residents of that province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We would like to hear
from the acting minister as to that.


William Stevens Fielding: If this amendment
is to have any meaning you must limit it to applications from the different provinces. There is no use of throwing the competition open to the wide world if an outsider is not going to get any chance of appointment. I am not objecting to the principle that is put forward in the amendment but you should say that applications shall only be received from each province.
. Sir 'GEORGE FOSTER:	Before that
amendment is put to the vote. I want to express my own view in reference to it and to call the attention of the committee to what seems to he involved. In the first place, when the amendment was read, it grated upon my feelings as a citizen of a united country. It seems to me that the principle - involved in this tends to cut us off into, provincial sections, to can us in sectional compartments. It therefore puts up a barrier against the free currency of the service and the talent of the whole country as devoted to the work of the whole country. It seems to me that it tends to cultivate provincialism rather than nationalism. _ What reason in the world is there why a' man who is born in British Columbia and has talents and capacity should not have an opportunity of serving in the public service in any part of Canada? From my point of view that seems to be the broad ground upon which we should develop. If,
on the other hand you make a regulation by which you virtually say that no one but a British Columbian shall be allowed to act in the service of the Dominion in British 'Columbia, no one but a Quebec man shall be allowed to act in the public service anywhere in Canada except in Quebec, and so on throughout all the provinces, you rather bar the current of communication, sympathy, active service and nationality. I do not think there is any better basis than that the appointments which are to he made by the Civil Service Commission will be made for the good of the service. I should think that it would be the inevitable tendency that for the larger proportion of the offices there would be sufficient material in the different localities of the different .provinces to look after the public service in those localities. But I think also there is a very great advantage in having free currency so that the stronger and .better minds in public service work may have free access to, knowledge of, and communication with every part of the Dominion.
I should be sorry to think, if I were an applicant for a Civil Service position-it might be a medium position, it might be one of very great importance-that I was debarred from seeking that in any but my own province of New Brunswick, or my own province of Ontario. I simply give expression to the feeling produced, that it rather works, as it seems to me, .against a full and broad citizenship of the country, against that nationalism which we all'wish to cultivate, and that it rather tends to can us up into small divisions, and to perpetuate the feeling of provincialism rather than of nationalism, and I say that in the broadest sense. For my own self I would be .sorry to see a principle like that embodied in tbe Civil Service Act.
Mr. STEVEN'S:	Will the minister permit me to point out that in the majority of the advertisements' for examinations issued by the Civil Service Commission, it is utterly impossible for a candidate from British 'Columbia to compete, because the advertisement will probably reach there about the time the .returns from the examinations .should' he in Ottawa, or about the date of the sittings for .the examinations. A case occurred .about a week ago where a vacancy in a certain position was advertised. 'Dozens of persons in. 'British Columbia wished to compete for the position, but British Columbia was. not on the map as far as that advertisement was concerned, and no examination was held in that pro-



vinee at aJll. The date of the examination fixed in the advertisement would not permit of a candidate coming to Ottawa in time, although when I brought the matter to the attention of the commission they did make provision. The same thing applies to tenders. It is impossible to get a tender to Ottawa by the date fixed in the advertisements. If the commission will make provision for the ten days needed to send out the advertisement and get the examination papers (back, thus giving applicants in British Columbia the same chance as candidates in Ottawa or other parts of the country, there would not be very much ground for objection.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: My hon. friend refers to a point that I was just rising to direct his attention to, and it is a thing that is absolutely wrong. In advertisements announcing examinations to choose persons for the public service, sufficient time should be allowed to afford equality of chance to every section of the Dominion. I think that is the way to cure the evil complained of. I would rather cure it by having a sufficiency of time provided than by attempting to c,ure it in the way proposed.


William Stevens Fielding: If there is a vacant position in British Columbia, why should any man be asked to travel from that province to Ottawa for examination? Why should not the examination be held in British Columbia?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: So it will be.


William Stevens Fielding: To that extent I am willing to be a provincialist. On the larger question my sympathies go very largely with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I certainly think that if there is a position to be filled in British Columbia, the examination should be held in that province. That would work out probably that, practically speaking, only British Columbians would apply, and the result might be reached in that way; but I am strongly of opinion that the attempt to hold examinations for all these services in Ottawa ought not to be made.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Act provides for an examination at any point in Canada upon the request of five persons.


William Stevens Fielding: Such examinations
should be held without any request, it seems to me. If there is a vacancy in an office in British Columbia, certainly I would be provincialist to the extent of saying that the examination should be held in that
[iMr. Stevens.]
province, so that the candidates there might certainly have the advantage, and that advantage I would willingly give them.


William Foster Cockshutt: Will the Chairman read the proposed amendment again?


Georges Henri Boivin: It has been moved to add after the word "Council" in the eleventh line, on page fourteen, the following words:
Except as to the city of Ottawa, all such appointments in any province shall, as far as possible, toe made from bona fide residents of that province.
(Mr. OGCKiSiHUTT: I think the minister took an extreme view of the proposed amendment which only says " as far as possible . That is a very limiting phrase, and I think it is a very wise one. This is a very important question to outside members, and I think that we are justified in taking very strong grounds upon it. A gentleman who sits on this side of the House, after the discussion the other night, said to me that recently two appointments had been made in his riding, both at comparatively large salaries, and both made from Ottawa, apparently without consulting him. But, he said, when it comes to a position of $300 or $400, and they fail to get anybody from Ottawa who will go up there they will say to me: " You can make a suggestion with regard to that." That is not the sort of thing that we want. My hon. friend has made a very fair proposition. British Columbia is an integral part of the Dominion, and I do not think he is at all provincial in the proposal he makes. He simply is looking after the interests of his own people, and his own constituents to some extent, so far as the administration of the Civil Service is concerned. Every district is entitled to a certain number of officials of that kind, and the reasonable place to take them is from the part of the country in which they live. The question simply resolves itself into this: If we do not put into the Bill some such safeguard1 as this, all the big plums in the service will be taken by men or women from the Capital or from the large cities, and when it is not worth while to send any person from those places to fill a three or four hundred dollar job, the member will be told' " You can have that for some person at home." The proposition of my hon. friend from New Westminster is absolutely reasonable, and while I generally agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in all these matters, I certainly do think-even if it be construed as being narrow and provincial-

that the member tor New Westminster has made out a very good case. I do not think any harm will be done because it simply says " as far as possible If it is not possible the views the Hon. .Minister of Trade and Commerce has suggested will prevail, and the appointee will come in from the outside; were it is possible and practicable, appointments will be made from the province where the vacancy occurred. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I would in general agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because we do not want to be provincial, but it seems to me that the more settled provinces of the East are not wishing to have reciprocity with us, and it has been so in the past more than it is to-day.
I might broaden my statement more by digression, and say that both political parties in the past have had in view the ignoring of the Western Provinces. As an illustration of my contention, let me say this: Two years ago, when I was proceeding by water to the extreme northern limits of my constituency, about four hundred miles from Edmonton, we found a chief fire ranger sent from Ottawa. Upon making inquiries it was found he had been sent there for certain reasons; the atmosphere in Ottawa was too warm, or something of that sort, and they sent him out where he would be removed from temptation. I found both slides of the river Athab-aska, for a distance of three hundred miles, on fire, and if you want to look up the records you can go to the Department of the Interior and read where I made it imperative that a change should be made at once. They did make some changes. We also find homestead inspectors in Alberta that are sent from other provinces, and heads of departments that are sent from Ottawa and other cities. I will give a concrete instance showing that the folks in Ottawa are not willing to play the fair game with us. A young lady came from France not very long ago with her brother and sister. Her brother went to the United States, her sister got married, and she was left alone. She does not know the English language very well, and I tried to place her in some office in Calgary; she received temporary employment with the Belgian Consul. Since I have been here, trying to respect the spirit of the Order in Council which has been passed, I did not bother with any of the ministers, nor did I go to Dr. Eoche and see if he could do anything for the young lady. I have endeavoured to secure an 118i
appointment for hex' as a French stenographer to one of the departments here, but there is nothing doing. They do not want this young lady here, it is too far to bring her, they would not have any use for her here; but officials here can send stenographers from Ottawa to New Westminster. We do not want to be provincial, but if you in Ottawa are going to be provincial, watch our smoke.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Samuel Hughes: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Not after competitive examinations; I have no use for them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They should -be made
from that province at least, if not from that city or locality. It seems to me only fair and only human, and there is nothing nar-n-ow in the fact that a member should advocate respect for local rights and customs. Let me raise another point, and, I hope that again I will not be labelled a paroohialist or a narrow provincialist. Take the case of my own province of Quebec. I will not speak of Montreal, the metropolis of Canada, where there is a very large English-speaking population, and where almost every one speaks both languages. But outside of Montreal and a few other centres where the people -at large speak both languages, suppose there a-re some positions open where it is absolutely necessary that the ingfimbent should speak both languages. If you open that position to competitors from one end of Canada to the other, both languages being official in federal matters,

you may have to appoint in some centres a gentleman or a lady, ae the ease may he, who speaks only one language. Why stir up the feelings' of the people when hy a com-monsense application of this Act it can be prevented? I have been a minister of , the Crown myself, and every now and then when I was in the Post Office Department and the Department of Labour I had difficulties of that kind to settle. It seems to me the amendment of my bon. friend should be supported to avoid trouble. Let us avoid trouble as much as possible by a sensible application of this Act. Personally, I do not object to gentlemen, if competent, from British Columbia occupying positions in Montreal, nor would hon. gentlemen from New Westminster or Vancouver object to a gentleman from another part of Canada occupying a position in their province. But that is not the point. You must respect local customs, and, as much as possible, avoid stirring up trouble through the drastic application of the Act. I wish it to be well understood, Mr. Chairman, that I am not a narrow provineialist or parochialist at all; but you are sure to cause trouble by making outside appointments, Take the case of Quebec City, or Trois Rivieres, or Fraserville, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell me that it would be practicable land feasible to appoint some one from, say, Muskoka or Winnipeg to a position there? The amendment of my hon. friend is drafted in a proper spirit, and, for my part, to avoid troublesome racial and language questions in my province, let us adopt it.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Chairman, 1 agree with all that the hon. member from Maisonneuve has said, but I go much further. In the first place, I do not believe in these so-called competitive examinations. They are a farce on the face of them, as any one who has ever had anything to do with educational work knows.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would my hon. friend qualify that statement by giving facts? I always thought that the competitive examinations under the system-
Sir 'SAM HUGHES: I remember an examination paper brought before the Cabinet which took office in 1911. I do not think there were three members of the Cabinet that could spell the words or answer the questions set on that paper for candidates to write on to fill a position in a little one-horse place. To ask candidates to spell the word " Bolsheviki," or to think up techni-

calities like that, is no way of testing their fitness to hold positions. As the hon. member for South Toronto said the other night, the men who stand foremost in all the walks of life, in law, medicine and other professions, are not those who pass highest in examinations, but men with some breadth and force of Character, who would not waste time in getting up the little technicalities and prize puzzles set by these examiners. The point I w.ant to make is this: there are two classes of servants: one Dominion servants, who deal with the offices here in Ottawa, and the other those in customs offices and post offices throughout 'the country, or what we imay call constituency appointments. I have alw.ays taken the ground that constituency appointments should be made from the constituency.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: I stand on that ground to-day. To say that the riding I have the honour to represent, or that some other member may represent, cannot supply the men or women to fill any jobs in that constituency is belittling, and this belittling of our own people is becoming too much the custom in Canada to-day. We have thousands of men and women in our constituencies able to fill any job. Why is it necessary for any one in British Columbia or Nova Scotia to he sent to fill a job in Northumberland, or vice versa? Every person required to fill a constituency job should be furnished hy the constituency. If there is a position to be filled in a province, let it be filled from the province; or if the position is a federal office, let it then be advertised all over Canada and get the best man. So far as competitive examinations are concerned, I do not know whether the clause dealing with them is passed or not, but I trust that the committee will bear in mind what was said in this regard by the hon. member for South Toronto th? other night: that a competitive examination is not a test of fitness at all. I have observed-and any minister or ex-minister who ever had anything to do with the Civil Service will agree-that those who have not passed examinations are the best officers in the department. I believe that every constituency should furnish its own local officers out of its own locality; and that every province should furnish its officers out of that province, except in the case of those positions applying to the general service of the whole Dominion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I wish to recall
a statement, prepared by one of the com-

missioners, from which I read on Friday night. It contains the following in reference to appointments within the locality [DOT]where the position is to be filled:
There is naturally a very strong feeling throughout the country that positions should, wherever possible, he filled' by the appointment of local persons and that except in the case of transfers, which might occasionally become necessary, "outsiders" as they are regarded should not receive preferment.
That is a declaration of the policy of the commission. This principle, particularly as applied to post office appointments, has been recognized in the United States, where the eligibility of applicants is restricted to those living in the vicinity of the town, city or county where the appointment is to he made. Another portion of this statement says:
Heretofore permanent appointment in the Inside Service was based solely on the result of an educational test (the candidate being otherwise suitable, of course, as to age, health, character and habits). This gave to the candidate fresh from the class room, and yet lacking in experience, a great advantage over the educated and altogether more suitable person who possessed business experience but might be a trifle rusty in some of the subjects written at the examination.
Tt would also appear from this statement that the commission are to give a rating on the business experience of applicants for appointment for any position in the Civil Service. A great deal may be said in favour of the amendment and a great deal against it; but I am disposed to accept it, with some slight alteration. This Act departs very radically from the present Civil Service Act and it is important that it be accepted by the people. If this provision is contained in the Bill, it will very materially .assist in the administration of the new Act,. I suggest that the amendment read as follows:
Excepting as to the Inside Service, all appointments to any position in a province shall, so far as practicable, he made from bona fide residents of such province.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is the Inside Service all in Ottawa?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I understand that post office inspectors cannot be appointed without passing an examination and receiving the necessary authority from Ottawa. I submit that the Inside Service is not restricted to Ottawa.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: Is it possible to carry this amendment into effect? Many of the civil servants in Ottawa come from
British Columbia, and many from Prince Edward Island. Some Ontario men are in the Government employ in Prince Edward Island-the appointment of some of these has been objected to. But the exchange of officers in certain departments is often very desirable. It may be a good thing to have an Ontario man in the Maritime Provinces, and vice versa, because they exchange ideas. This amendment may be valuable as a declaration of policy, but I do not see that it will carry much weight as a matter of law.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As a matter of principle, my hon. friend's criticism is sound. On the other hand, if such a provision would make the Act more acceptable to Canada it had bettor be accepted, and we may leave to future Parliaments whatever further amendment may be necessary. "Inside Service" is defined as follows:
"Inside Service'" means and includes that part of the Civil Service in or under the several departments of the Executive Government of Canada and in the offices of the Auditor General, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Governor General's Secretary, the Public Archives, and the Commission of Conservation, employed at the city of Ottawa, or at the Experimental Farm Station or the Dominion Astronomical Observatory near Ottawa, and the staff of the Civil Service Commission employed at Ottawa.


William Garland McQuarrie: Accepting as correct the minister's assertion that the Inside Service is confined to Ottawa, I am prepared to concur in his suggestion. I regret that this resolution has grated on the highly strung sensibilities of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). I should be the last in the world to cause him the slightest feeling of discomfort, because I have the greatest respegt,for him. I regret that he looked upon my resolution in the way he did, because I did not intend it to he provincial; I merely considered it my duty to look after my constituency and my province. British Columbia has I think sent about ten per cent of her total population to the war, and the people of that province are entitled to some consideration. When it is said that we should be national, not provincial, may I point out that in this august legislature and departments connected with it, in responsible positions you will not find one person from British Columbia? The same condition prevails in a great many other departments. When appointments are made, some of the people in Ontario and Quebec forget that there is such a place as British Columbia.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It may be necessary further to amend the proposed provision by inserting after the words " Inside Service" the words ''and Commissions and Boards at Qttawa." Otherwise, appointments to these boards would he restricted to the province in question, and I do not think that is the desire of any hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I move to amend the section further by inserting after the words " case of " in line five the words 'commissioners and other members of any Royal or other commission or board and The section will then read:
Except as herein otherwise provided, and except in the case of commissioners and other members of any Royal or other commission or board and deputy heads, appointments to positions in the public service shall be by competitive examination.
The* purpose of this amendment is to exempt from the provisions of the Act appointments of commissioners and other members of commissions or boards. Those, of course, should be directly appointed by the Government.	*


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) moves further to amend section 41 by inserting after the word " practicable " in the twelfth line thereof, the words " advisable or expedient


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not see the force of that amendment. It would not improve the section very much to insert those words. The word " practicable " is wide' enough to give the commission any discretion that may be necessary in the administration of the Act. It is a question of whether or not it is practicable t<? apply the Act. We want the Act to apply to all appointments, if it is practicable to do so. If it is not practicable, we do not want to apply it.


William Garland McQuarrie: One of the objects of this amendment is to cover the case of returned soldiers who, perhaps will not be able to pass the necessary examination, although they will, in every respect, be competent to fill the position for which the examination is being held.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That ought to be considered under section 42, clause (a).


William Garland McQuarrie: The Acting Minister of Finance has said that he thought " prae-
ticable " would be a suitable word, a word which would be large enough to include every occasion that might require it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When I was speaking, I had in mind the purpose of the particular part of the section which is now under discussion. This provision of section 41 was intended to give the commission power to make regulations providing for appointments to office in some other forms, when they thought it was not practicable to hold competitive examinations, but my hon. friend is raising 'another question altogether, which was not in my mind when I spoke, and I desire that his suggestion stand until we come to section 42.
Mr. MoQUARRIE: I was endeavouring to point out the meaning of the word " prae-ticable ". I took occasion to look up the meaning of that word in the Standard Dictionary, and I found " practicable " meant ''that can be put into practice, possible of execution or performance." I take it that almost every case is practicable, possible of execution or performance. On the other hand I found that " advis-
5 p.m. able," according to the same authority, means " agreeing with sound advice," and that ''expedient" means " seeming to promote a desired end or interest, suitable under the circumstances." So that we find that the last two words,
" advisable " or " expedient," are much more extensive in their meaning than the word " practicable." I am not pressing this amendment because the acting .minister thinks it should not be inserted. He has studied this Bill a great deal more than II have, and in matters of this kind I prefer to accept his judgment. But it would not hurt the Act, and it would he useful in this particular instance, to include the words " advisable or expedient " or perhaps one of them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would suggest that my hon. friend refrain from pressing his amendment to this section.
Mr. 'McQUARRIE:	I accept the minister's advice, and I -withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Joseph Read: I move to amend section 41, paragraph 3, as follows:	By
striking out all the words after the word " with " in the thirteenth line to the word " any," where it appears for the first time in the fifteenth line, and also by striking out all the words after the words " His Majesty," in the fifteenth line, to the end

of the said section. That will put the Government Railway system under the Civil Service Act. I want to direct the attention of the Acting Minister of Finance to the Prime Minister's promise, and also to the Order in Council which bears upon this question and which reads:
Pending the enactment of the necessary legislation hereinbefore alluded to, the following rules shall be observed in all departments of the Government in respect to appointments to the public service.
The capitalization of the word " all " is my point. The intention of the Order in Council was to include all " services, including the Government railways, in the Civil Service. As I pointed out before, it is most important that the Government railways be brought under the Civil Service Act at this time, because, although the number of present employees runs into some thirty thousand, this is only small comparatively with the number of civil servants 'there will be in the employment of the Government railways when the Government has taken over what it now com templates. The 'Government has already taken over a part of the Transcontinental from Quebec to Winnipeg, and when it shall have taken over 'the balance of the road from Winnipeg to the Pacific, and when it shall have taken charge of the Canadian Northern railroad, as I understand the Government is about to do, we Shall have a tremendous army of civil servants who will make it difficult for any Government to pass a Civil (Service Reform Bill that will apply to them. There will be such a large number of people engaged in one service that we will have a railroad despotism in this country. It must be remembered that Canada is a very narrow country, relatively to the way it is peopled, and when we have a railway fr-m the Atlantic to the Pacific with all its branches and ramifications we will have a condition of things that hon. gentlemen would be well advised to protect themselves against while they have the opportunity. Otherwise, these organizations will be a menace to any Government in this country They will be a dominating force in politics, unless they are eliminated entirely from politics, and the only way to eliminate them from polities is to eliminate patronage, and the only way to eliminate patronage is to put the railway employees under the Civil Service Commission, and the time to do it is now, before they get big enough to dominate any Government of this country. If any more amendments are necessary beyond the one I have submitted,
to satisfy the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, or any other railway brotherhood we can incorporate them in the Bill.
Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR: I understood from the Acting Minister of Finance some days ago that steps had already been taken to place the railway employees in the 'Civil Service. I came to that conclusion by reason of a statement made by the minister in the House on April 12 as follows:
Mr. A. K. Maclean: At the present time, and since the passage of the Order in Council; the management of the Canadian Government railways has been given absolute freedom to appoint such persons as he may see fit and to disregard any representations which may be made by any person to him.
Mr. [Bureau:	By any member of Parliament?
Mr. Copp:	Has he been ordered to disregard representattions ?
Mr. A. K. Maclean:	I do not know whether
he has been ordered, he has authority to do so.
Can the minister produce the ruling that has been made in regard to this matter?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not in a position to say whether such instructions were in writing or not, but I shall inquire of the Minister of Railways and advise my hon. friend this evening.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: If the ruling is in writing I presume the minister will bring it down after dinner.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to support the amendment of my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Read). I see no reason why railway employees should not 'be placed under the Civil .Service Commission the same as any other branch of the public service. No good reason has been given why that should not be done. It is this department more than any other that has suffered from patronage in the province from which I come. The Intercolonial railway has been abused by the patronage system to a certain extent from the time it was first built, and I think it would be a great reform if we could get rid of the patronage evil in connection with the Government railways in Eastern Canada. The fact that every young man who applies for a position as telegraph operator, cleaner, brakesman, and what not, has to bring with hiim a certificate from a member of the patronage committee or from a member of Parliament shows that the whole system is permeated by patronage. The man who is selected in that way may TJ.'.t prove suitable.

Mr. NESBITT; How would my hon. friend get over the difficulty caused by the delay in the 'Civil Service Commission appointing >a fireman, we will say, who was required immediately?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Regulations could be made to meet that case.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not proposing that that class of employee should be put under the board. I iam urging that the superintendents and shop foremen should have power to select their employees in the same way that the superintendent of an industry has power to select his men. Under the present patronage system a man may be sent into the round-house who will never make a cleaner or a driver, but the superintendent cannot dismiss him like the .superintendent of an industry can dismiss any one whom he thinks will not prove suitable for the work. If the superintendents and foremen had this power they would be able to gather together a good stafh hut when men are 'appointed promiscuously under the patronage system it is impossible to get a good staff, and that is one of the reasons why the Government railways have not been successful in the past. Here is the opportunity to get rid of that difficulty and to put the road under proper management. Employees of railways may be divided into two classes, the clerical staff, who could be selected on competitive 'examination by the .Civil Service Commission, and the operating staff, who, of course, could not be selected by the Civil Service Oommiss'cn, but could rery well be appointed by the men in charge of the round-houses and the superintendents of the road. If we would give these men power to select their employees, and make them responsible for the character of the men they select, it would remove the difficulty at once. Announce that it is not necessary for applicants to get a recommendation from the patronage committee or from any member of Parliament; that the superintendents have a free hand in selecting the men they will train for engineers, conductors, and other posts in the railway service, and the whole difficulty will he solved as far as that branch of the railway is concerned. The- Minister of Public Works has already accepted this system, and who will say there should he any difference in this respect between the Government railways and the Department of Public Works? The Department of Public 'Works consists of a large number of men 
employed in manual labour .and other kinds of work. They also have in that department engineers and men who' ought to submit themselves to examination. I cannot see any material difference between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Railways and Canals as to the application of this Act. I trust that the minister will accept this amendment. This is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. If we are to have Civil Service reform in this country, it will only be a half measure unless it applies to the Government railways the same as to other departments.
'Mr. RICHARDSON:	I think it would
be a great mistake to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. J. Read). I presume that both the hon. piember who proposed that amendment and the hon. member for Guysbor-ough (Mr. Sinclair), who supports it, have read the report of the Drayton-Acworth Commiiseion. The commission proposes that several of the most important railway systems in the country shall be placed under Government ownership. We now own the Canadian Northern, we have the Intercolonial, we shall have the Transcontinental and we cannot avoid taking over the Grand Trunk Pacific; so that we will have a great system of railways owned by the people. The Drayton-Acworth report which,
I assume, is acceptable to the Government' and to the country, proposes that all the Canadian Government railway systems shall be placed under the control and management of an independent commission composed of the best and most practical men that money can secure. These commissioners will be responsible, not to the Government hut to Parliament, so that their independence may :be absolutely guaranteed. If you are to place the employees of the Intercolonial railway under the Civil Service Commission you will be taking these people away from the control of the commission that it is proposed to establish.
If the Government fails to appoint this commission after it has secured, control of these railways it will make a mistake that the country will never recover from. That is the only possible way by which -a national railway system can be made a success.
If you are to place the employees of the Intercolonial under the control of the Civil Service Commission, you will deprive us of the opportunity of placing them under the control of the proposed railway commission that will be appointed to manage the national railway system.


Joseph Read: How would we be depriving ourselves of the right 'to put them under the railway commission afterwards? We would simply take them from this and put them under that.


Robert Lorne Richardson: You now place them under the control of the Civil Service Commission, whereas it must Ibe clear to every logical mind that, in order to make a success of the Government owned railways, they .must be under the control of a railway commission.


Joseph Read: You could do that by Act.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the Government fails in its clear duty to adopt the only possible method by which the national system of railways can be made a success, then in the next session it will be in order for our friends to move this amendment, and I shall be very glad to support it. But I do not see how any hon. member who has given any study to the railway situation can fail to realize that it is imperative upon the Government, in order to make a success of the railway system, to appoint a commission of experts independent of the .Government and responsible only to Parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) is aware that the Draytonr Acworth report has been'before this House for two years and that it has not been acted upon. The Government appointed that commission at very great cost to the country; the commission travelled from one end of the country to the other and engaged specialists and technical experts to examine the railway situation. We then took cognizance of the report. It had been discussed day in and day out in this House, but the Government has discarded the report absolutely. There is a commission sitting in Toronto to-day because of the discarding of that report, and as a result of the legislation that was passed during last session. 'Therefore, my hon. friend may be quite sure that there is no hope that the Government will ever take any action based on that report which is a most excellent one. I have neveT read a report so complete and so sane as regards the Canadian railway question. Yet the Government has discarded it. My hon. friend says that the railway officials and employees of this country ought to be under the Canadian Railway Commission. Of course, that is nonsense, because the Government will never adopt any such system.


Robert Lorne Richardson: They must.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They must but they will not.


George Brecken Nicholson: How do you know*?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The experience of the past teaches me that they will not. Has my hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) any promise from the Government that, acting on the Drayton-Acworth report, a commission would be appointed? If he has, he has been deceived as we have been deceived. There will be no such commission appointed. Meanwhile, what injury will it cause to the country if we put the railway employees under the Civil Service Commission as regards appointment as has been explained by my hon. friend from Guysborough? If, later on, the Government come to their genses, and accept the conclusions of the report, will the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) say that there is anything to prevent this Parliament saying by special Act that in future the railway employees will be put under the control of the railway commission, and that we cannot prepare any legislation that will meet the case?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Was my hon. friend and party with which he is associated in favour of adopting the Drayton-Acworth report?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Then, if that is true, and the influential and best elements of the old Libera] party are united on this side of thei House, the Government has no choice. This is a Conservative-Liberal, or Union Government, and the strongest, the dominating element not only in this House but all over the country, that was identified with my hon. friends on the other side, being part and parcel of this Union Government, will insist on this repart being adopted. There is nothing else the Government can do.; they must adopt it. I do not see how they can possibly avoid doing so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will make this bargain with my hon. friend; it is an open bargain and there is nothing mysterious about it:	If he induces the Government
during the present sesion to pass such legislation as he contemplates I will withdraw all objection and I will give him my best support.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Will my hon. friend repeat that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend will induce the Government to pass during this session such legislation as he proposes I will give him my best support.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I shall certainly
promise to do the best I can.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) are there; can my hon. friend extort from them even a qualified promise that in the distant future there will be such legislation? He cannot. He will not obtain such a promise.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I will do my level best.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am serious in this. I do not believe that the Government intend ij* act under the iDrayton-Acworth report but if they do my hon. friend will enlist me as one of his supporters.


George Brecken Nicholson: If the subject of the Drayton-Acworth Report on the possibility of the Government taking over large systems of railway and putting them under the control of one commission were a matter for discussion, it would be very easy to answer the arguments which the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lem-ieux) has addressed to the committee, particularly bearing in mind the attitude that the hon. member for Maisonneuve, and the party he supports, took with respect to the management and operation of Government railways during their regime. But that is not the question. The question is a practical one; it is whether we are going to put the railway employees on the Government railway system under the -Civil Service Commission. I say that if you attempt to put the railway employees on any -comprehensive system of Government railways under the Civil Service Commission, it will result in utter chaos. As an example of the metli-ods followed by the Civil Service Commission let me read a question from an examination paper that was sent out through the country for men to pass who were called upon to take positions as egg candlers. This is it:
First Simplify :(* + *)-(* of 1|) + (* of J}) + (f + r) X 7.
This illustrates the kind of examination paper that would be sent out to some man who was an applicant for a position as brakesman, if the Civil Service Commission had charge of the appointments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is an easy question.


George Brecken Nicholson: Does my hon. friend say that is an easy question?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly, I will answer from memory.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend may be able to do so, but I tell him that the class of men who are operating our railway trains in this country are not going to answer such questions as that.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: To whom was the question sent?


George Brecken Nicholson: The examination paper from which I have -quoted was sent out on the eighteenth of April to men seeking to be -appointed as egg candlers. Let me ask what knowledge has the Civil Service Commission, sitting in. Ottawa, of the qualifications -for tTairn despatcher, locomotive engineer, conductor, or any other class of men employed in the operation of railway trains? If the Government owned railways are ever going to be a success there is only one system of management that ban be adopted, -and that is to engage railway men who -are competent to operate those railways-t'o put men of that kind at their head and give them authority to choose their employees just as do the leading officers of private owned railways. A superintendent, a master mechanic, a train-master, or a chief train despatcher on any of the private owned railways would n-ot submit the class of men they employ to examinations of such a character as that to which I have referred. An, hon. gentleman from Prince Edward Island has said we are going -to 'bring ourselves under the domination of a class of Government railway employees that will ultimately control this country. I te-ll the hon. gentleman that if the whole Civil Service of Canada was organized on the same system as the private owned railways of this country it would not be necessary for two hundred and thirty-five members of Parliament to be wasting their time in the city of Ottawa considering this Civil Service Bill at all, because each man would be in the place he was fitted for, and would be kept there so long as he did his work. My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) says there is n-o possibility of the Government -accepting the Drayton-Acworth report. My hon. friend knows nothing about it. The Drayton-Acworth report was presented to Parliament less than a year ago, and if we wanted to go into a little ancient history we might find that there were many thih-gs that it took -the

ion. gentleman and his friends, when they were in office, very much more than a year to deal with, matters of much minor importance than axe involved in the adoption of the report in question. But that is outside of the issue. The point I want to emphasize here is that the talk of bringing the railway employees of this country under the Civil Service Commission is nothing less than rot, because it is impossible.


Samuel Hughes: How many questions are there on the examination paper from which you quoted?


George Brecken Nicholson: These are eight very similar questions.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Other hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Georges Henri Boivin: In my opinion the
nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On the understanding
that the Drayton-Acworth report will be adopted by the Government?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Government is not making any such terms, but I might repeat what I have already said two or three times this session, namely: That during the recess the commission is going sto give study and consideration to some method of bringing the employees of the Government railways under the operation of this Act. Now there are probably on the Government railway system twenty thousand employees, and it would require a special commission at Moncton, probably the year round, if the suggestion was to be acted on immediately. There are endless difficulties in the way; it is impossible and impracticable at the present time. Since the passing of the Order in Council the commission have been busy, the Government have been busy, and it is unfair to suggest we could deal with the question immediately.


John Howard Sinclair: How many of the twenty thousand employees are on the clerical staff and how many on the operating staff?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We cannot deal with the subject piecemeal; it must be taken up and dealt with as a whole.


Joseph Read: Cannot you eliminate the patronage system from the Government railways, or is it the intention of the Government to continue that system?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand the Government does not commit itself on the Drayton-Acworth report, and no action is going to be taken this session with reference to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not say that.
IMt. LEMIEUX: The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) says that the Government will accept that report.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I certainly feel sure that they will. I do not see how they can do anything else. If the members of the Government are intelligent men, if they have intelligently studied the whole railway question, and have a due sense of responsibility to the country, I do not see how they can possibly avoid adopting the Drayton-Acworth report. Whether it should be adopted right off I am not prepared to say, but personally I propose to hold the Government responsible later on for its adoption. They have promised to take the matter up when the present Canadian Northern arbitration is ended-I do not think they ought to wait that long. I think no time should be lost in acting on that report, because the Tailway question is knocking at the door of Parliament in a manner such as no other issue in the country has ever done, and it is really second in importance only to the war. I believe the Government will realize that, and it is for the members on both sides to bring pressure to bear upon them so that they will solve this question and apply the solution as rapidly as possible.


John Howard Sinclair: Civil Service reform is one thing and patronage is another. Cannot the minister take steps immediately to abolish patronage on the Government railways?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: So far as I know it is abolished now.
Mr. JOSEPH READ- Oh, no.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Jacques Bureau: Patronage in the case of the Government railways, if I understand the minister aright, has to do with purchases and contracts, whereas when my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) indicated that it was one of the things we should reach in this Bill, it was declared that appointments constituted patronage. There seems to be a clash in

the interpretation of wihat patronage is in the two cases. What about the appointments?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are made
by the managing officials of the road.


Jacques Bureau: On a recommendation, I suppose.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know. I never made any.


Jacques Bureau: On the recommendation of the members, or those who have the pull, or the patronage committee.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Can any member of the Government tell us how these appointments are made?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are made
by the managing officials of the road.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Upon whose recommendations ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Upon nobody's
recommendation.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Upon nobody's recommendation? Then, a minister never recomends, or if he does recommend, his recommendation is not acted upon?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If he does make a recommendation it need not he acted upon.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The reason I insist upon this point is because I hold in my hand a letter from the Union Government dated Ottawa, November 21, 1917, signed by every member of the Government, .addressed to the soldiers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in the trenches, and I find in that letter this paragraph:
This non-iparty Government has wiped out the patronage system in the purchase of supplies, the awarding of contracts and appointments to the public service. That is more than any party Government ever did' or ever could do.
T presume that there are no appointments made in any Government service now under the old patronage system. Am I right in supposing that since November 21, 1917, there are no patronage appointments?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The management of the road have authority from the Government to appoint anybody they desire, and appointments, are made without any interference on the part of the Government or any member of the Government; and the management has been instructed to exercise the greatest independence possible in selecting those whom they desire in the railway service.


John Howard Sinclair: What does the minister mean by the " management of the road?" Take for instance, the management of the roundhouse in a place like Stellar-ton, N. S. Is the superintendent of that roundhouse at liberty to receive the application of any young fellow who comes to him without reference to a recommendation by a member of Parliament or a patronage committee on anybody else? If he does receive it, will he be backed up by the Government, and will any appointment that he may make under those circumstances be ratified by the 'head of the department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot answer that question, because I do not know what the rules of the management of that railway are in respect to appointments.


Joseph Read: I want to assure the hon. acting minister that patronage is as rampant on the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways as it has ever been.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph Read: I know it, as a matter of fact. I wro'te to the minister long since the election and put it straight up to him, that at the new Port Borden, named after the right hon. leader of the Government, where the new car ferry lands, a large number of men were required to take up the various new positions, and I told him: "Now, I suppose since the Union Government has been returned, that you will implement the promises made to the people and do away with patronage; I want to know whether in the appointment of the men there will be any preference given to one or other because of his political colour." I received a letter from him in which he said that, of course,-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. member is out of order. The question of abolition of patronage after the last general election has nothing to do with the clause under discussion. It may have had something to do with the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member in so far as it had relation to railways, but that amendment has been disposed of, and I must rule that the hon. member is out of order.
Mr. H. A. A1ACKIE: Is it not a fact that the hon. member had a son appointed as ferry keeper-


Georges Henri Boivin: That is absolutely out of order. The question of the appointment of any particular person is out of order.

On section 42-Computation of number of probable vacancies-soldiers to have preference:


Samuel Hughes: There is one point to which I would like to direct the attention of the minister. This section speaks of overseas soldiers and does not discriminate. There are soldiers in Canada, as I pointed out in this House not very long ago, who from the very outset have been anxious to go to the front, and who could not possibly be permitted to go. This section would militate against these men, and would put a premium upon a class of men who are no more deserving than are they, although all may be deserving. I should like to see the soldiers classified into combatants, or those who faced the foe in the field, and those who have been in Britain in offices since the beginning of the war. That is the distinction which I wish to direct the attention of the minister to, and I hope he will take it into consideration. There are men by the hundred in Britain -good fellows, I am not saying one word against them; they are doing very useful work-who have not been to the front or in the firing line at all, and who are not as much entitled to consideration as are many of the boys who were desirous of going to the front but who have remained in Canada occupying positions against their own wishes. The minister is doing an injustice, unintentionally, of course, to that class of soldier, and he is hardly putting the premium on the combatant fellow that I would like to see put on him. My heart always warms up to the fellow who faces the music ini the trenches.


William Garland McQuarrie: At the suggestion of the Acting Finance Minister, I withdrew the second amendment to section 41, and I now move it as an amendment to section 42. It is as follows:
That section 42 he amended by adding at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection 2 the following- words:
Provided also that the Commission may, in the case of any such person, decide that it is not expedient to require such person to pass the said examination and' may, without such examination, place such person on the said list of successful candidates in such order of merit as they may deem advisable.
"Person" herein referred to is set out in paragraph (a) of this section as meaning any person who has been on active service overseas on the military or naval forces of His Majesty or of any of the Allies of His Majesty during the present war. Men who have served in the overseas forces should be placed in a different position from that
occupied by ordinary individuals so far as examinations are concerned. In proper cases-of which the commission will be the judges-it is only right that returned soldiers should be so placed on the list without being required to take the examination. There is nothing unusual about that. In British Columbia in my own profession it has been decided in a great many cases by the Benchers to dispense altogether with intermediate and even with final examinations in the case of men who have served overseas. Such men are given their degrees without examination. The Civil 'Service Commission should give every consideration to the men who have fought our battles at the front. If, therefore, we place returned soldiers in a more favourable position than we place civilians, it will not be doing too much for them.


John Gillanders Turriff: Thousands of men have gone from Canada, have used the uniform to enable them to keep from getting within sound of the guns, have remained in England and through political influence have secured high positions there. If this amendment is passed as it is worded, these men, when they return, will be able to use the same political influence that kept their skins safe when they were in England in order to get high positions here in the Service without passing an examination. I object most strongly to that. If my hon. friend will make his amendment apply only to men 'who' have gone across the channel and fought in the trenches, I will support it, hut I protest against these political soldiers, who took good care not to get in line with the bullets, being given any special advantage over anybody else when they come home.


Mr. NESBITT:: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And age does not count against them.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is so. It is dangerous to suggest to the commission that we want them to appoint men without regard to merit or (qualifications. The use of the

word "may" suggests that the commission "shall;"! think that we should not adopt an amendment of this kind. I agree with the Acting Minister of Finance that any favouritism which is shown should be extended to those who have seen actual service at the front. I. should not like to say anything against the men who- have gone to England with -the intention of fighting. As the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) says, some of them may have exercised political influence to keep them from danger, but I am not saying anything about that; I am not making any insinuations. As the section is worded, it gives- returned soldiers a distinct preference. The examination- will not be a -serious matter to these men; besides, as I have said, it would 'be dangerous for -us to -suggest to the commission that they select for appointment men without merit-I mean, not individual merit, no-t the merit of having served overseas, but the merit which qualifies them for a Civil Service position. If, therefore, the section is so worded as to -give preference to the men who have seen -actual service in the trenches, I think it will be all right.


Mr. ANDREWS:: I am very much interested in this soldier problem, and I wish to tell hon. members that I never saw a soldier who went overseas for the money that was in it or who came -back with the idea of getting a job which he was not fit to hold. I am very strongly opposed to the amendment. If returned soldiers are not competent to hold the positions, they do not want to take them, and we do not want to put them into- those positions. We do not want to make paupers of them. If we have to take care of the returned soldiers, we shall do it in some other way.


Jacques Bureau: This amendment is one which might lead a person who opposes it, and who- is not in the position of my hon. friend (Mr. Andrews), to be criticised and sniped at hereafter. This Bill is brought down for the purpose of rendering the 'Civil Service more effective and- improving conditions as- they now exist. I see a number of difficulties if we are going to begin to create classes by exceptions, as is suggested by the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie). In presenting his amendment he cites a precedent; he says that in hie province-I conclude he is a lawyer-the bench in the case of men who have served overseas exempts from examination students or those who are preparing to practice the legal profession. I do not 6ee the connection be-
[Mr Nesbitt.]
tween exempting a lawyer from examination and exempting from examination a man who has gone into the Civil -Service. After a man receives his diploma or his certificate to practice as a lawyer, he hangs out his shingle; and if he can make good, that is all right. If he cannot, he has to suffer for the favour which was intended to be done to him and which did not turn out as he expected. In this case, I think the amendment as moved by the Acting Minister of Finance goes the limit. We say: You shall pass qualifying examinations. For the protection of the service,, we all admit that they are necessary. We tell the soldier:	"You deserve consideration at
the hands of the people, -and we are willing to give it to you; supposing there are fifteen candidates, and by -marks there are fourteen ahead of you, you are qualified to hold a position, but the superior qualification which you get for having risked your life for your country gives you the preference over the fourteen others who, under ordinary circumstances, would have been ahead of you -and w-ould ihave set you back." Let us take the argument of my hon. friend fro-m Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). Supposing we are going to make differences between those who went across the channel and those who -did not, and between those who went into the trenches .and those who did not, there may be -men who- went overseas for the purpose of going into the trenches, -but who, from circumstances beyond their control, were -unable to reach the trenches. They may have been sick; they may have been under conditions which prevented them from reaching the trenches. It may have been decided that their services on one side of the channel were of more benfit than on the other. The same thing -may apply to a man acro-s-s -the channel Teady to go into the trenches. lie may become sick, or, on -account of circumstances beyon-d his control, he -may not be able to reach the trenches. An injustice would -be worked to such a man. Those are some of the objections and difficulties which we m-ay have to meet if we -accept the amendment according to -the suggestion of the hon member for Assiniboia. I agree with the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. -G. W. Andrews) that we ought not to jeopardise in any way the Bill that is now before us and which we are going to make law. We might render a bad service to the soldier himself. Supposing by mishap -a man unqualified should be put into a position, that would create a certain fee-ling against that man. It would

tend to take away from that particular man the sympathy to which he is entitled, and we ought not to expose any one to that condition.
At six o'clock the corpmittee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I quite agree with the remarks that have been made by some hon. gentlemen to the effect that we must take the greatest interest in the welfare of the returned soldier. Nobody, I imagine, would dispute that. This country must see to it that the soldier who has performed services across the seas is properly cared for, but when it is proposed to empower the commission to appoint returned soldiers to competitive posts without examination I must say I am not prepared to agree. 'Section 41 enables the commission to declare that the Act shall not apply to certain positions where its application would not be practicable, and positions of that class will be open to returned soldiers. Section 42 also gives preference to returned soldiers by enabling the commission to put them ahead-if they pass the examination-of all other candidates qualifying. That is a distinct preference. The age limit has also been removed in the case of returned soldiers, so I think hon. gentlemen will agree that same preference has been shown to this class of the community. It is rather a serious thing to suggest that appointments should be made to the Civil Service without examination of any kind. We must have a Civil Service in this country; it should be an efficient one, and I should not like to see power placed in the hands of the commission or any other body to wholly eliminate examinations for any one class. I hope this view will prevail with the committee, and particularly with the hon. member for New Westminster, who I hope will withdraw his amendment.


Mr. BURNHAM:: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Very frequently the defeated candidate has the power of recommendation.


John Hampden Burnham: I am not complaining about that. I am not speaking of the de-ifeated candidate, but of the man who represents the people. Do not let me be misunderstood. I am not talking of cases (where recommendations are not to be made, but I say that where a recommendation has to toe made, ,and the power to make that recommendation is taken out of the hands of the people, it is a direct insult to the people's representative for one thing, and a violation of the constitution for another. There is no guarantee whatever that the appointment will be worth the paper it is written on. Furthermore-I do not wish to be insulting-it looks to me as if the deputy ministers, being amenable to nobody except the minister and having all power in their hands, will hand that power over to the minister so that the power of recommendation will be taken out of the hands of the people where it rests now with more or less satisfactory results, and will be centralized in the bands of the Government. And pray, since when has the Government had a greater moral right to say who shall be recommended than the members of this House? If the members here are not gentlemen of common decency, fit to bear the

responsibility cast upon them, or if they fancy for one minute that they can sidestep that responsibility or are not capable of making an honest recommendation, then for Heaven's sake let them resign and let some decent men take their places. 'But to suppose that the standard of representative life in this country has fallen so low that some person or persons unknown may recommend appointments! in a constituency, avoiding as if he were the plague the representative of that constituency, is to suppose something that the House and the country will not accept. You may pass this Bill, but the House and the people will not pass it and it never will go.


William Garland McQuarrie: In view of the statement made by the acting minister a few days ago, that this Bill was considered to a certain extent more or less as a temporary measure, and that amendments would probably be brought down after it had been tried out, I think I can safely withdraw the proposed amendment. I hope, however, that next session the minister, and some other hon. gentlemen, will have changed their ideas and that they will finally decide to support this amendment. I feel that it is only a proper one and although I must agree with the remarks of hon. gentlemen to the effect that we do not want to have anyone in the Civil Service who is not capable of carrying out the duties of his office, I still think that men from the front should Ibe given different consideration from others. I would, therefore, if the committee agrees, withdraw this amendment.
Amendment (IMr. McQuarrie) withdrawn.


Jacques Bureau: I desire to direct the attention of the committee to subsection 3. Last year I asked the acting minister where the appointing power rested in the Act and the answer I got, as recorded in Hansard, was a reference to subsection 3 of section 42, which reads:
Prom the list of successful1 competitors, the Commission, on the application of the deputy head, shall supply the required officers, clerics and employees.
I think that is not the appointing power. Glancing through the remainder of the Act, I cannot find any place where the appointing power rests. Of course, the' commission designates the man who is to occupy the position and under the present system he is required to serve on probation for six months. Then he may be either retired, denied the privilege of continuing

in his office, or kept on. But there is no appointing power. There is a distinct provision in clause 30 about the dismissing power.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The appointing power in the commission?


Jacques Bureau: The appointing power of the commission itself.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the word
" supply " were struck out and the word " appoint " put in, would that tot cover it?


Jacques Bureau: That might be better. If the amendment I proposed this morning is carried, the appointing and dismissing power would rest with the same body.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I beg to move:
That the word "supply" in the second line of sulbTClause 3, in the 12th line of page 15, be struck out and' the word "appoint" be inserted in lieu thereof.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like the minister to explain the meaning of the words "successful competitors." Suppose there are five or six successful competitors, under what form of selection will the commission decide as to which one shall be appointed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The commission would select the one whom they thought best qualified from the list of successful competitors.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: A candidate writes on the examination and has 100 per cent, a perfect paper, and 70 per cent is sufficient to pass. The candidate having 70 marks out of 100 might be preferred to the one who has a perfect paper?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They are put in the order of their marks.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is what I want to get at. Is it understood that the highest-marked candidate shall have the preference in the selection?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That will he arbitrary and imperative?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Sub-section 2 of section 42 says that:
Immediately after each examination, a list of the successful competitors in the case of a competitive examination, and of the successful candidates in order of merit an other examinations shall be made out, and the list of succesful competitors and candidates shall be published in the Canada Gazette.


Jacques Bureau: Subsection 4 of section 42 says:

The selection shall be, so far as practicable, in the order of the names on the list, but the Commission may select any person who in his examination shows special qualifications for any qualifications for any particular subject.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is wihat I want to get at.


Jacques Bureau: Suppose, as my hon.
friend has suggested, that 70 points are required and there was a man who had 80; the man who had 80 should have a preference over the one who had 70 unless he was a returned soldier.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Also unless he had special qualifications.


Jacques Bureau: That is a different thing. I would understand that provision that the selection shall be so far as practicable in the order of the names on the list to mean according to the number of marks obtained at the examination.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is the same thing.	.


Mr. SHEABD:: Is it intended to determine the qualifications of candidates by examination and that alone? It appears to me that if that is the idea the provision is going to be too narrow and that we are going to get those who are more distinguished for their scholastic attainments than their practical efficiency. I could name a great many instances where a man might fall down on a written examination and yet be the best man for the position because he would probably have more practical experience and ability. I do not think that a written examination can qualify a man for a practical position in any walk of life.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I stated on Friday evening, and again to-day, the practice which is now being followed by the commission. It is outlined in the statement which I read on Friday night-, and which prepared by a member of the commission:
Heretofore permanent appointment in the Inside Service was based solely on the result of an educational test (the candidate being otherwise suitable, of course, as to age, health, character, and habits). This gave to the candidate fresh from the class room, and yet lacking in experience, a great advantage over the educated and altogether more suitable person who possessed business experience, but might be a trifle rusty in some of the subjects written at the examination.
A little later the statement proceeds to set forth:
In rating applications for such positions the business experience of the applicants would be
considered; together with their educational standing, as evidenced by school or collegiate record, while satisfactory information as to character and- habits would also he required.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The questions
that are prepared are applicable to all parts of Canada, there is no variation whatever.
Mr. MicKENZIE: The minister does not grasp .my point. There are certain questions set-in composition and English grammar, and they are -answered, probably, according to the -definitions given in the Ontario English grammar, -and- the Ontario standard work on English composition, which are entirely different from those in use in Nova Scotia. A man from Nova Scotia answering -according to that standard will get no value at all for his answers.


Jacques Bureau: With respect to subsection 6 I would suggest that the word " appointed " be substituted for the word " supplied " in line 26. I would also suggest that in subsection 8, " the commission may select for any office," the word " appoint " be -used.


Mr. BUTTS:: Is there any intention to
provide -a substitute examination? For instance, speaking of the Maritime Provinces, the matriculation examinations in Mount Allison, St. Frangois Xavier and Dalhousie universities, are taken as the equivalent of the prim-ary examination in law and medicine.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No- other examination is accepted as the equivalent for the Civil Service examination. In answer to



the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), I may say that I am 'willing to accept his suggestion, and accordingly move that the word "lappointed" be substituted for the word "supplied" in the subsection.	,


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the minister tell me what distinction there will be between examination arid test? For example, take the position of stenographer. I am informed that the practice now is for the applicant to lappear before the necessary committee of the Civil Service Commission and undergo a test. Are these examinations all subject to being held at the one time, or is there an easy way of getting through without waiting for a definite period.? What is the present practice, land what is likely to be the practice in the future?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For the purpose of securing an, employee of the class described by my hon. friend the Civil Service Commission would hold an examination at any time.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 43-Notices and examination to be in. both languages:
Jacques Bureau: I do not remember anything in the Act providing that those who hold the degree of Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Letters of the several universities of the Dominion can be admitted to certain positions without examination.. Might I ask the minister if there is such a provision?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no such provision.


Jacques Bureau: Does the minister not think there should be?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would be giving an unfair advantage. Some other person might possibly defeat the college graduate in a competitive examination.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the good of publishing notices of examination in the Canada Gazette? The minister might just as well put them in the cellar as in that publication. Very few people see the Gazette, and there should be plenty of notice of these examinations in some local paper. I do not know for how long the notice should appear.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Notices are published in the local papers as well.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why not provide for that under the law?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 44-Appointees must be British subjects unless special exemption-age limits-age limits for civil servants competing at examinations:
Jacques Bureau: May I ask the acting minister why there is a restriction that persons not British subjects can be admitted to the Civil Service? The other night the question was raised by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) about having the oath of allegiance included in the oath to be taken by a civil servant. I understood the purpose was to make It impossible for a man to apply for a position unless he was a British subject. In this section it is provided that a man not a British subject can be appointed on the authority of the Governor in Council. I do not see how any case may arise, unless that of an interpreter, or under very extraordinary circumstances, in which a person who is not a British subject will be required to fill a position in the Civil Service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The purpose of this section is to enable the Governor in Council, under special circumstances, to employ the services of one not a British subject because he possesses some special knowledge upon a certain subject. For instance, two or three years ago the services of a distinguished Norwegian were secured by the Government in connection with our fisheries, and he remained in the service for a year or more. He has since ceased his connection with the Civil Service. I understand that a little difficulty would have been experienced in employing such a person were it not for this section, which is intended to cover cases of that kind.


Ernest Lapointe: Is there any age limit *at the present time for examination for the Inside Service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It varies from 18 to 35 years. It is different in the Post Office from other departments; and then in respect of some positions it is different from others.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 45-Classification:
Jacques Bureau: This section says that in the classification of the second division, grade A shall consist of clerks and other employees working under supervision; grade B shall consist of clerks and em-

ployees working under supervision, and of stenographers and typewriters; and that grade C shall consist of clerks and employees, and of stenographers and typewriters whose duties are copying and routine work under supervision. I do not see that there is much use for a stenographer in doing copying, or what particular work they can perform.


Charles Sheard: I think that draftsmen and architects' assistants should not be classed with clerks and stenographers; they are a higher grade of skilled workmen. Many of them have training. In Toronto, many have degrees as Bachelors of Science and have taken their course in the School of Practical Science. They have technical knowledge, and although they work more or less under supervision and direction, it appears to me that they should be put in a higher class, possibly in the first division. I suggest that to the minister.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am proposing


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before the minister proceeds, I wish to endorse what my hon. friend says. I think architects ehould be in a higher category.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I propose striking out those four lines altogether so that these classes will be located in the grade that appears suitable. It is rather a mistake that the words occur there. I move to strike out the following lines: In these last three grades shall also be included photographers, engrossers, draftsmen, architects assistants, technical assistants and such other employees as the Governor in -Council may direct;


Mr. McMASTER:: Before the amendment carries, may I a6-k the minister where he proposes to put these technical folk? I suppose they will have to be in some grade.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They will apply to some grade in either of the divisions, whichever appears to be the proper grade. I wish also to strike out lines three and four of section 45, " Technical officers and persons possessing professional or other special technical knowledge and experience." As the Bill now stands, these are put immediately under "Deputy Heads." I propose that they shall go under the First Division where they were before.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
-Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: I move that the words " deputy -ministers " in the 23rd line, page 16, be changed to " deputy
11-9J
heads ", and that the word's " professional, technical " be inserted after the word " administrative'' in the 24th line.
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Archambault: Translators, I understand, are classified in the First Division, Grade D. Translators are technical officers, requiring expert knowledge and experience, and they should be put in Class C.
Mr. A. K. -MACLEAN: They would not be put there by legislation. It would be a matter of proper classification to put them there if their services should be considered professional or technical.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I remind my hon. friend that in a memorandum submitted by Sir Allen Ayleswo-rth some years ago-, the conclusion was- reached that translators should be considered as technical experts.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should think so.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 46-Salaries:


Charles Murphy: Is the word " technical " defined in the Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. We discussed that matter the other evening. I said t^hat I did not think the word was capable of definition and that if we atte-mped to define it we might get into difficuly. The words " professional and technical " are used in the Civil Service Acts of most other countries; apparently they have been unable to improve upon them.
-Mr. IMUR-PHY: I do not agree that it is impossible to define it. Some difficulty may be encountered if a definition is made, but there has been a great deal of abuse of the provision for the appointment of professional and technical officers. Appointments have been made under that head of people who possess absolutely no technical qualifications.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The old Act has the words "or otherwise peculiar"; consequently there was opportunity of abusing the powers under the Act. These words have been struck out, and the section now applies only to purely professional and technical officers.


Charles Murphy: I -assure my non, friend that -several appointments which I have in mind were " otherwise peculiar." If difficulty be experienced in defining the word " technical," I suggest, through my hon. friend, to the commission that in the regula-

tions which they will draft, and which may make the Act more .practical in its application and .more flexible in its use, this .matter be not lost sight of, because undoubtedly there has been great abuse of appointments under this head. I cited the other night the famous case that held up the business of the country for a week or two, when the question was discussed whether a military tailor should be considered as A technical officer.


John Howard Sinclair: Technical officers should be in Grade A; that would Temedy the difficulty. We dispense with examination in these cases because the officers in question are of high standing as professional experts.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Some technical men have higher ranks in the service than others; it would hardly do to put them all in one grade.


Mr. DAVIS:: In what grade will the man be classified Who get3 $3,450?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In Grade A, First Division.


Fred Langdon Davis: Should the classification of the grades not read: " $2,900 and under $3,500;" " $2,200 and under $2,900," and [DOT] so on? Would that not make it .plainer?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Section 45 establishes the divisions and the grades, and describes the class of work assigned to each; this section prescribes the salary in each division and grade. I do not see how we could improve on the present arrangement. An increase of $100 is provided in the case of promotion from one grade to another.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: How does the acting minister justify the provision of only $600 a year for messengers, porters, sorters and packers? This is another case where the under dog is 'being neglected. I have talked with the messengers about here from time to time, and I find that a quiet feeling of-


Henry Arthur Mackie: Unrest.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My hon. friend calls it " unrest." At any rate, in these days, when we talk of billions with a glib tongue, and with the price of bacon running up to 50 cents and 60 cents per pound, it is hard to understand how a messenger who has a wife and five, six, or seven children to support can get along on $600, $700, or $800 a year. Let ns get a little democracy into this enactment. How can the Government justify paying a messenger who is 
married and has four or five children, $600 a year?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As a matter of fact, I would think that messengers who had been married and been in the Service for a number of years would probably be getting the higher salaries. The salary of $600 would be paid to the young boy or young man, most likely unmarried, on entering the service.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And the returned soldier. I see some of the recently appointed employees are returned soldiers. Are you going to istart men who have fought for their country at $600? What I protest against is that the rule should be hard-and-fast. When there are so many positions to be filled, a man who has fought the battles of his country is going to ask for a decent job at a decent wage, and the country wants to give that to him. If a man has been in the service for some time and has not fought for his country, he gets $1,200; but a man from the front, crippled, perhaps gassed, but still fit to do an honest year's service, should be given $1,000 a year, and you should not let him wait for the period of his death to reach up from $600 to $1,000 by the grace of somebody. The point I wish to impress is this: If you do not do it in any other way, do not fix the minimum at $600, but start at $900.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We can start at $800.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: This is a difficult Bill to understand, but I see $600 set as the minimum. \I see some of these returned soldiers upstairs. They are bright young men; they have gone through the agonies of war, and yet they are employed by a grateful country at a salary-unless the commission has its attention drawn to the matter-of $600. It is not fair. Far too much attention is paid in this country to the fellows getting $5,000, $7,000, $10,000 a year and too little to the man who has fought for his country.


Charles Murphy: Without joining issue with my hon. friend in any respect, I may say that under section 12 there is a possibility of appointing a man in that grade at an increase of $200 above the minimum.


Mr. OOWAN:: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy). I do not think Canada is so nearly dead broke that we need ask any man to work for less than $800 a year, and a man who works for less than $800 a year is not worth very much, unless, he is driven to take such a position. Some

years ago I had the handling of what is called the "patronage" in the constituency of Regina, and in that connection it was my duty to recommend many men for positions , in the post office and other places. There are quite a number of those officers who start at $725 a year, and I have never yet succeeded in getting a good man at that salary. Those men would quickly tell me that they could make more money than that by working on the streets of Regina, and that is true. We had to accept a poor class of men, and we endeavoured to make good men by taking a poor class and gradually working them up into permanent positions. I would like to see a minimum salary fixed of not less than $800 a year to start with in all the services in the Dominion.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is not necessary for those men to start at $600. In grade C, $600 to $1,000, it is in the discretion of the commission to say what the salary shall be. There are in the Service certain branches in which young men may be employed who might very well be started at $600, and then they would be receiving more money than they could earn in other walks of life. For instance, boys in the banks do not start at $600. Boys who go into the retail mercantile service or even the wholesale mercantile service do not start at $600; they have to work up. As my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) has said, he has often recommended people to take positions, and they would rather work at some other job than take those positions. There is nothing to compel any of those persons to accept positions in the Civil Service. This leaves it optional with the commission to say what salary shall be paid, and I have no doubt, in the case of men who have been overseas, no commission will ask them, if they are capable of filling the position to which they are appointed, to start at $600 a year. There are in the Civil Service many positions in which people are well paid,-and think they are well paid-at $600. I remember at one time a very young man, who was drawing $800 a year in one of the departments, applying to me to see if I could not get him a raise. In answer to a question he told me he had held his position for a year. I knew for a fact that, although he was a capable young man, he could not possibly command that salary in the banking or mercantile service anywhere in Canada. He was being better paid than he would be in any other walk of life that I knew of. He was anxious enough, when he first got the position, to accept it at $800 a year. If it was necessary
for everybody to start at $600, I would quite agree with my hon. friends that the minimum should be increased, but $600 might be quite acceptable in regard to certain positions in the service.


Mr. COWAN:: That is all right, but the service itself is suffering. There are in the Regina post office some sixteen vacancies, and men cannot be got to fill them, and girls will not accept the salaries paid by the Government. The result is that business is not being done, and that unless we are prepared to start those
9 p.m. young men at higher salaries we shall not get them at all, with the cost of living and everything else increasing as it is. The minimum salary should be much higher than it is.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman who advocated making the minimum salary more than $600. Such a salary is a shame. There has been some sacrifice entailed in the education of any young man, however young he may be, and in large centres, such as the city of Montreal, any labouring man receives more than $600,-it is not even the wage of an apprentice at the present time. The Government should reconsider the matter so far as the big centres are concerned, where it costs so much to live. Generally speaking, those young men are supporting their mothers or fathers. Why say that a young man should not, because he is young, be paid.just as much As a man of middle age? Sometimes he is doing as much work, and perhaps more, than older people. The minimum salary should be $800. In the city of Montreal you cannot secure help unless you pay $2.50, $3 or $4 a day, and yet the Government starts those young men at $600.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I heartily support the suggestion of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). The whole class should be increased very materially, and so far as the soldiers are concerned, the language used was very moderate. It is a shame that we should start them at such a low salary. There cannot be any salary paid commensurate with the sacrifices they have made. In whatever class they are put, it is the duty of this country to see that they commence at a proper salary.


Matthew Robert Blake: Evidently those gentlemen are talking for Hansard. As the Acting Minister of Finance has pointed out, an extra $200 may be added to the $600, and

that is more than many of the school 'teachers in this country are getting today. There are very few school teachers in the rural schools of Ontario, and they pay bigger salaries than the city schools, who are drawing more 'than $650 to-day.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Is the hon. gentleman talking for Hansard,?


Matthew Robert Blake: These stenographers who
start in after a three month's business course do not stop at $600. They are getting much better salaries than the school teachers of this country. The Toronto Globe, for instance, two or three months before last midsummer, carried two or three columns every day of advertisements for teachers, with a second class certificate, at ia salary of $500 to $700. I think we should leave it to the commission to decide each case on its .merits and if they think a man's training justifies them in granting an extra $200 he will receive it. A school teacher has to spend a much longer time in study than a stenographer, and paying her way during all that time.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not put the returned soldier on the same basis as the civilian school teacher, -and I do not think it is right for the hon. gentleman to do so. When these men left this country to fight the battles of the Empire the whole country in an ebullition of popular feeling bade them Godspeed and a safe return, and promised that the country's last dollar would be spent in making them comfortable when they came home. Talk about school teachers! Why, one commission connected with the Trade Department of this Government got an Order in Council put through the other day to employ thirty-eight stenographers in Ottawa at $1,200 a year each. I 'think the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) is a military man himself and did some good service, and surely he should stand up for his brother soldier and see that he gets treated in a decent way-I do not say in a generous way, but we should at least provide him with what a man ordinarily requires to live on. I am prepared to move that a special clause be inserted on page 17 limiting grade " G " of the second division to the returned soldier wlm has seen 'active service in France.


Mr. STEVENS:: What about other fronts ?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And on other fronts. 1 would not applythisprovieion to soldiers who have only been to England, although many of them may be deserving. I beg to move that a special clause be inserted limiting 
grade "C" of the second division to returned soldiers who have done duty overseas, except those who have remained in England, and that the minimum salary be $900 and the maximum $1,500, instead of $600 and $1,000 respectively.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would point out that by section 46 the maximum of this grade is increased by $200, compared with the salary under the old Act. I would also call attention to section 12.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not think that is doing much for the soldier, when we remember that there is now a tax on tea and coffee' and that the price of bacon and all other articles of food has gone up. I am rather surprised that the Acting Minister of Finance takes that view. Section 12 does not grant an increase of $200; it only gives the commission power to grant it if they see fit. Now, I do not wish to see the returned soldier at the mercy even, of the Civil Service Commission, or of the minister or the deputy head; I would like to see this Parliament bold enough to toe the mark and say that the soldier has earned a decent wage, and we should make provision for him here in the Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I rather like the idea of embodying the suggestion in the statute, because we all remember that at the outbreak of the war, with a view to inducing civil servants to join the colours, an Order in Council wias passed' promising civil servants who enlisted 'both their military and civil pay; but only a few weeks ago the Government cancelled that Order in Council and went back on the solemn pledge they gave to the men- who left Canada. I say it was a shame and dishonourable to break a solemn pledge in that way.


Mr. WIGMORE:: It 'is true the commission have power to give an additional $200, but I do not like leaving it to the commission or even to the minister. I think Parliament should have courage enough to come forward boldly and say, "We want this thing arranged in this very way.'' The amount we are offering to the returned soldier is not large enough. The only positions that are open to him are messenger-ships and positions of that sort carrying only a small salary. Many of these returned soldiers were earning very mach^ bigger salaries before they left Canada, hut now through wounds or disablement they have to take these lower-salaried positions with $600 or $800 to start with. I would support an amendment that the minimum salary for the returned soldier be $1,000,

and that would only be carrying out to a very small extent the pledge we gave to these boys when they left our shores. Many of them to-day are walking the streets of our towns and cities because there are not enough positions to go around. I think we should redeem our pledge to them at least to the extent of giving them a minimum salary of SI,000, and I beg to move accordingly.
Mr. MAN30N: I would like to make a couple of points. One is in regard to what the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) said. I notice in the House that whenever an hon. member takes' a stand in regard to keeping down expenses .somebody stands up and says that he is taking a whack at the returned soldier. I do not think that is playing the game. I do not . think that the hon. (memfber (for North Winnipeg took any whack in any shape or form at the returned soldier. I did not hear him say anything that reflected in any way upon the returned soldier. I happen to be a returned soldier myself and if he had said anything at which I could have taken offence I would have done so. This thing is being carried to an excess in this country. I .believe we are getting hysterical about people taking whacks .at returned soldiers. That is one point that I desire to make. The other point is this: I have sat in this House and heard a good many hon. members hitting at the soldier who has not got beyond England. I may speak upon that because I got beyond England myself. I wish to say, in justice to the man who has not got beyond England, that many good men have not got beyond England because they could not help themselves. After a man gets to England he is turned over to the overseas military authorities and he cannot say where he shall go. It took me seven months of hard work, breaking orders and ignoring rules in order to make myself so useless in England that I would >be sent to France. If I had not done that I would have stayed in England and been one of those despised men who stay in England. A great many of the men who stay in England do just as hard work as the majority of those who go to France. There are a great many men in France who are sixty miles behind the firing line and they are just as safe as if they were sitting in this House of Parliament.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What about the longrange guns?	.


Robert James Manion: They could shoot to England just as well as they . could shoot to
the bases in France. I think there should be a little more justice done by hon. members to the man who goes to England and who probably does his best to get to France but does not .succeed in getting across.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is a Civil Service Act and we .are basing the salaries in the Act upon the theory that we are merely creating a Civil Service. It is quite true that many of these positions should go to returned soldiers. But inevitably a great many of these positions will be filled by persons who are not returned soldiers. I would think that a iboy of fourteen ot fifteen who happened to be a messenger, packer or sorter and was getting $700 or $800, was doing very well indeed. True, that sum may not be a fair reward to the returned soldier of older age, and perhaps with a family. However, I do. not say that the suggestion is not worthy of consideration, but I want to point out that an amendment is not possible now to increase the minimum or maximum in that division. That would require a fresh resolution to be placed on the Order Paper, and it would have to be assented to by His Excellency the Governor General. I have no doubt that all these matters in reference to the returned soldiers will have to receive due consideration by the Government in the early future.


Donald Sutherland: There is no compulsion to force people into the Civil Service, and consequently I would not be in favour of having the minimum salary too low. But I do think that the amendment that was moved in regard to the returned soldier has something to justify it. We have heard a great deal about the returned soldier, the generous treatment that he has received, and should receive. We discussed that question earlier in connection with this Bill. The fact that the returned soldiers are not represented in the personnel of the commission justifies the criticism that is offered of this measure and the endeavour to provide all the safeguards that are necessary to ensure that they shall receive the treatment that they are entitled to. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. L. A. Lapointe) pointed out the difficulties that people living in large cities, such as Montreal, experienced in trying to live on less than $1,000 a year. When I heard the hon. gentleman make those remarks I could not help but think of all the people in this country who never see $1,000 from one year -s end to the other, and who are labouring

hard in order to secure a living for themselves and their families. That is particularly true of a certain class who are engaged in the public service. I refer to the rural mail carriers. These people have been taking contracts and delivering the mail year after year at a salary such as is not mentioned in the Civil Service list at all. I would just like to contrast the position of these public servants with that of the people who have a wall of protection all around them, whose hours of labour are regulated, who are superannuated in their old age and who receive much more generous treatment than those who are engaged in 'this branch of the public service to which I refer.


Robert Lorne Richardson: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Up to $1,200.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Up to $1,200. Probably there will be very few returned soldiers who would care to accept a menial position at $800. But some soldiers with a pensiun of $600 or $700 or $800, might do very well with that amount of money. But if you throw the throttle open wide and say that the returned soldier must start in at $1,000 or $1,200, this country is going to feel it in the long run. We have got the taxes piling up at an enormous rate, and while I intend to see that justice is done to the returned soldier the representatives in this House have some other duties to perform. They have to see that this [DOT]country is protected. I appeal to hon. gentlemen. Sometimes I have said that I am pleased that I am growing old and will soon pass off this stage.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would ask hon. members to hear my reason. It is that I fear that we will have the cry dinned into us for the next fifteen, twenty or thirty years, nothing but the returned soldier. God bless the returned soldier, we will try to do justice to him, but let us be fair to the country itself, and let us not be swept off our feet by the voice of the demagogue constantly crying out, " The returned soldier!"


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I cannot quite appreciate the minister's position in saying that we must have a special resolution before we can do what is proposed. I apprehend that the whole of section 46 is subject to amendment. If it is not so, I do not know where parliamentary practice comes in. Does the minister say we cannot knock out the whole clause if we like?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A motion may be made to reduce expenditure, but a proposal which involves an increase must be initiated by a resolution, accompanied by the consent of the Governor General. My hon. friend will remember that this very Bill was introduced by a resolution, solely because it involved an expenditure of njoney.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Very well, there is a very simple remedy. Let us take $1,000 off Grade A and another $500 off Grade B. Then we can raise the pay of the returned soldier from $900 to- $1,500. Then we will not commit a breach of the constitution.

My hon. friend is specious in his arguments, and if I may be allowed to use the expression, there appears to he subterfuge, to which my hon. friend is not prone. In regard to the hon. member for Springfie'd (Mr. Richardson) seeking to impugn other people's motives, I want to tell him, and tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I never was more earnest in anything in my life than when I rose to-night to try to do something if I could that would compel the Government to make decent provision for men who are back from the front. I know of men that are back here who, to use a slang phrase, are on their uppers. Many of them have not got the means to come to Ottawa, others who are here are out of employment, knocking at the door of the Government, and yet grumbling at the fact that the Government have nothing to offer them. I am no demagogue, Mr. Chairman, I want you to understand that when I take up a case of this kind I take it up from conscientious conviction. What I said ion a previous occasion is true, this Government has always been very prolific in its salaries to the " big guns " of the country. There is Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who has drawn the sum of $17,500. There is Professor Macal-lum of Toronto University, the chairman of some scientific research committee, whom nobody has ever heard of, nobody knows what he has ever done, or what benefit he has been to the country, and yet he is getting the sum of $10,000. I read a list of salaries here the other night which ranged from $10,000 down to $6,000. Never a kick about that; but the moment a man stands up to make an ordinary plea, free from demagogism, for the returned soldier, he is met by a gentleman who shouts, "wolf, wolf!" I want to give the member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) the credit for having done good service, and if that hon. gentleman had something said to him it was because he impugned other members' motives, and accused them of talking for Hansard. I do not have to talk for Hansard, Mr. Chairman, and I resent that sort of talk. I am going to move my amendment, and I am going to put it to the vote of the committee. I am going to move that the higher grade be reduced and that we raise grade C in the Third Division so that instead of being from $6Q0 to $1,200, it shall be from $1,000 to $1,500.


Mr. KEEFER:: The trouble with the Civil Service, as I understand the matter, is not the amount at which we start anybody, but the amount that we are paying those
who have been rendering efficient service to the public but are carried off into other avenues of employment. The difficulty has been the leakage from the Service of the good men at the top. It would be a terrible mistake, in my judgment, to attempt to reduce the salaries that are paid to those in the Civil Service, who, by their experience, their talents and by their faithful service, have earned higher and better stipends. Those are the men that we want to keep, but, unfortunately, they are continually leaving the public service, to be promptly engaged by private corporations. What inducement have you got to offer to a clever young university man? Is it the $600 salary at the bottom, or the $5,000 salary at the top. Never dream for a moment of reducing higher salaries, but rather increase them if possible so as to hold your good men. A salary of $600 is quite ample for messengers, porters, and employees of that class to start with, and they can climb to the $1,200 as in proposed clause. Some reference has been made to the Food Control Office, with which I happen to be connected, and some persons have talked about stenographers being paid $1,200 a year in that department. I think there is only one stenographer who is getting $1,200 a year, our practice being to start them at $50 or $60 a month, and as they progress and show their worth to increase their salaries. I agree that we should not play fast and loose with the public money. We should not start the minor officials at high salaries; if they prove their worth they will rapidly rise. I do not want to say anything about the question of the returned soldier, a subject which has been harped on too much, although I may say I have been elected by the returned soldier, and I believe in him. It is not necessary for us to say anything for the returned soldier here, because we all know and appreciate his worth.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: How much does the hon. gentleman say the stenographers in the food control office are getting?


Francis Henry Keefer: It has been said several times that the stenographers are paid $1,200. To my knowledge there is but one, who, for good reasons, is being paid $100 per month, the best one in the office.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Wha ''bout the others?


Francis Henry Keefer: The others start from $50 to $60 a month. There have been a lot of misstatements indulged in with respect to the food control office, but we have not

thought it worth while to refer to them. We are endeavouring to run that office on a 'business basis, promoting from time to time those of the employees who have served efficiently and faithfully. Some of the officials that have come in from the outside have been referred to. My hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) spoke of a gentleman coming in from Eaton's who is being paid $2,400 a year. Quite true, the gentleman was brought from	Eaton's.	We had to establish regulations with respect to the export and import licenses, and six men were sent to us a9 volunteers. One of them was getting $2,400, and we kept him on in the license department. However, this is not dealing with the subject matter under discussion. As I have already said, I think that $600 is ample for persons to start with in the minor positions, such as messengers.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I find in a return brought down that there is a page full of stenographers who are not paid at the rate of $50 or $60 a month. I will take the very first page I come to; I do not care to give the names.


Ernest Lapointe: In what office?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The food control office.
The first is a stenographer getting $950; the next a young lady getting $1,000; the next one, a married woman, getting $1,100; the next a young lady stenographer getting $950, another at $950; and another at $1,000.
Mr. .MORPHY:	In what department?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The food control office,
to which my hon. friend alluded. I see the following amounts also, all to young ladies $1,000, $950, $1,000 and $1,000. Would my hon. friend like me to go on?


Francis Henry Keefer: Are any of them paid
$1,200? That is the statement that was challenged,


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If the hon. gentleman
will permit me what il said was not that. What I eaid was that an Order in Council had recently been passed permitting that board to employ 38 stenographers up to a maximum of $1,200.


Francis Henry Keefer: That is quite correct.


Matthew Robert Blake: Mr. 'Chairman


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I have not finished.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You have a long list.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It' is too long to read tonight; I would not take the time to read it 
in committee. I find in this return that there is a chairman-


Francis Henry Keefer: Are there any $1,200
stenographers?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Do you want me to look over the whole list again?


Francis Henry Keefer: See if there are. -


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Yes, I see one right away. My eye falls upon one; she gets $1,200.


Francis Henry Keefer: Are there any more?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But I must add, in justice to my hon. friend, that her appointment is only temporary, and that she is also a cartoonist. Would my hon. friend now like me to read the salaries of the $5,000, $4,500 and $3,500 men in that return


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to accommodate his hon. friend.


Matthew Robert Blake: Before we leave this clause-


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I have not finished. I did not want to give my hon. friend any more information, Mr. Chairman, though I have bushels of it here. What I did really want to say, if my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) will allow me-and it will prevent my having to take the floor again,-is this: I find that the big salaries are paid to those who are appointed by Order in Council, and do not fall under the Civil Service at all. They are paid, I have no doubt, in proportion to the service they render, and I do not want to find fault with any of these appointments; I do not know them; I do not know the personnel; neither do I want to underestimate the personnel. But the salaries of those who come under the second division, and in fact the salaries of a good many of those in the first division, seem to me away below the mark. The cost of living has been going up so rapidly for so many years that I think the acting minister might try to put the poor people in the service on 'a little bit better footing to earn a living. He will remember that Sir George Murray, in his report to the Government some years ago, recommended that the maximum salary of the class which is now styled grade A of the second division was to be $1,800. It is still $1,500, although years have elapsed and the cost of living has gone on increasing. I would be the last man in the House wishing to burden the list of expenditures, but we must be just in all cases. And the poor man who is forced to work for his living, whether within or without the Government, should be alloted a salary that

will permit him to live. I have had men come to me, who had worked in the service for sixteen years, with their overcoats practically threadbare. Men have come to me who had married on the assumption that they would be able to live on the increase of $50 a year, but who found themselves very much in debt. I want to say to the minister again this year, as I have done in years gone by, that I strongly re. commend an increase.


Matthew Robert Blake: Before we leave this section, under that rule which was put through some time ago and which was placed on Hansard, I would beg to retract What I said in my first sentence, that nothing may go, out derogatory to any hon. gentleman.
-Mr. LEMIEUX: Nobody misunderstood the hon. gentleman.


Jacques Bureau: In section. 45 the divisions are established andi in these divisions there are stenographers, typewriters, etc. In section 46 salaries are determined for the same divisions. In the Department of Justice and other departments I know men employed as stenographers who are now getting $1,600 a year. That salary would put them in the first division, but according to the position they occupy, under section 45, they would be placed in the Second Division. I may be anticipating, but for the purpose of the answer which I want to 'get, I must read section 48, subsection (2), which says:
There shall be no promotion from the second division to the first division and there shall he no 'promotion from the third division.
According to section 45, stenographers' are placed in the Second Division, where the maximum salary under section 46 is $1,500. These men drawing $1,600 would be placed in the First Division according to section 46, hut according to their classification as stenographers they apparently are not entitled to be placed in that division and under section 48 there are to be no promotions. I want to know how these men would he classified and where they will be put. Will their salaries be reduced; or will they be put in the First Division?


Mr. TWEEDIE:: In regard to the matter of salaries of the Lower grade employees, I agree to a certain extent with the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy), and with that made by the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin). Of course, the suggestion made by the hen. member for Perth is open to th'is difficulty. If we limit the payment of increased wages to the men who have returned from overseas then we shall have two members
of the same, class of civil servants working side by side performing the same duties, one	receiving a	salary of $300 a
year higher than the other.	If we
follow that suggestion out t-o its logical conclusion, we would have the wives of men who bad been killed at the front entering the Civil Service; they would not come under the class of returned men. The wife of a soldier who has been killed at the front would be obliged to work at a salary $300 less than that paid to a soldier who had been spared his life and1 had returned. The son or daughter of ia man who had been killed; at the front would be compelled to work side by side with the returned man at a much lower salary than the returned man was receiving. If we base, this legislation on purely sympathetic grounds, the sympathy should be extended to the widows and orphans of the men who have been killed overseas, and following out the argument of the member for North Perth, such persons as I have mentioned should receive higher wages than men who return from the front. The Dominion Government should not employ men at a lower wage than they are entitled to receive. The Government is the largest corporation in Canada and cannot afford to treat its employees any less generously than any private corporation treats its employees. No married man, no woman with children to support, should be employed in the service o.f this or any ether corporation at a wage on which it is impossible properly to maintain himself or herself and family. We should' have great consideration for the younger generation; we should see that children are *brought up in good surroundings and are given a good education. We should not ask men to perform a service for the country at a low wage in order that taxes may be kept down; we should adjust our scale of wages as do- the large railway corporations and manufacturing industries. Unless these people enter the Service in the capacity of apprentice's, we should give them a sufficient wage to enable them to live decently and comfortably, and if our doing so makes additional taxation necessary, then that taxation should be imposed. Without supporting his resolution, I join the member for North Perth in his suggestion that the Government endeavour to provide that the minimum salaries of these lower-grade employees be higher than is provided in this section of the Bill, and that no able-bodied married man be asked to work for the Government at less than $750 a year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should like to know more of the facte before I pass an opinion on the particular oase referred to by my hon. friend' (Mr. Bureau). I think he will find that rather than being merely a stenographer, the person to whom he referred had been (promoted to some higher grade. However, the latter part of section 46 protects that person, at least for the present. It says:
Provided, however, that, until the Inside Service is re-organized under the provisions of section ten of this Act, the classification and salaries heretofore prescribed and paid shall continue in force with respect to ail officers, clerks and employees appointed before the date of this Act.


Jacques Bureau: Suppose a man entered
a department as a stenographer and worked up to $1,600 a year. Section 45 says that he shall come under the Second Division. Section 48 says that there shall be no promotion from the Second to the First Division. Section 46 provides that the maximum salary of the Second Division shall be $1,500. My hon. friend says that this official will get $1,600 until the reorganization is effected, but nothing iri the Act says that when the reorganization is effected he will be given any higher classification than .that-of stenographer.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What division
was this person in?


Jacques Bureau: I do not know, but he
had reached the maximum of his class, $1,600.


Mr.  A. K. MLACLEAN@: He may be promoted to the next division.


Jacques Bureau: Section 48 says that there shall be no promotion from the Second to the First Division.
Mr. A. K. MA'OLEAN:	The old Second
Division is now the Third.
.Mr. BUREAU:	Section 45 provides that
the Second Division, Grade B, shall consist of clerks and employees who work under supervision, and of .stenographers and typewriters. This means that by statute the official to whom I have referred is classified in the Second Division, Grade B, the maximum salary of which is fixed by section 46 at $1,500. Where is this man to stand when the reorganization is effected?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Section 10, subsection 5 provides that this Act shall not prejudiically affect the status of any officer now in the service.


George Brecken Nicholson: If hon.'members who are supporting the proposal for an in-[Mr. Tweedie.J
crease in the minimum salaries to civil servants can suggest a way by which that proposal can be properly carried out, it will have my support. When the estimates are before the House, I shall be ready to urge upon the minister to grant increases to all those poorly paid officials, but I am ready to take the risk of saying that I do not think it is in the interest o.f the Civil Service or the returned soldier that the amendment of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) should be adopted. For us to set two scales of remuneration all through the different classes of the Civil Service or the public service, one scale for the civilian who has not been overseas and another scale for the soldier who returns from overseas, will create a condition that will not be for the good of the returned soldier. I am ready to go further and say, with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson), that we are devoting too much of our time to a consideration of what the returned soldier is going to get when he enters the Civil Service. There will be four or five hundred thousand returned soldiers, and we cannot jam them all into the Civil Service. My opinion is that we shall be doing what is ultimately in the best interest of the returned soldier if we direct our attention more to getting him back into civil life in some position into which he can fit, and, if possible, in the work which he was doing before he went overseas, if we get into our mind that the Government have to find positions for all the returned soldiers, it is inevitable that we shall be trying to drive a lot of square plugs into round holes and vice versa, and we shall ultimately get the returned soldier into a position for which he will curse us. I am not afraid of being classed amongst those who are,-if you will permit me to use the term-batting the returned soldier. I am not advertising my feelings towards the returned soldier. They are just as genuine as those of any ether hon. member, and I am just as intensely interested in the men who are overseas. But I repeat: We are placing the returned soldier in a false and invidious position when we are constantly harping on the necessity of the Government putting him into some position for which he is not fitted. Let us, if we can, devote our attention to getting the returned soldiers back into the class of work for which they are fitted, getting it into their minds that the whole four or five hundred thousand soldiers cannot be put into this class of positions, and that if the country is to carry on, there must be a levelling up and getting the returned soldiers into the class

of work they can do. Any returned soldier in whom I am interested will never be urged by me to take a position under this or any other Government. I shall try to get him into a position for which he is fitted.


Donald Sutherland: Does the hon. member think a returned soldier could discharge the duties of a member of the commission?


George Brecken Nicholson: I have not the slightest doubt that a returned soldier could be found who could discharge the duties of any man on this commission or any other commission, of any man in this country. That is not the point at all, and the hon. member has not put me the least little bit up a tree when he asks me that question. There are returned soldiers capable of doing anything that can be done in this country, but we. are not going to assist in getting them into those positions by discussing whether we shall set one scale of wages for the returned soldier and another for the civilian, with the idea that we are going to force returned soldiers into positions for which they are not fitted. We shall be doing the best thing in the interest of the returned soldier
10	p.m. if we devote our attention to finding out what he is capable of doing and getting him into that position, whether it be in the Civil Service or in some other walk of life. If possible, we should get him into the position in which he was before he went overseas, and we should get it into the heart and mind of the returned soldier that that is going to be his ultimate destiny and in his own interest. The worst thing that can happen to the returned soldier is the idea that we are going to pauperise them, and everything contained in the discussion that takes place in regard to the Government taking care of the returned soldier simply means that we are going to make wards or paupers of them as if they were not independent men.


John Allister Currie: I cannot let the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) pass without a word of protest. I am a returned soldier and a member of the Returned Soldiers' Association. I refrained from saying a word on the debate with reference to the returned soldier, because I thought the discussion was reaching limits that perhaps some of the hon. members who spoke would regret later on. Most of the hon. gentlemen who have opposed anything with respect to the returned soldier owe their seats in this House -to the returned soldier and to the soldier, and they should have regard to their electorate. Let us look at this question candidly and clearly. About a year ago the Government passed an Order in Council whereby all positions in the Civil Service were to go to returned soldiers, except in the case of men who were unfit for military service. At that time military service was for men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. Since then there has been a change in the regulations, and only men in the first category are excluded from positions. The Government has settled that. Eighty or ninety per cent of the returned soldiers, after the war, will have just as sound and clear brains and will be physically as sound as my hon. friend, if not much more so. They will not be looking for Government jobs. They -will not be and are not the parties that we can put into the Civil Service. The men who desire to be put into the Civil Service are those poor unfortunates who have been disabled, many of whom have left situations carrying salaries of four or five thousand dollars a year-and I know a number who are older than the hon. gentleman, who left good positions and went to the war, and many of whom are still serving in the war. I know men of sixty years of age who left good positions in which they were drawing $3,000 or $4,000 a year, and who have been serving in the trenches constantly day and night since they went overseas. In many cases those men come home wounded, and their wounds and injuries are of such a character that they are unable on their return to take up the positions that they previously occupied. I know one man, for instance, who used to earn a large salary as a moulder. He has only about one-quarter of a lung left owing to German gas. I know a man who was a surveyor on railway construction work, a man of high attainments. One of his legs is now one and one-half inches shorter than it formerly was and the other is two and oneJhalf inches shorter, so that he is lame and unable to go around. This man must seek some other occupation because he could not take the same place as he had before. The idea of the Government, and that of anyone who has in his heart a soft spot for the returned soldier, is that the Civil Service shall be for those men whose efficiency has been impaired. Hon. members say that a civil servant should be one hundred per cent efficient. Thi* returned soldier is unafble to take up hia old posi-

tion and he is only efficient to tlhe extent of 'forty or fifty per cent. A returned soldier may have lost an arm, but still he may be capable of filling a position at a desk in the Civil Service and doing his duties just as *well a,s a man who has all his limbs and faculties. It is those men for whom we want positions, not for returned soldiers like my robust hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion), who has just returned from the front.
We must get the injured man a position, and his wife and family must be looked after, and no man to-day can look after himself, let alone a family, on much less than $1,000 a year. I think it is only right that we should raise the minimum salary for the .soldier. I do not want to give details, but I know of sad cases of soldiers with large families to look after who have been disabled by service at the front and have had to take positions in the Civil Service at $600 a year, and that is the limit that pretty nearly all of them are getting. To that is added a pension of $150 or $200 a year, or $600 if the man is totally disabled. No matter what' a man's attainments might be, if he has .served as a private he only' gets a portion of a private's full pay when he is disabled. I say he must have something beyond that pension, and while I do not want to be considered as making a raid upon the treasury on behalf of the returned soldier, when the next election comes they may be able to look after themselves and possibly attend 'to those who have looked after them, but in the meantime when we are dealing with an Act that is .supposed to do something for the returned soldier we should see to it that he gets the first call for the higher-salaried positions as well as the lower. If you are going to give the returned soldier a position, give him -a salary that he can live on and bring up his family, a salary that will not keep him in a state of continuous poverty. This country ought to be ashamed of itself. I saw a list to-night of about two hundred names of men who have been, in the public service for years, many of them in the city of Toronto in the Customs, Inland Revenue, and other departments, none of whom had ever got more than $800 or $900 a year. That used to be a fortune thirty years ago, and it was a large sum before the war, but things have moved very swiftly since and everything has gone up in price; wheat is now three and four times the price it was before the war. We must meet the situation in some way. I repeat,
I do not want to raid the treasury; I do 
not want more than is fair and right for the returned 'soldier; but I do not want to hear the returned soldier reviled in this House and told he has no more rights than the ordinary member of a labour union. I say that he has more than the member of a labour union. I know where the attack on the returned soldier eomes from and we will attend to that when the proper time comes. I say it ill becomes any man who sits in this House as a returned soldier's candidate, a man who has received the votes of returned soldiers, to 'Stand up and say they have no rights and should have no privileges, that they should toe pauperized, and that they have no special privileges coming to them more than to the ordinary individual. I trust we have heard enough on this subject, and I almost feel inclined to say to. the minister, let us pass on to the next order of business, and by the time the Bill is ready for its third reading the minister may have thought out a way of meeting the situation.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not going to permit the hon. member to insinuate that I reviled the returned soldier or that I said he was not worthy of tlhe same treatment as a member of a labour union. I can tell the hon. member and all other members of this House that I am quite willing to have the returned soldiers and the soldiers overseas judge me by the manner in which I have treated them. I have stood on the floor of this House and said what I have said because I feel we are not doing the best for the returned soldier or for any other soldier when we undertake to set up such a standard: as the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) would set up by his amendment, whereby the returned soldier would be given a position at a higher rate of wages than the man who is working alongside of him. The returned 'soldier does not want that. If the salary of the civil servant is nof sufficiently high for the .returned soldier, that is an entirely different question.
Mr. 'EDWARDS: The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) after dealing with this question, to his own satisfaction, suggested the advisability of passing on to another item. This is not the first time he has thought in this House that everything had been said on a question when he had concluded his speech. There are others, however, who. hold views on this matter, and while 1 was not privileged to be in the House this afternoon when this matter was being discussed, I have been

here since eight o'clock and I have heard nothing said that could 'be construed toy any person whose brain was in normal condition of health to be an attack on the returned soldier. As a member of this House who recognizes hie responsibility to his constituents, I believe that every member of this House, whether or not it has been his privilege to tread the soil of France and do his part overseas-and that is a great privilege in my estimation-and whether sitting to the right or the left of the Chair, is desirous of doing his duty to the returned soldier and giving him more than a fair share. I had understood, since the Government made their announcement that the returned soldier was to get the preference in appointments to the Civil Service, that we had to take into consideration the man's fitness for the position that was vacant. I had understood that if the returned soldier was qualified for the position, he unquestionably would have the preference over every other person, and I have not heard any person in this House or outside question the wisdom and correctness of that view. I believe the judgment of hon. members of this House is that the returned soldieT shall be given the preference for the higher-salaried positions as well as the lower if he possesses the necessary qualifications. But how can any person logically maintain that we must leave out of consideration the qualifications of the applicant for the position? How can any man who recognizes his responsibility to the people-and we must certainly recognize that responsibility when we appoint a man to a position in the Civil Service- agree to the appointment of a man to the Civil Service just because he is a returned soldier, regardless of his fitness for the position? The proposal strikes me as absolutely illogical and indefensible. First of all, the returned soldier must possess the qualifications- necessary to fill the position that is vacant, and if he possesses those qualifications I am in the judgment of every member of this House when I say that he should be given preference over any man who has not been overseas. I did not understand the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) to say anything different from that, nor do I believe the hon. member for North Simcoe was justified in the attack he made on the hon. member for East Algoma.
In regard to this question of salaries, last session when the question of salaries in a certain department of the Government wias uip for consideration the principle was laid down, by the granting of a bonus of a
certain amount, that this bonus ishoiuld apply to men whose salaries were under $1,000 a year and not to men whose salaries were over $1,000 a year. If that was a correct principle last session why should it not be a correct principle this ;session? It meant that the Government recognized that men cannot maintain their families on less than $1,000 a year. If that was true last year it is just as true this year. I agree with much that has been said with regard to the salaries of the higher officers in the Civil Service. A man who- has been for years in the service of the Government, who- has shown his fitness for the position that he occupies, I believe, is entitled to look forward to a gradual increase in his salary, according to his years of service, always having regard to his fitness to discharge the duties of the office he holds. I cannot understand the justice or fairness of telling a man who happens to be in one division that he is thereby excluded, notwithstanding his merit, from passing up to another division.
There is another feature of this salary question that properly comes in here. I do not know whether it is because there are several thousand civil servants in Ottawa or not, but ever since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, that is since 1908, periodically the question of salaries affecting people in the Civil Service in Ottawa has come before the House and it has always been just a little before an election. But there has been no consideration given-and I want the full emphasis to be placed upon the word "no"-to the salaries of the people in the Outside Service. Not only has there been no consideration given to the salaries of the people in the Outside Service but in many places it is impossible to get the least bit of encouragement when the matter is brought to the attention of the various departments of the Government. Let us take the case of the country postmaster; all his time is taken up by his duties, which begin at half past six in the morning and continue until nine o'clock and often till ten in the evening. He can not engage in any other occupation as he is in the service of the Government or the service of the country. If he is in the service of the country, why should he not receive consideration for the -service which he renders? In a village in my own county there is a postmaster whose total remuneration, allowing for rent and everything, amounted last year to $870. That means that he is expected to give faithful service to the people of this country in the

position he occupies and maintain his family on $800. Members come .here year after year and session after session and consider the rights of the civil servants in the city of Ottawa. Why? Because the civil servants of the city of Ottawa number several thousand and they can back up their demands with their solid vote. That is the reason why. Because these people in outlying country districts are only scattered voters here and there and have no particular voting strength when the election comes on, their claim is ignored. In considering this matter I want to tell you another thing. While every hon. member of this House has a right to state what he considers is a proper salary for a civil servant, is it not right that every member should protest against men in high places deliberately stealing from the treasury of this country and putting the money in their own pockets? Deliberated stealing-what else do you call it? A specific vote of $2,500 is granted to him for the purpose of paying his expenses when he goes over to Great Britain to attend the sessions of the Privy Council. He does not go over to attend this session but he continues to draw this $2,500 a year. If a man took $2,500-yes, $25-wrongfully from a neighbour he would be brought before the court and put behind the bars, but when a Chief Justice of Canada takes $2,500 a year-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I rise to a point of order.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Of course you will rise to a point of order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly I do. Unless you move to impeach a judge you cannot attack him as you are attacking this one in the present instance.


William Cameron Edwards: There is never an occasion when anything can be said in this House with respect to the judiciary of this country and I have as much respect for the judiciary as the hon gentleman ....


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Cameron Edwards: Who is out of order now?


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask the hon. gentleman to refrain from casting any reflection on the judiciary of the country. It is contrary to the rules and usages of the House with which my hon. friend is certainly conversant. The only rule we have on the subject is the following:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Hia Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family; nor of the Governor or person administering the 
Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof; nor speak beside the question in debate.
but I will remind my hon. friend that Bourinot in his work on Parliamentary procedure says that-


William Cameron Edwards: May I go on while you, Mr. Chairman, are looking up the rule?


The CIHALRMAN:: You asked me to read the rule and I propose to read the holding by Bourinot.	,


William Cameron Edwards: Just rule, Mr. Chairman. I asked for the rule.


Georges Henri Boivin: My ruling is that the hen. gentleman cannot, according to the rules and usages of the House of Commons, make the statement which he has made concerning the judiciary of Canada. If the hon. gentleman wishes to appeal from that ruling he has a perfect right to do .so.


John Allister Currie: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. We are getting a little fed up on a few of these regulations. When the Speaker is asked to rule on a question it is necessary that he shall produce the rule and explain it to the House .so that we will understand it. This idea of immediately appealing to the House without due regard to the ancient precedents and to the old rules and customs of this House is contrary to the practice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Allister Currie: I am in order.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I ask for the rule which I have violated. If you will kindly refer me to it I shall be very much obliged.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon. member will consult Bourinot, at page 358, he will find :
All references to judges and to courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of .personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and the Speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order. They have always insisted that, "such expressions should be withdrawn."


William Cameron Edwards: For the convenience of members of Parliament, we are provided with a copy of the rules of the House, a little volume which is easily slipped into the pocket. We are not provided with a ten or fifteen-pound volume of Bourinot, a volume which we are supposed to read from cover to cover, but which cannot be carried round in the hip-pocket. I was told that I had violated one of the rules of the House. I have asked for that rule, but

as yet it has not been mentioned. You have informed me, Mr. Chairman, that according to Bourinot, a member must not refer in disrespectful terms to the judiciary. Am I to understand that a man must refrain from telling the truth in this House with regard to the judiciary or any person else? If that truth when told casts a reflection upon the judiciary, who shows the disrespect to the Bench, he who tells the truth about the acts of the judiciary, or the judicial personage who has violated the well-understood rules, usages and customs of this country? Is there any rule in Bourinot which places a censorship on the conduct of judges to see that they walk the straight and narrow path in which they make others walk? If there is, we would like to have it? I shall not break any rule of Bourinot in referring disrespectfully to judges. May I then be permitted to leave the judges out of the question and call attention to certain acts which have been performed in this House, to call attention to certain votes which have been passed in this House, with the sanction of the Government, whereby $2,500 a year was voted to a certain gentleman, whom I am not permitted to mention, for a specific purpose, which that gentleman did not carry out. The money was voted and taken. The next year the money was again voted and taken for that specific purpose, although that specific purpose was not carried out. The third year the money was voted for the same specific purpose, which purpose again was not carried out, but the money wae taken. That, Sir, I wouldi characterize if it was not any person other than a judge, as a species of profiteering. If John Wesley Allison-Colonel John Wesley Allison, at one time Honorary Colonel John Wesley Allison1-had got awiay with that $2,500, I would (be permitted as a member of the House, without any violation of Bourinot or any other authority, to call him a scoundrel. I would Ibe permitted to say he was a thief, I would be permitted to say that he had taken money from the treasury of the country that he was not entitled to; but if the party concerned is a member of the Royal Family, one of the knights of the realm, a baron or lord it may be in this country some person of that kind, the rules of Bourinot conveniently come to his rescue and between him and the just punishment which he merits for his acts. That is the present situation in this country.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Do the rules permit us to think?


William Cameron Edwards: Not out loud. However, my purpose in discussing the salary question was to say this: As one member of the House who' is responsible to a certain section of the community, I want to enter my protest against that sort of thing, and I have a right to do so while we are discussing the salaries of other men who are working long hours and trying hard to earn those salaries. Now, I think I have made my position clear with regard to that. It is all right enough to talk profiteering. We have got profiteering in this country. We have men in Canada who< have squeezed water into pork in order to make eighty per cent out of it. I do not know whether I dare mention any particular name. I do not know whether according to Bourinot one has a right to mention a knight of the realm. Am I out of order, Mr. Chairman, possibly I am?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. gentleman is out of order. And this time I will cite, not a usage,, but a rule of the House. Rule 13 . provides that:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


William Cameron Edwards: I have much pleasure in submitting to your ruling, or rather I have much pleasure in acknowledging the correctness of it. At least, upon this occasion I think you are right, therefore, I shall not follow that subject any further.
There are some other matters I would like to refer to in connection with salaries, and to point out how salaries are augmented in this country. We have a man who has been appointed to the Civil Service. Let me say that he is not a judge, neither is he a lord, nor baronet, nor knight of the realm. He is not a member of the Royal Family, so I imagine I can refer to him by name without violating any rule of Bourinot. He held the position of purchasing agent for the penitentiary, and he bore, and still bears, the euphonious name of Dillon. He was drawing a salary of $3,300, but, Mr. Chairman, it was.not necessary to follow the classification of Class A in the First Division or Second Division in this case, in order to augment his salary. How was it done? They put a uniform on him and called him captain, and let him draw the pay of that rank in addition to his regular pay in the Civil Service. I want to protest against that method of increasing salaries in this country. It is a roundabout way of doing things which does not appeal to me as being exactly square and proper. Other



men have had their salaries increased by roundabout methods, which I equally condemn. As far as it is possible, this country should provide for the returned soldier and give him a fair salary, and we will be able to deal more generously with the returned soldier, having regard to the financial condition of the country, if the finances of Canada are not allowed to be looted by men occupying positions which render them immune to criticism on the floor of this House.


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have another amendment on the subject which I will read presently. But before doing so, speaking to the clause, some question was raised tonight about the salaries paid stenographers in a certain department, and the argument was advanced to show that the poorer-paid workingmen in the Third Division had not received and do not receive the same kind of treatment as other favoured individuals in the country. I have before me Hansard of April 4, and find there that there are a large number of barristers and stenographers employed on the staff of the Central Appeal Judge. One stenographer receives $180 a month, a pretty fair salary; another gets $150 a month. There are five stenographers at $110 per month; one at $96, one at $90, six at $55, eight at $80; three at $80, three at $75, one at $70, one at $65, and so on. Then there is an agricultural examiner there at $105 per week. Mr. Chairman, just get that idea into your head-an agricultural examiner at $105 per week in the office of the Central Appeal Judge! I don't wonder members of the House stand aghast at the way in which men in high places get their money, while the lower branches of the service have to fight their way through *against rules, orders and factious objections. The list is long, and I won't read it; but 3 have given enough to show that when we are considering a clause of this kind, when the cost of living is taken into consideration, in an attempt to get $1,000 as a minimum for a man with a family of three or four children it is shameful that it has to be fought for in the face of records bristling with the prodigality of expenditure in regard to people higher up. What 1 have here is a motion as follows:-
That clause 46 be not concurred in, and that it be resolved that a special clause 'be inserted to provide for payment to the returned soldier in the third division from $1,000 to $1,500.
In that way, if this motion is carried, it does not increase the expenditure; it is open to this House, I believe, not to concur in the whole clause but to vote this one clause, and let us put the House to the test of its sincerity as to whether or not we really believe that the returned soldier entering the Civil Service should have a decent start because of the generosity we profess to extend to him.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sorry to say that I consider this motion to be of the same

nature as that formerly moved by my hon. friend from North Perth. The horn member by proposing to pay $1,000 to $1,500 to all returned soldiers in the Third Division is requesting the committee to vote an amount which is not based on a resolution approved in advance by the Governor General and I fear I must also declare this motion out of order for the reasons given in the previous ruling.
Mr. McKENZIE; We have been discussing for the last twenty years, I Suppose, or longer the question of Civil Service reform. I agree at once that the salaries of civil servants are too small. But some eight or ten years ago t'he, hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden), who was then leader of the Opposition and is now Prime Minister, put the position of the Civil Service in a very laconic and precise sentence. He stated in this House that the Civil Service was overmanned and underpaid. I think that impresssion is abroad yet, and I would suggest to the Government and to the commission that they would be doing justice to the Civil Service if, at the earliest possible moment, they were able to say that t'he Civil Service contained only the number of men requisite to carry on the country's business. When that is done we will all be in a happy mood to deal properly with the question of salaries. There is a notion abroad that we have, perhaps, three times the number employed that are necessary. This notion may be all wrong. But this question can be settled once for all by a report from the Civil Service Commission or from the department of Government responsible for the Civil Service, at the next session, that we have exactly the number required, and I, for one, will be glad then to start in and give them the /proper salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 47-Annual increases.
Charles Murphy: Might I suggest to my hon. friend, in view of the increased cost of living and changed conditions, the propriety of a uniform increase of $100 a year, and not discriminate, as was done in this section, by giving the larger increase to the officers receiving the larger salary and the smaller increase to those receiving the smaller salary. Those who receive the smaller salaries are much more in need of the larger increase than those who receive the larger salaries. '
120* *


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall be pleased to submit the matter to my colleagues for consideration. It is being considered with a view to accomplishing the same end in another way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
On .section 48-Promotions:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This section provides that there shall be no promotion from the Second Division to the First or from the Third Division to the Second. That provision was always in the Act, and it was fair, because the examination varied according to the division. It would not be fair to allow a person who had passed merely the examination to the Third Division to be promoted right up to the First Division. If has always been provided that by passing the necessary examination a candidate was eligible for appointment to the First and Second Divisions. But in order to make clear the exact meaning of that section I propose amending it by adding at the end of subsection- 2 the following words:
But any person in either of these divisions may enter for examination for appointment to a higher division.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I suggest that the minister add to .subsection 3 the words " Or on the recommendation of the Civil S-ervice Commission ". Often a clerk or employee in a minor position qualifies, after long service, for promotion, in which case a special examination would appear to be unnecessary. il see no reason why a man so qualified for a position in the higher division should not be promoted forthwith on the recommendation of the deputy or with the approval of the commission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Any appointment from a lower to a higheT division must be made by the commission. I do not see the necessity, therefore, of adding such words as my hon. friend suggests.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But my point is that
the promotion should be made without examination, on the recommendation of the deputy.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think that would be fair.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: If the man was qualified it would be fair.


Mr. McCREA:: The acting minister was financial critic of the Opposition during the last five or six years. If my memory serves me correctly, he criticised very severely the extravagance of the late Government, and

among other things he contended'-and, I think, rightly so; I hope he has not forgotten it-that every department of the Government was overmanned. I believe that condition still exists, and I suggest that the minister deal with this matter in an intelligent and businesslike way by reducing the staffs to a number sufficient actually to carry on the work, and then proposing increases of salary which are really in keeping with the increased cost of living. An increase of $100 to a salary of $800 or $900 is not at all in keeping with the increase of the cost of the necessities of life. At this time there is a shortage of labour in every direction, and if those whose services are not required are dismissed, they can get positions without the least difficulty. But this condition may not prevail after the war is over, and it is clear that this is the proper time to cut the staffs down and to provide reasonable increases to those whose services are necessary.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is one of . the purposes of the Act.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Section 17 provides that promotions or increases of salary shall be made for merit by the commission on the recommendation of the deputy head. I do not see why that principle should not obtain in respect of promotions from one grade to another, in cases where special qualifications or abilities aTe shown.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In a case of that kind the official can take the examination for the higher division. Those who are in the higher division were obliged to take a much more severe examination than was taken by those who went into the lower divisions. Moreover, no one in a lower division is debarred because of advanced age from taking examination for a higher division.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: A great many civil servants have asked me this question: A man receiving' the maximum in the Second Division of $1,500 passes a promotion examination which brings him into the First Division; at what salary would he be classed in the First Division? Would he be classed at the minimum salary grade F, or would he begin at a salary equal to that which he was in receipt of when he left the Second Division?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He would start
at $1,600.


Jacques Bureau: The question which I put under section 46 comes again under this sec-
tion. The case that I submitted Is not like the one my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) has just submitted. Supposing the civil servant has reached a salary of $1,600 and the maximum in the second division is $1,500. My hon. friend referred me to subsection 5 of section 10, which reads:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prejudicially affect the status or the present salaries-
-and so on. But the subsection does not later on say that a man who is receiving $1,600, and who, on account of the position he occupies, is classified under section 45 in the Second Division, shall receive an increase; it only says that he .shall be eligible for increases. There ought to be a provision that those who have reached the maximum in such a case as I have mentioned shall be put into the higher division.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I find that the point I raised is covered in subsection 3, section 48.
Any person may be promoted from the second division to the first division under the provisions of section 17.
Section 17 says:
Promotions or increases of salaries in the public service shall be made for merit by the Commission on the recommendation of the deputy head.
You have to incorporate subsection 3 of section 48 with section 17. That is my point.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That covers promotions made prior to 1908. That is for a different purpose.


Jacques Bureau: The reason I rise again is that the minister said just now that a person to be promoted from one division to another must pass a new exam-
11	p.m. ination. In the case of which I spoke the salary enjoyed is higher than the salary of the division, in which he is classified under section 45. Will he automatically go into Division 1 if he receives $1,600 to-day?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think so.


Jacques Bureau: Then he will remain in Division 2?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Except that section 10 provides that his status shall'not be prejudicially affected by this Act.


Jacques Bureau: What is the prejudice- that he shall be eligible?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You cannot affect his salary.	[DOT]


Jacques Bureau: Section 10 says that he shall be eligible, but there is nothing to guarantee that he is going to get the $1,600.
If it is not considered desirable to promote such a man, he will remain in Division 2, the maximum of which is $1,500.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think my hon. friend is wrong. I move to strike out the words "had theretofore" at the end of the third line of subsection 3 of section 48, and to substitute instead the word "have. That will make the reading clearer. Amendment agreed to.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Before we leave this
section, there is a matter of unfinished business from Saturday night. The Acting Minister of Finance will remember that we ttere discussing a matter of transfers. I refer to section 18, subsection 2.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member
cannot revert to section 18 unless he has the unanimous consent of the committee. There was an understanding with the Acting Minister of Finance that two or three clauses should be reverted to when we had concluded the discussion on the Bill, but I do not think I could allow the hon. member to revert to them at this stage.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will consent
to that when we have reached the end of the Bill.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 51-who to act in absence of deputy head:
Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: I move to amend subsection 1 of section 51 by striking out the word "minister" wherever it occurs in the said subsection and inserting instead the word " head." It means the deputy head.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is subsection 2 of section 51 new? I see it is marked as an amendment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The only change in that subsection is that the term " an Assistant Auditor General " is used instead of " chief clerk."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister assure us that this does not in any way conflict with or weaken the clause in the Revenue and Audit Act?	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would not think so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 52-Private secretaries, appointment and salaries:
Charles Murphy: I observe that one of
these clauses is new. Would my hon. friend explain the difference between it and the old section?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under the present Act any person chosen to he a minister's private, secretary may, without examination and irrespective of age, be appointed, a clerk in Subdivision A of the First Division or Subdivision A of the Second, and he may be appointed permanently to that position when the minister retires. The result of that rule was to throw periods ieally a large number of private secretaries into the higher Subdivisions of the service, and frequently there was not employment for them. The purpo.se of this new clause is to prevent that practice. Of course, the minister may select as his private secretary some one .already in the Civil Service.
If he brings some one in from, outside, Parliament must vote the salary, and In that event I assume it would be necessary to give a larger sum than is now being paid private secretaries.


Ernest Lapointe: But the appointment would not be permanent in that case?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Charles Murphy: Is it the intention to
make a distinction in the annual vote for private secretaries? Heretofore, .and at present, the estimates, provide in addition to the salary for the private secretary, a sum of $600. In future, I take it, that rule will obtain only where the private secretary is .a .member of the Civil Service, and that if a new man is brought in, not a member of the service, he will not be voted the $600, but will get his salary in one sum and bis appointment will not necessarily be permanent.
(Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: He goes out with the minister.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not like the English of clause 2. It says " no salary shall be payable." The amount will be payable the moment the man earns it. I think " no salary shall be paid " would be better.


Mr.  A. K. MIACLEAN@: I have used the same wording as in the present Act.


Charles Murphy: What is the purpose of that clause?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose the idea was to circumvent any attempts to pav the

ministers' secretary in any other way, by Order in Council, for instance.
. Section agreed to.
On section 54-Census and election audit temporaries, appointment of and duration of service:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I move to amend this section by striking out the word "decennial," in line 18, and again in line 26. The reason for this is that a quinquennial census is held in the West. The wording of the section, of course, restricts the provision to a decennial census.


Charles Murphy: If a quinquennial census is held why not restrict the term of employment to less than three years?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You could not make it less than that.


Charles Murphy: Two years would do for a quinquennial census. It was the large amount of work connected with a decennial census that was responsible for three years being specified. A quinquennial census will take less time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In addition to the quinquennial census in the West we still have the decennial census.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 55-organization, classification and salaries of Outside Service:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The purpose of this section is just the same as that of section 10 with respect to the Inside Service. This will empower the commissioners to investigate and study the conditions of the Outside Service in all its details and make a general report to the Governor in Council in respect to it. Upon the adoption of that report by the Governor in Council, the reorganization of the Outside Service will take place. The section is intended to give power to the commission to carry on that work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the minister in a position to tell us when this classification and reorganization is likely to take place?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The commission purpose to do it during the year if it is at all possible to overtake the work. They hope, however, to do it during the summer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it expected that this classification will better the condition of any parties in the Outside Service? Are they 
likely to get more salary by reason of this classification than they now receive?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is hoped that the position of the Outside Service will be improved. A portion of it is now classified but a great deal is not. It is very desirable to have a classification of the service and I submit that it would be in the interest of the members of the Service.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am glad that one of the commissioners is here. I bring to his notice a condition of things that he will find in the country. He will find some men, say, in the Customs Department, who have been appointed for nearly twenty years, doing first-class work and getting $1,000 a year, while others who have been appointed within the last two or three years are getting $1,200 or $1,300 and doing an inferior grade of work.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We hope to remove those inequalities and injustices through this investigation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hope they will be entirely removed. I am not saying that the fellow who is getting $1,300 is getting too much, but I say that the other fellow is getting too little.


Charles Murphy: Will, the minister explain why this section is not made applicable to the railway employees? The question is brought to our attention again by an item in to-day's paper stating that the Government has purchased three new lines of railway in New Brunswick. There will be such an army of employees connected with the Government railways that patronage will be more rampant than heretofore unless these organizations are brought under the Act. What is the objection to bringing the railway employees under the Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: So many difficulties would 'be encountered in applying the Act to this service that we did not feel we could do it without a special study and investigation of that service. We hope during the year to have a special report from the commission upon the railway service.


Charles Murphy: But this Act is specially drawn so that it will not apply to that service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Until it is brought into force.


John Howard Sinclair: Did the minister make any inquiry as to whether the instructions sent out to the railway management were printed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have not had an opportunity of making the inquiry, but I will get that information.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps the question
that I am about to ask has already been answered in the course of the discussion but I think it is desirable that the committee should have a clear understanding as to the application of this Bill. Am I correct in assuming that this will cover all classes of appointments to the public service of any kind in the Dominion of Canada except those specially excepted under section 41?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: All classes of the service in the Dominion of Canada except employees on railways and ships as already mentioned?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Deputy heads,
members of commissions, and boards, especially appointed for particular work by the Government.


William Stevens Fielding: Would a returning officer he appointed under this Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I think the Elections Act would cover that.


William Stevens Fielding: This is a later Act, and the Later Act governs.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I think not.


William Stevens Fielding: Will it take in the
lighthouse service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The lighthouse
service would come within the Act.


William Foster Cockshutt: Would the officials
and staff of the High Commissioner in Great Britain and jalso the (commission lately appointed at Washington come under the Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The staff of the High Commissioner's office in London would come under the provisions of this Act. The Canadian War Commission office in Washington would not, I think, come under the Act. It is a temporary war organization, and I hardly think it would come under the Act, though possibly it might.


William Foster Cockshutt: It might continue for some years. If one is under the Act the other should be; it is a part of the public service.


Charles Murphy: The answer that the minister gave me about railway employees being brought under the operation of this Act cannot be correct, taking it in conjunction
with the reply which my hon. friend gave to the question asked by the hon. member for Shelburne and 'Queens (Mr. Fielding), that they might be brought in undeT the Act, but 'by this Act they are specially exempted and excepted. Therefore, no work done 'by the Civil Service Commission during the recess could possibly bring the railway employees under this Act.
Mr.'A. K. MAOLEAN:	Except that we
could base legislation upon that report. If the commissioners were able to devise some practical method of putting the railway employees under the Act we could amend this Act next session.


Charles Murphy: My point is that under this Bill the railway employees are excepted.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Certainly.


Charles Murphy: And I am asking my hon. friend why?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have explained that very many times.


Charles Murphy: By merely saying that there are difficulties in the way.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are fifteen or twenty thousand Government railway employees in this country.


Charles Murphy: Which means fifteen
or twenty thousand cases of patronage.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Joseph Read: I draw the attention of the minister to the Order in Council which says:
The following rules shall be observed in all departments of the Government with respect to appointments to the public service.
In any case where the knowledge and ability requisite for any position in the Outside Service are wholly or in part professional or technical, a person shall only he appointed' to such position in the manner prescribed by section twenty-one of the 'Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, for similar appointments to the Inside Service,


Mr. J. D. REID:: 
Joseph Read: Will the minister give us his assurance that he will instruct the general manager that he is not to use political patronage? That will he quite satisfactory to hon. gentlemen on this side as well as to the general public.


John Dowsley Reid: I have given him those instructions.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister say that he has given instructions to the general manager and the superintendents
fMr. Read.]
of the road in regard to the question of patronage?


John Dowsley Reid: I have had the general managers here and have told them to use their own judgment in the taking on of employees wherever it is necessary, and to eliminate patronage of any kind. My instructions were to use their own judgment, and so far as I can see everything in that regard has been working very satisfactorily, and I have not heard of any complaint.
Mr. J. D. (SINCLAIR:	Then it is open
to the. foremen of the roundhouses and the different shops to take on any young man who applies for a position without any recommendation from a member of Parliament, or from any patronage committee? Will the minister say that is now the position of affairs-that the foremen are at liberty to make a selection without any recommendation whatever?


John Dowsley Reid: All I oan say is that I have left the matter to the general manager. I gave instructions to the general manager, and I judge that is the policy he is pursuing. Whatever he thinks is the right policy to follow in the best interests of the railway he is carrying out, and that system must he working very satisfactorily because I have received no complaints whatever. The same thing applies to the vessels that are efvned by, or under the control of the Government Railway system. We have several steamships in connection with our railway system, and I have not interfered in any way, shape, or form with the employees that the general manager may think best to engage in connection with them. I feel that on the proper operation of the railway system, as well as of the vessels under our control, " safety first " should be the policy of the general manager and his staff.


John Howard Sinclair: Were the instructions given in writing or were they verbal?


John Dowsley Reid: I think the instructions were verbal, but I will make search and see if any letter was written on the subject. If so, I would have no objection to producing it when the railway estimates are considered. I can look up and .see if there was any letter written. If there was I will have no objection to producing it when I am on my estimates. But I know that I have told them that they were to use their own judgment, and I hold them responsible for the operating of the road and for the employees on the road.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that you told them that they were to eliminate patronage entirely, not only told them to carry on the business to the best of their ability, but that they are distinctly to eliminate the old patronage system.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: I would like to know whether the various officers of the railroad, the superintendents, roadmasters and master mechanics, have been made aware of those instructions which the hon. gentleman says he gave the general manager?


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps it would be better to deal with that when we come to my estimates. I will give all the information in connection with the operation of the road at that time. I do not want to raise a discussion on railway matters when we are dealing with the Civil Service.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, hut we must eliminate patronage on the railway as well as in other departments.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know how much plainer I can make the matter. All I can say is that I have left entirely in the hands of the general manager the engaging of employees in connection with the Government railway system. I have not gone any further than the general manager in issuing any orders. Any orders from the general manager to those under him must be on his own responsibility. It is to him, and to him alone, they are responsible.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, hut we cannot speak to the general manager here, and we can speak to the minister. I would like the various officers of the railway to he made aware of these instructions so that they need not take into consideration the recommendations given by the hon. gentleman's political friends in the various constituencies along the line, to men who desire employment on the railway system.


Joseph Read: I would suggest to the minister that he put his instructions in writing to the general manager, and that will settle the whole matter. It will only take a few minutes to write the letter.


Charles Murphy: In. connection with the statement made by the Acting Minister of Finance that the Civil Service Commission will carry out an investigation during the recess with a view to the reorganization and classification of the service, and for the purpose of removing any inequalities, I desire to express my pleasure that a member
of the commission is here this evening. There are two glaring inequalities which require to be removed. One of them is in connection with the salary of $10,000 paid to a gentleman referred to earlier in the evening by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). His appointment and continuance in office is nothing less than a public scandal. This man is paid $10,000 a year 'for doing absolutely nothing of benefit to the people. My information is that the desire to get rid of him was so strong in Toronto University that they were at their wits' end to know where to dump him, and they finally dumped him upon this Government. I have been trying since the beginning of the session to ascertain what this gentleman does, and I can now tell this committee that he does nothing of any public benefit. I would suggest to the minister, and through hion to the commission, that one of the first acts of the commission should be to put an end both to the job and to the salary. That is one inequality. Another inequality, just as farcical as showing the way public business is conducted in this country, will be found in another department of the Government. The commission will find a man in charge of 150 employees; they will find that man disbursing $12,000 per month as the pay-roll in that branch; they will find this man and these 150 employees handling and controlling, if my memory serves me correctly, over $30,000,000 in a year. Yet the man in charge of that branch gets the munificent salary of $1,800 per annum. That is as big a farce and as great a scandal as is the case of the ten-thousand-dollar-a-year man at the other end of the line. These are two inequalities to which I direct the attention of my hon. friend.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who is the man last mentioned, and in what department is he?


Charles Murphy: There will he no trouble about locating him. I do not want to make the matter more plain at the moment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways one question if he will permit me.


Georges Henri Boivin: We are not on a railway matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know, but I draw the line. I do not want to ask the minister to write any letter, but will he permit me to write a letter to my friends saying that there is no patronage in employing section

men and trackmen generally, that the section foremen-


John Dowsley Reid: I will permit the hon. member to write and say that I have given instructions to Mr. Hayes that he is to employ whomever he wishes, that there is no patronage so far as I am concerned. There is no one writing me to have employees put on, and if there were it would be entirely on their own responsibility. There is no patronage list that Mr. Hayes is to go by. He must use his own judgment and I hold him responsible.


Mr. MOWAT:: I would not like the remarks of my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) to pass without some comment. Though I have a very slight acquaintance with the scientific gentleman he speaks of, and have no knowledge of how he came to be appointed, I have some knowledge of what he is supposed to do. The trouble with us always has been that in regard to scientific research we have been distinctly behind other countries. All countries were behind Germany in that respect. Germany was so expert and so secretive of her methods that she was able to take a place in mercantile affairs that was the envy of the world. We are now overcoming the secrets of Germany. If you leave scientific questions to business men alone, the outcome is that what is everybody's business is nobody's business. Professor MacCallum- there is no reason why his name should not be mentioned-has done in a short time work of almost incalculable benefit to certain businesses, and he proposes to have his laboratories here in Ottawa open to the employees of the different manufacturers so that they can come and experiment under direction and with certain apparatus. In all the big manufactories of the United States now, I am told, scientific men are employed to advantage for experimental and research work, and that is what is attempted to be done by this gentleman. I think my hon. friend is mistaken about his position, and he spoke with some heat. But I am sure that Professor MacCallum stood very high in the university, and they were very sorry indeed to lose his services.


Charles Murphy: I am much obliged to my hon. friend. If he thinks I spoke before with some heat, he will not think so now. If there is any doubt in the minds of the commission as to whether or not this gentleman should be displaced and returned to Toronto, that doubt has been removed by the explanation of my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat).


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 56-Repeal:
William Stevens Fielding: Ministers of the Crown have sometimes evaded the law by introducing into their estimates appropriations for some particular officers-possibly for just cause'-'adding Ito. them the words: " notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act." That had: been the subject of criticism, and a clause was inserted in *the Act declaring that such words in any appropriation Act should have no force or effect. I am not quite sure that the object was fully accomplished; I rather think that in some cases ministers were still able to evade the Act. So far as I can see, that provision has been dropped from this Bill. Has my hon. friend's attention been directed to it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The object was
not accomplished by that provision in the Civil Service Act and it did not appear desirable that it should longer remain. If seemed peculiar that Parliament should in one Act say that salaries could not be voted in the estimates and then, in the same session, proceed to vote salaries in the estimates. However, during the present session an effort has been made to minimize the making of increases or providing of promotions through the estimates. It may have been done in one or two oases, but this year there are less than there ever were before.
iMlr. BUREAU: At page 92 of the estimates there appears an item of $600,000, at the end of which I find the words: "appointments for the purpose may be made without reference to the provisions of the Civil Service Act."


Charles Murphy: Has any provision been substituted for the one which my hon. friend says has been dropped?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedule A:
Jacques Bureau: Has the agreement
which was made on Saturday, that these oaths should be changed, been carried out?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not understand that there was an agreement to change the schedules. It was understood that when we reached them my hon. friend might make his suggestions.


Mr. SIFTON:: It was suggested that the oath of allegiance should be put in.


Jacques Bureau: The old oath read as follows:

I	solemnly and sincerely swear that I
will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties
which devolve upon me as	and that I
will not ask or receive any sum of money, services, recompense or matter or thing whatsoever, directly or indirectly in return for what I have done or may do in the discharge of any of the duties of my said office, except my salary or what may be allowed me by law or by an order of the Governor in Council.
It was suggested by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that the oath of allegiance should be included there.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend . dees not suggest that the oath of allegiance should be put in the schedule? I do not see why that should be done. The oath of allegiance is not in the present Act; there is no reason why it should appear in any Act. The present oath, which my hon. friend has just read, is quite lengthy, and seems rather offensive in its phraseology. As given in the Bill the oath reads:
I (A. B.) solemnly and sincerely swear that I will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties which devolve upon me as [DOT]	*	[DOT] So help
me God.
The oath might very well end there, but the old form proceeded as my hon. friend has given it. I think the abridged affidavit in the schedule is preferable.


Jacques Bureau: This is what took place Saturday night. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) was sitting where the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) is now, and the question arose of amending the form. Hansard reads:
Mr. Sifton: You can put in any conditions you like.
Mr. Bureau: But schedules A and B are part of the clause. If you pass the clause you cannot change them.
Mr. Sifton: My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance says he is going to make new sections.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
That has reference to the schedule.
Mr. A. K. 'MACLEAN: If it is the judgment of the committee that the oath should be restored to its old form, I have no objection. Personally I do not think it should.
Jacques Bureau: All right.
Schedule A agreed to.	.
Mr. A. K. MACILiEAN: I move that section 32 of the Bill be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The -CHAIRMAN: By consent of the committee we revert to section 30. The member fer Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has moved that the following be substituted as section 30:
30. -Subject to the provisions of section three of this Act, the power to remove or dismiss any deputy head, officer, clerk or employee, shall vest in the -Commission.
Before exercising such power, the Commission shall require a statement in writing, from the minister in the case of a deputy head, and from the deputy head in all other cases, giving the causes, reasons and facts invoked for such dismissal.
Upon receipt of such statement in writing the Commission shall forthwith oomm-unicate a copy of same to the deputy -head or other employee whose dismissal is sought.
The deputy head or employee shall within three days after the receipt of copy of said statement file with the Commission a statement in writing in answer to such charges in default of which Commission may proceed on the statement submitted asking for dismissal.
Jacques Bureau: I have already explained what I intend by this amendment. The power of appointment is, by the change that we made this afternoon, now vested in the commission. In section 42, subsection 3, we inserted the word " appoint " instead of the word " supply." We have, therefore, vested the appointing power in the commission, and I do not see why we should not vest the dismissing power in the commission. I do not desire to see an employee dismissed summarily; neither do I wish to see a man subject to any arbitrary action from any superior, and that is the reason why I have put in my amendment that he whose dismissal is sought shall have the -right to know the reasons why the charges are made against him and the facts that are brought to justify his dismissal, and that he shall have the right within three days to file a statement in writing. My -attention was called to the fact that three days was too short a time, because some Civil -Service employees are quite a distance from here, -say at the Coast. I am, therefore, willing that " three weeks " or " twenty days should -be inserted instead of three days. Within that period the employee has a right to answer the charges or justify himself in writing. Should the employee -fail to write within the time limit, the commission, to whom the file is sent, may proceed ex parte and take into consideration the report and act upon it. If the object of this Bill is to do away with patronage, this amendment should carry. Patronage is exercised not in appointments only; the worst kind of patronage is exercised in dismissals. This Act has for its purpose to make the service efficient, to employ the best men and to make them feel they are going to be treated in the proper way by Parliament and by the commissioners, this amendment is just to protect them fro-m any idea they -may have that they may be

arbitrarily dealt with by deputy heads, or heads of departments, or any other party under whose control they may be. It is only fair that a man who is going to lose his bread and butter, who is charged with an offence or misconduct for which he is subject to dismissal, should at the very least have an opportunity of stating his case, so that hereafter if anybody should desire to look into the matter, there will not be only one side of it, tout we shall be able to judge the case on its merits having heard both sides. I put this as a test whether the Government are really in earnest in bringing down this measure. If they want to do away with patronage, so far as positions are concerned, leaving 12 m. aside the other part of patronage which has been called to the attention of the committee toy my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake), the power of appointment and the power of dismissal ought to rest with the: same authority, and he who is to (be dismissed ought at least to have the right to put his case -before the 'body which is to decide as to his fate.


William Foster Cockshutt: Does the hon. member desire that such an official should be in charge of his office during the twenty day-s? I quite agree that he should be given twenty days in which to state his case, but when does the dismissal -take effect? Is he continued in office and paid his salary during the twenty days?


Jacques Bureau: I think there is a provision toy (which the head of the department has the right to suspend the man and the payment of his salary. Under that provision, I take it that the- head of the department, or whoever is vested with the authority, has the power, if he thinke the offence is serious enough, to suspend from the day he writes the report the man whose dismissal is sought. In that case, the man would not toe paid his salary and would not have any authority in his- office.


An hon. MEMBER:: Section 31.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, section 31 says:
The head of a department, and in his absence the deputy head, may suspend from the performance of his duty or from the receipt of his salary any officer-
-and so on. The case is covered by that
section.


Ernest Lapointe: The amendment of my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) ought to be accepted. The power of dismissal is just as important, indeed, I 
think' it is more important and more dangerous, than the power of appointment so far as political interference or patronage is concerned. Parliament has always considered that to be so. In fact, when this Parliament wants to place a public official or servant above political patronage and to be sure of his impartiality, it enacts that the official cannot be dismissed by the Governor in Council, and that only a vote of the two Houses of Parliament can dismiss him. It so enacts in the case of judges, the Auditor General, the Civil Service Commissioners and other officers. It happens that the Governor in Council is entitled to appoint gentlemen to certain offices, but that the authority which makes the appointment has no power to dismiss those officers. Under the Bill as it stands, we are legislating in the opposite direction. The Governor in Council would be deprived of the power of making appointments, but would have the right to dismiss the officers it has not right to appoint. If the Government wants to do away altogether with the plague of patronage and political interference it should accept the amendment of my hon. friend; the Civil Service Commission should be empowered to make the dismissals -as well as the appointments, and the Governor in Council should not interfere.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I can only repeat what I have said two or three times in the earlier stages of the Bill, namely, that, in my opinion, the power of dismissal of its servants should rest with the Crown, and that power should not be bestowed upon any other body. It would, I think, be rather peculiar if the Crown delegated that power to any other body.


Ernest Lapointe: I,t delegates- the power to appoint.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: By a method of selection established by an Act of Parliament, the commission does select appointees to the Civil Service, but once they are appointed they are the servants and employees of the Crown, and the Crown should reserve the right of dismissal. There is no doubt that in the past, in the case of political 'appointments, the power of dismissal was abused by governments, but hon. gentlemen know that related almost entirely to the Outside Service. I never heard anybody complain about improper dismissals by the Government so far as the Inside Service is. concerned, where appointments are made upon competitive ex-

animation and promotion depends upon merit. If dismissals have been improperly made from the Inside Service by the Crown in the past I do not know of any such case. Dismissals have been made, however, for cause. I hope that when the same principle which obtains in the Inside * Service is applied to the Outside Service-appointment after competitive examination, and promotion upon merit-there will be no dismissals by the Government except for cause. I do not feel that the amendment should be accepted, and I trust that my hon. friend will not press it.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 21; nays, 38.


Charles Murphy: I understood that section 36 was left over for consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Charles Sheard: The Toronto police force is not under the control of a political body, so the chiefs reasons would not apply in this case. I dwell upon the value of such a clause if it can be worked advantageously in the Civil Service Bill, because whatever we may say to the contrary, instances such as those to which attention has been drawn on the floor of the House are interpreted by the public, whether rightly or wrongly, as due to some influence being
brought to bear in the securing of appointments, and influence which ought not to prevail; that is the general impression, and members of the House are called upon to explain why these things happen. I do not affirm that it is even true, but if some provision could be included in the Act that would enable members of Parliament to be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion, it ought to be included.


John Allister Currie: When section 3 was under discussion I suggested that the commission should consist of five members, two of whom should be returned soldiers, and I beg to move that amendment now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will make a statement on that point on the third reading of the Bill. Perhaps my hon. friend will withdraw his amendment in the meantime.
Amendment withdrawn.
Bill as amended reported, and amendments concurred in.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for the second reading of Bill No. 70, to consolidate and amend the Railway Act-(Hon. J. D. Reid):
Jacques Bureau: Surely the second reading is not going to be pressed on the House now. I was told in the lobby this evening that my hon. friends opposite had prepared for an all-night session by organizing relief squads.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Jacques Bureau: Why "Order"? We are not going to be treated like slaves. That is what I was told, and I have reason to believe it is true.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no desire to go on with the Bill to-night if there is any objection.


Jacques Bureau: There is objection.


John Dowsley Reid: I thought we might
get into committee and make a start on the Bill, but if there is objection I will not press the second reading.


Jacques Bureau: There is no objection.
I object to the principle of certain clauses.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to state
here that my hon. friend is entirely in error in stating there was any organization on this side of the House to keep this *thing going all night by relief squads. Whoever told my hon. friend that was drawing on .his imagination, because no such thing was plannell.


Jacques Bureau: If I am in error, I am
glad to acknowledge it. I hope I shall not have again to refer to the same point.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Sufficient unto the day
is the evil thereof.


RELEASE OF HON. DR. BELAND, M.P.
[Stage Direction]
LEiMIEUX AND SIR ROBERT BORDEN.
During the consideration of the Civil Service Bill in the Committee of the Whole:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I may perhaps
be out of order but I cannot resist the temptation of informing the committee that a press despatch has been received stating that Hon. Dr. Beland has been released and is coming home.


Jacques Bureau: Three cheers for Dr.
Beland.
Hon. members rose, gave three cheers for Dr. Beland, and sang " For He's a Jolly Good Fellow."


Robert Laird Borden: I have received a cablegram from Sir George Perley with respect to Hon. Dr. Beland's release, which reads:	.
London, May 13th, 1918.
The Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
Have telegram from Beland at Rotterdam saying he has been released from Germany Am personally delighted, and am sure this news will be most welcome to you and all other Canadians.
Perley.
Following the reading of the cablegram, hon. members rose in their seats, and cheered.


Robert Laird Borden: I might add that I communicated to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, three days ago, I think, the news that Dr. Beland's release was likely to take place, but we were under injunction to say nothing about it in public. I am very glad that the anticipation then conveyed to us has now been fulfilled. All of us who know Dr. Beland have the very highest appreciation of his character, of his ability and of his services as a public man. We have all been greatly distressed by the fact that he has been detained so long in Germany and has endured such hardships, and there is none who will not join, as we have joined just now, in the most warm recognition of the fact that he has been set at liberty.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In justice to the right hon. the Prime Minister and to Sir George 
Perley, I might add that 6ince the internment of our dear colleague, Dr. Beland, the Prime Minister and the Government have done their utmost to have him released.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean the House adjourned at 12.17 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, May 14, 1918.