1923-02-16

PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 18, respecting The Dominion Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 19, respecting certain patents of Albert Manvers.-Mr. Jacobs.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1924, was presented by Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20 to amend-and consolidate the acts relating to patents of invention.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I wish to call the attention of the House, in- connection with this bill, to Rule 50 dealing with bills relating to trade, which reads as follows:
No bill relating to trade, or the alteration of the laws concerning trade, is to be brought into this House, until the proposition shall have been first considered in a committee of the whole House, and agreed unto by the House.
I find that bills concerning patents and copyright were once considered as relating to trade, but at page 499 of the fourth edition of Bourinot it is stated, after enumerating which bills come within the rule, that-
Bills respecting patents and copyright have been presented without committee.
That is, without the usual resolution preceding their introduction. On the same page there is also the following footnote bearing on this point:
In 1872 a bill to amend and consolidate the patent laws was based on a resolution. But this was an irregularity as the bill merely imposed fees.
I am informed by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) that the present consolidation is of the same nature; it will impose fees and nothing else. On this assumption I consider that the bill does not come within Rule 50, and therefore he may proceed with its introduction.


Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Speaker, we have a letter from the Law Clerks along the lines laid down in your ruling.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce), moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


James Alexander Robb: This is for the purpose of making our law uniform with international law governing patent rights and industrial trade marks and designs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CONVENTION OF COMMERCE WITH FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance, moved that the House on Tuesday next go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that a certain convention of commerce dated the fifteenth day of December, in the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, entered into at Paris by plenipotentiaries appointed by His Majesty and by the President of the French Republic be approved and to give effect to the provisions of the said convention.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance), moved that the House on Tuesday next go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that a certain convention of commerce dated the fourth day of January, in the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, entered into at London by the plenipotentiaries appointed by His Majesty and by His Majesty the King of Italy be approved, and to give effect to the provisions of the said convention.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with
Vancouver Harbour
[Stage Direction]
the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: ' I should like to ask the government whether any new practice has been adopted in connection with questions on the order paper. There was a question put on the order paper as to stamps on cheques. I notice that it has been dropped. It was not answered by the government. It was answered in so far as the Department of Customs and Excise is concerned, but that is not the department which has to do with it. I should think that the department concerned was the Finance department.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: The initiation of legislation in these
matters falls within the scope and duties of the Minister of Finance; the administration of the law falls under the authority of the Minister of Customs, and I suppose that was the reason my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) answered it. If there is anything, however, which is not answered that comes within the scope of my department, I shall have the matter looked into, and assure my hon. friend that he shall have the information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that the ruling has been given without a doubt. I assume that the question may stand until full}'' answered.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: The press announces that a certain
number of delegates to a trade union conference have decided to start a campaign to fight the movement to attract settlers to this country. I notice that a protest has been lodged with the Minister of Immigration and Colonization. It is pointed out by the resolution that this protest is to apply not only to city dwellers, but also to farmers and proposed farmers. I should like to know if the government has anything to say in the matter, and what their attitude is in regard to it.


Hon. C. A. STEWART (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I have no know-

ledge beyond what is contained in the press report mentioned by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, to provide for further advances to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, end the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-the Crown may advance $5,000,000 to corporation.
Mr. LADNER:: With reference to the
word "necessary" in the last line but one or this section, I presume that refers to such terminal facilities as are deemed necessary b\ the corporation. The corporation lays out its plans, and then the next section provides foi the "approval of the proposed expenditure. Is not that the meaning?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: This is the language usually used in all these bills.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It may be the usual language, but somebody may get a freakish or obdurate turn of mind-and this is a very important matter from the point of view of Vancouver. There is no reason why the law should not be explicitly clear. I suggest that the words "by the corporation" be inserted after the word "necessary".


Ernest Lapointe: Nothing can be done, of course, without the approval of the Governor in Council. I am a reformer, but in matters of language, especially the English language, I would hesitate to make any change in what has been the custom.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I think it would be very inadvisable to change the language of this clause. The House cannot pass over to any harbour commission rights which are vested in this parliament.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 15 consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Woodsworth that it is in the interest of world peace that Canada should withdraw all claims on Germany for reparations.
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, in resuming the debate on the reso-

German Reparations
lution submitted by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), I may say that the hon. member was no doubt actuated by the best motives in proposing the motion that he did, although the effect has been different, perhaps, from what he expected. I have no intention of talcing up any considerable time of the House in discussing this very important resolution. I rather regret a good deal of the language that was used by the mover in presenting his case-language that was unnecessary, arousing many strong feelings, harrowing our feelings, I might almost say, by recalling many of the things which happened in the past. The sufferings endured and sacrifices made by the people of Canada and many other countries in defence of their liberties are too recent to enable them with calmness to hear them lightly passed over at this time. When we think of the sacrifices that were made, when we remember some of the early scenes in 1914 and 1915 when Germany began her march across the plains of Belgium; when we remember the stories of atrocities and other accounts that appeared in the papers of that time, many of which we know to-day were true, we must realize that this is not the time to begin to say we must forget everything and be just as we were before. I do not think anything can be gained by keeping alive the smouldering fires of hatred; it would be as well for the world if we could forget some of these things, though it may be hard to do at this time, and look toward the future and toward a brighter and better and happier condition everywhere throughout the world.
I do not think any good purpose would be served by my speaking at length on this subject. I may say, however, that in many respects I am not exactly in sympathy with the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). I have known that hon. gentleman for a great many years, but I believe that in this case his point of view is altogether wrong; the end he seeks will never be accomplished by the method he has taken. At the same time I believe him to be in earnest and, although mistaken, working in the best interests of the common people. I want to say that in justice to the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg. I know that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is very patriotic, and no doubt he meant all he said, but as he warmed up his patriotic sentiment got uppermost and he lashed the member for Centre Winnipeg in a very vicious manner. I am ever willing to forget and forgive, and I do not think any good purpose is served by that kind of debate in this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having made that statement, I can only say that I feel I must vote against the resolution; and I am sure I speak for a great many hon. members on this side when I say that we wish to dissociate ourselves from some of the sentiments that were expressed by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything on this resolution until I listened to the tremendous outburst of hysteria which took place on both sides of the House last evening, but having listened to that outburst with a good deal of sadness at heart-because I do not think it was creditable to the Parliament of Canada-I feel that I have to say a few words. I shall not enter into any prolonged debate upon the economic aspect of the question; that would be wasted effort. But I do wish to express a few opinions on the resolution itself and some of the arguments that were advanced. Hysterics in my opinion are the expression of argumentative penury. It gets us nowhere. It is an incentive to a spirit which leads away from truth rather than towards it. The Minister of Labour made a passionate plea which, to my mind harked back to the days of savagery.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: What savagery?


William Irvine: I shall proceed to indicate what it was-[DOT]" An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ", was the spirit of the hon. minister. This appeal was placed-and here is the tragic part of it-in the name of the faller heroes of Canada. I think I shall have to mention here something which otherwise I should certainly hesitate to do. Among the names mentioned by the Prime Minister of Canada the other day that appeared among the missing I happened to have a brother and so if it is necessary, and I regret that such seems to be the case, that a man must speak from behind the blood of his relations before he can escape the imputed motives of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and the Minister of Labour-of course, I must do it. If then it is a matter of whether I want to sell my brother's blood for a few German marks-which we will never get,-or whether I am to sell my brother's blood for the world peace for which he died, then there is no argument, or there is only one thing, and that is leave the marks out of consideration. Mr. Speaker; to place falsely, in
German Reparations

the name of patriotism, the blood of Canada in the scales and place on the other side the German mark is to my mind beneath the Canadian parliament, it is unworthy of the sacrifice our men made, and I certainly wish to dissociate myself from the sentiments that were expressed by the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in this regard. The latter gentleman indulged in a good deal of animosity which was entirely uncalled for. I believe, Sir, that there are certain rales in this House which prohibit a member from using certain words, but there does not seem to be any rale which prohibits a man from making certain inferences which, if expressed in words of a certain character, would be quite out of order. It seems to me that a great deal of animosity bubbled out from beneath the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and he seems to think that the resolution as proposed by the leader of the Labour party (Mr. Woodsworth) could only come from a gentleman who was the victim of an economic freak. Did the hon. member for Vancouver Centre give us an exhibition of economics that would warrant us in the view that he has got enough of economics to constitute even a freak? I do not think he did. There was no evidence of any economic wisdom in his pronouncement. I think I can, perhaps, answer the verbosity of that hon. gentleman by a quotation from Emerson and thus save myself a good deal of mental effort. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre put out the historic argument of the Conservative which Emerson states so forcibly in the following words:
The conservative alone remains the only evidence of his own faith, and we are comDelled to discount even him. While his mind remains fixed it is compelled to defend different things.
Conservativism took its original stand in favour of a primeval taboo, but since then it has defended the utterances of the Delphic Oracle, the Athanasian Creed, the inquisition, the geocentric theory, monarchy by the grace of God, witchcraft, slavery, war, capitalism, private property, imperialism.
That is the noble history of Conservativism, and I think the House will agree with me that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre upheld the traditions of his noble party last night in his tirade of implications against the leader of the Labour party, and in his decided opposition to the "new world" policy which substitutes reason and goodwill for blood.
Now, the resolution is really, after all, a most harmless resolution stating it negatively, and positively stated it might lead to a very great deal that would be desirable not only on the part of Canada but on the part of the world. I am not certain that I agree with the

leader of the Labour party's method of introducing it. Personally for the moment I do not care who started the war, we are dealing now with the results of it; and I imagine if we dug down to find out who started it we would have just about as much trouble as we have in deciding who won it, and that seems to be causing the world a great deal of speculation. We have in the causes of war, of this and other wars, a circle a century or two in circumference, and within that circle we have a veritable polyglot of influences which it is impossible to trace to their sources and all of which have a bearing upon the causes of war. I am not going to deal with that; I repeat that I care not for the moment who caused it; I am dealing with the actual situation with which we are confronted at the present time. And what is the question before us? The question before us is that Canada's sons, as was pointed out by the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, died that the world might have peace, died in a war that was going to end all wars. The question, is, then, shall we help the cause for which they died the better by the forswearing of our claims upon any indemnity from Germany, or shall we help that aim forward by insisting that she pay to the last farthing whether by force of arms or by force of economic pressure? That is the question we are considering, and while I have a good deal of sympathy with the expressions of the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke), just now, yet I think, perhaps he is missing an opportunity here, for we must not allow any sentiment which we may have against any member of the House to interfere with our intelligent and reasonable analysis of the resolution itself. AVhich course will lead toward world peace is the crux of the question. Taking the thing on its highest possible ground we do not wish to haggle over marks when the world peace is in the balance. The resolution may be considered from two angles. First, it is economic. I refer you to the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), with regard to the economic side of the question. The other phase of the resolution has to do with obtaining the aim for which we fought in the last war. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if Canada could see her way clear, regardless of carrying out the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, burying as deep as hell the animosity that seemed to spurt from the Minister of Labour, and could see her way clear to be magnanimous in the interest of world peace, we should be

German Reparations
doing a more glorious thing for those who died and a greater thing for Canada and for the world. That is my position on this resolution.
I would refer, in closing, to an incident of last session, which is pertinent to the present discussion. We had an honoured professor fiom Oxford who came to this parliament last year and was introduced by the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons. They sponsored this professor, and what was his plea to us? Those of us who took the trouble to be present will remember that he outlined the whole economic situation in Europe. He showed us the hopelessness of trying to extract the indemnity from Germany, and he finished in words that were both dramatic and prophetic, suggesting what a great thing it would be if Canada could take the very course which this resolution asks that we should take. I think we can lay aside all animosity, and all unfair criticism and face this resolution on its own grounds. We know that the whole world is affected by the economic! situation in Europe. We know, if we know anything, that the war cannot be paid for to the extent that is hoped by those who are entitled to receive indemnities, and most of us know that if we draw a tooth from Germany to-day, or pluck an eye from the Kaiser, to satisfy the hon. the Minister of Labour, that some day they will probably draw a tooth or pluck an eye from some other nation. We know also that, if we have that magnanimity of spirit which is worthy of our Canadian dead, we will say to the world and to Germany specifically: We will not have your marks, they are worthless anyway, keep them; we will not ask you to pay anything, but we will foreswear our share of the indemnity in the interests of that world peace for which our Canadian soldiers died.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: We must all admire, Mr. Speaker, the Christian sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman from Calgary East (Mr. Irvine), but I am at a loss to understand why such a resolution as this should be presented to a Canadian parliament at this time. Are we pressing for reparations? Are we in any way oppressing these poor Germans, whose ardent friend from Winnipeg is trying to protect them before they are attacked? Why bring in such a resolution as this? Is it his desire that this parliament should give a lead to Europe and to the Imperial parliament as to how it should deal with reparations? If that is his purpose I do not think that the Imperial parliament would be inclined to follow in his footsteps. So far as reparations are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Dominion of Canada might very well follow the lead given to U3 by the Mother Country and its government, and wait for developments before we begin to express our friendship for the poor downtrodden German. I am not concerned about the reparations, but I must confess that it vexes me considerably to have a man stand up in the House of Commons and tell us that Great Britain and France were as much responsible for the war as Germany. That is substantially the statement made by the hon. gentleman for Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). He read a number of quotations last night, among which I find the following:
The British and French General Staffs had been in active collaborations for war with Germany ever since January 1906.
Does he mean to tell the House and the country that France and Great Britain had contemplated war against Germany in 1906? If that is what he is trying to make us believe, I think he has a task on his hands in which he will fail. There can be no doubt in the minds of men who followed the circumstances attending the beginning of the war that Germany was solely responsible for the war. He referred last night to what Austria and Hungary had done. Austria and Hungary did what the German Kaiser and the German government compelled them to do, and they had to do that right up to the time of the armistice. He knows, if he knows anything at all about the war, which I doubt, that Austria and Hungary would have ceased fighting long before if the Germans had permitted them to do so. But to come into this House and attempt to excuse Germany I cannot regard as anything but a little piece of German propaganda, designed perhaps to create opinion in Canada, and as far as it goes outside of Canada, that these poor people are being oppressed. If that is his object, I want to utter my protest against the House of Commons being used for such a purpose. The hon member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) answered his argument about the poor little children. I need not go into that further than to point out that whenever a man commits a crime his little children and his family are the sufferers, and when the leaders of the government committed that unparalleled crime they brought suffering upon the poor people of Germany.
I would like to draw another thing to the attention of my hon. friend when he is talking about reparations. There is only one argument that a German can understand, and that is the argument of force, and the best
German Reparations

guarantee that Germany will not again invade France is that France has gone in and taken hold of the Ruhr district, and I hope that France will keep it until every last cent of reparations is paid. I never had stronger sympathies in my life than I have for the people of France to-day for wThat they suffered in the war and what they are suffering yet. The question is whether France will be ruined or whether Germany will be ruined. If that is the issue, then my preference is that it shall be Germany. As far as my stand - is concerned, I am with the French, and notwithstanding all the .economists who may speak, on this question, if I were a Frenchman I would glory in the action of the government of that country. I would tell these economists-who do not know half as much as they think they do-because these are the fellows that told us the war could not last three months, that the economic conditions were such that it was impossible to continue it, but it lasted over four years-I would tell these economists that I have great hope that France will win out in the contest that is now going on in the Ruhr. May I also point out to hon. gentlemen that every fifty years of the Christian era France has been invaded by this power, and why should we take our stand now by the side of the invading power and against our ally by adopting a resolution of this kind?
My hon. friend from Calgary East says he is as much troubled now in deciding who started the war as he is in deciding who won the war. Well, I think, Sir, that his mind must be entirely devoted to metaphysics and must be clear of all the practical questions of the day if he finds so much difficulty in deciding that question. I want to associate myself with those who would make Germany pay the cost of the destruction of France and Belgium. I protest against a motion of this kind being brought into the House because it can serve no good purpose and is designed, in my judgment, clearly to try and find a reason in the minds of some people in this country for exonerating Germany for its dreadful conduct in starting the war. What was the cry? "World power or ruin!" That was the issue that the German people under their leaders made. If they had succeeded in getting world power, what would this country be to-day? A colony of the German Empire, and my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) would not be permitted to stand in the parliament of this country and say against Germany things that he is able to say on the floor of this House against the British
[Mr. Hocken.)
Empire. Liberty, as we have it, would not exist in Canada if this were a German colony. Germany made her choice-world power or ruin. She is pretty well ruined. Still, I think, whether these reparations can be paid now or later on, they should be paid, and the payment of them is the only means by which the people of that country will be educated as to their iniquities and the unwisdom of war.
A provocative motion of this kind should have no place in parliament. I think I understand the peculiar and distorted mentality of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg, and I sympathize with him that his mind, which might have been bright and practical, and of value to the people of this country, has run off until he has become, I think he woul$ not object to my sajdng, a Bolshevist. If his opinions are not of a Bolshevist turn, I do not undertsand what Bolshevism is. I do not think he would object to that characterization, and I am extremely glad that throughout this Dominion of Canada there are so very few of his type.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are four conferences, the proceedings of which should, I think, be considered in connection with the resolution of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). The first was the conference of Versailles, at which the Treaty of Versailles was drafted and signed by the different countries involved in the war. The second was the conference at Spa, held in 1920, at which the reparations which, under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had admitted she should pay to the allied and associated powers were allocated as between the different powers. The third conference was a conference of inter-allied representatives, held at London in 1921, at which conference the proportion of the reparations to be assigned to the British Empire and others of the allied and associated powers, was definitely fixed. The fourth was a conference held in London in 1921, between the British government and the prime ministers of the different dominions, at which conference the proportion of the reparations which Canada and the other dominions and Great Britain were to receive, was determined. For purposes of record, may I mention one or two relevant particulars with respect to these conferences?
Under article 231 of the treaty of Versailles, Germany admitted responsibility for all loss and damage to which the allies and associated governments and their nationals had been subjected as a consequence of the war. Ger-

German Reparations
many's signature stands to-day to a treaty in which she admits that she was responsible for the war and for all the damage that grew out of it. That should answer for all time the question of the responsibility of the war.


Mr. GOOD:: Could it possibly be said that that signature was secured under duress?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is unnecessary to answer my hon. friend's question. Article 232 states that the Allies recognize that Germany is unable to pay the full amount of these damages; it is further provided that the allied and associated governments require, and Germany undertakes, to make compensation for all damages done to the civilian population and their property.
Under article 253, the amount of these damages was directed to be determined by the Reparation Commission. The category of damages which Germany undertook to pay was set out in the annex following article 244.
At the conference of the inter-allied representatives, held at Spa in July, 1920, the amount payable by Germany was allocated between the different allied powers, 22 per cent being the amount receivable by the British Empire.
At the conference of the inter-allied representatives held at London in 1921, the amount of damages payable by Germany was fixed at one hundred and thirty two billion gold marks. The provision of the treaty that the amount be fixed by the Reparation Commission was at that time superseded.
At the conference of the British government with the prime ministers of the dominions in 1921, at which conference I think my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) was present, Canada's share of the amount to which the British Empire was entitled, was fixed at 4.35 per
4 p.m. cent of the 22 per cent to which the British Empire was entitled. Seeing that the British Empire at the time that the question was being decided as to what amounts Great Britain and the several dominions were to receive, acted as one; that all the different parts were taken into consultation, would it not appear in every way right and proper, and indeed the only thing that is fitting, that, before any alteration is made by any one part of the British Empire on this question of reparations, they should all have opportunity of conferring together, with reference to that question? I will not take second place to any hon. member in this House as to a desire to see Canada manage her own affairs, maintain in every way and at all times her identity and individuality;
but there are occasions when not only is it right and necessary, but when any other course would appear to be wrong and improper, that all parts of the British Empire should act together as one. In regard to a settlement such as this, dealing with a matter, of war, in which different parts of the Empire fought together, in which their sons died together, where the matter was originally determined in common conference, the only proper way in which to deal with the question at issue namely that of reparations would appear to be by all parts acting together as they did at the time the agreement was made as to the proportion which each should receive.
Indeed, only a few days ago the Prime Minister of Great Britain, speaking in France, made reference to the possibility that at some time the British Empire might consider what could be done in this very matter of reparations. But Mr. Bonar Law was careful at the time of making his statement to say that whatever Great Britain might do in the matter, would be done only after consultation with the different British dominions. I think it will be the wish of the British dominions throughout the Emipre to adopt precisely the same attitude towards the Mother Country in this matter as the Mother Country is prepared to adopt towards us.
My hon. friend who has moved the resolution says that his purpose is the furtherance of world peace. I believe he is quite sincere in so stating his position,, but I would say to him that I fear the effect of his resolution, if adopted by this House, would be entirely the opposite of what he would wish it to be in that regard. We cannot as respects any resolution passed by this House dissociate the effect of its. interpretation outside of and within the House; we cannot dissociate its effect beyond the boundaries of and within our own country. My hon. friend says that this would be a gesture. I am very much afraid it would be a gesture which would be construed as anything but favourable to France, and rather strongly in favour of Germany at this particular time. As my hon. friend knows, the relations between France and Germany at the moment are severely strained. The most serious situation that we have in the world at the present time exists because of those strained relations. Is it conceivable that this parliament at this moment could pass a resolution which has a bearing upon that situation without it being construed abroad as an expression of our attitude in that very serious situation?



German Reparations
I would say to my hon. friend that I hope when he reflects upon the views which have been expressed here, when he reflects upon the possible bearing of his resolution in its relation to the situation overseas at this particular time, he will see well to withdraw it altogether. But if he does not see fit to take that' course, I hope this House will see well to defeat his resolution, because I fear were it passed its purpose would not be understood in any such sense as that in which he says he has put it forward.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I place no importance whatsoever upon her signature as an admission. I judge of Germany's obligation not by what she signed, but by what she did, and so far as it lies in my power, I shall support the view that there should be no remission beyond the point of Germany's capacity to pay.
.There remains an argument that perhaps I might refer to-there are some who hold it, and, I think, hold it conscientiously- that the exactions made of Germany under the treaty went beyond what could reasonably to read into the Fourteen Points promulgated by the President of the United States; that the President of the United States having stipulated that only civilian damage should be held as that for which Germany should account, and Germany having ceased fighting on those stipulations, it was not fair to include in civilian damage the capitalized value of separation pay, and, I think, of pensions as well. This matter was argued at the Versailles Conference. I understand the United States representatives for a time took a stand against the inclusion of those items, but after argument and the fullest debate they conceded the point, and as a consequence those were included. Such was the judgment of the majority-I think it was the unanimous judgment-of those who attended that conference. Such judgment has not been reversed, and I have never been able to persuade myself that it should be reversed. If it could be shown that to include these classes of damages was in any way in derogation of the stipulations on the faith of which Germany laid down her arms, then, whatever the prior crime of Germany, I would be prepared to abide by the real meaning of those stipulations. This as yet has not been shown; until it is shown I think the only principle that should govern is the principle that I have just sought to elucidate to the House. At all events, that is the course I would pursue.
I propose to vote against the resolution, but I do not for a moment suggest that the government of this country should not take its place among the nations of the Empire, or if necessary among all the Allied nations, and seek to have a composition of the whole subject of war reparations, so long as in that composition the principle I have sought to emphasize is not forgotten.


Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):: I do not intend to delay the House very long this afternoon in the observations which I propose to make on this very important resolution. It seems to me that the quiet, weighty and reasonable remarks of the Prime Minister will find & responsive chord in the
[Mr. Meighen.l
hearts of- nearly all of us present, and I trust that those responsible for bringing the resolution before the House will feel it incumbent upon them to comply with his courteous request.
But things have been said in this debate which I do not think should go without some observations being made thereon. . I have been pained at some attacks made upon the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth). I do not believe he deserved those attacks. I believe he brought' this resolution before the House with the best of good will, with absolute sincerity and conviction of the righteousness of what he brought forward. It has been the glory of British people, Mr. Speaker, that at all times in the nation's history here and overseas there have been men who have been prepared to stand up for what they thought was right, even if it went against the current of popular opinion at the time. Fox withstood Pitt and argued against the continuance of war with France a hundred or more years ago. At the time of the Crimean war, John Bright fulminated against Great Britain's stand at that rime, and history has said that he was right. A few years after, it was the turn of Richard Cobden to protest against the Opium War in China. We should always courteously listen to those with whom we disagree, even if they say things we might not consider wise, or if wise which we consider unpalatable.
Now, that Germany was the immediate aggressor, 1 think we are nearly all in accord. But if Germany was the immediate aggressor in the Great War-and dearly has she paid for her aggression-does anyone in this House composed of intelligent men, believe that Germany was solely responsible for the war?


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, the war came because the European peoples had for years followed a false system. They tried to find security in military preparedness. I grant you that it was enormously difficult when one nation had set the pace for others not to keep step with it. Once Germany believed that Russia was arming against her, it was difficult for Germany not to prepare. Once England believed that Germany was arming against her, it seemed only the part of wisdom to prepare for war and to seek alliances; and we found before the Great War broke upon this world that Europe was divided into two great armed camps-the Central Empires on the one side, who relied at that time upon the adhesion of Italy,

German Reparations
which failed them when the time came, and the Entente Powers, Russia, France and Great Britain, on the other. What appeals to me, Mr. Speaker, is that the lesson for humanity which we derive from seeing this war in its operation, seeing what led to it, and seeing its consequences, is the utter futility for mankind to try to protect itself against violence by military preparation. Surely that is a lesson of the war which has been driven home to all of us. What I would ask this House to consider is, not men who have been our enemies, not men who have been our friends, but suffering humanity, the victims rather than the authors of what has happened to them. That seems to me the frame of mind in which we should approach this question.
I have little more to say. I believe that the great cause of the war was the conflicting imperialisms of Europe, nations striving to extend the ambit of their power, particularly in parts of the world which were only semicivilized or not civilized at all. The conflicts of imperialisms in Africa and other parts of the world w'ere, I think, the cause of the war which has its roots far in the past.
I do not know what the mover (Mr. Woods-worth) proposes to do. I hope that he will withdraw this resolution, not because the lesolution is wrong in essence, but because it is liable to be misunderstood. Why should we be willing to give up any part of our reparations? Not because we think that France should give up reparation, for I think we are all convinced that Germany which devasted northern France owes by every rule of ethics, law and justice, the obligation of restoring those devasted portions of France, and it is but fair to say that the German trade unions have offered to restore northern France, and that that offer has not been accepted.
I have little more to say on this occasion. What I do wish to protest against in all good spirit is the attacks that have been made against a man who has tried to say what he thought right and what he thought in the interests of peace. We may agree with him or we may not agree with him, but let us be charitable one to another. I think that in the last ten years what has happened in this world has shown the truth of what John Bright said fifty years ago in connection with the Irish question, that force is no remedy, and this old world will not have peace and concord until force as an ultimate solution is abandoned and men will rely upon good will and justice to settle their disputes.


William Charles Good: I wish to
associate myself with the hon. member for
B'ome (Mr. McMaster) in requesting the mover of the resolution (Mr. Woodsworth) to withdraw his motion. Personally I find myself in very large agreement with his point of view, but I would find it very difficult under the circumstances to vote for his resolution, for various reasons which have already been outlined, particularly by the Prime Minister. I think that a vote taken under the ciicumstances would not be a vote on the merits of the question which the mover has in mind, and therefore I think it would be unfortunate to call for a vote.
I wish also to protest, as did the hon. member for Brome, against the spirit of hostility displayed, and against the sneers and jeers that have been uttered in this House, in this debate. I know that this is a question which it is almost impossible to discuss without heat, animosity and prejudice, and sometimes it is wise, although not always perhaps, not, to risk arousing prejudices when you are pretty sure that what may be said will only result in inflaming feeling
I do not think I have anything further to say. I do believe that we ought to remember the old truth that they who take the sword shall perish by the sword. That is something that we ought to take to heart nationally, but I am not going to discuss that question. I would once more request that the mover of the resolution do not press for a vote upon it.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the mover closes the debate, the Chair must give its ruling, which I thought was awaited with considerable anxiety. The point was raised last night by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) that this resolution, under rule 78, was out of order and could not be proceeded with. The resolution is couched in vague language. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is in the interest of world peace that Canada should withdraw all claims on Germany for reparations.
As I stated last night, Canada here means the Crown and the Crown has claims against Germany. The rights of Canada are clearly stated in the Treaty of Versailles. Canada was represented at the making of that treaty, Canada's representatives signed the treaty, and the reparations which Germany was condemned to make are set forth in Articles 231 to 244. Annex I enumerates claims that could arise out of those reparations. For instance:
Annex I
Compensation may be claimed from Germany under Article 232 above in respect of the total damage under the following categories:
(1)	Damage to injured persons and to surviving dependents by personal injury to or death of civilians

German Reparations
caused by acts of war,	including	bombardments	orother attacks on land,	on	sea, or from the air, and	all
the direct consequences thereof, and of all operations of war by the two groups of belligerents wherever arising.
(2)	Damage caused	by	Germany	or her allies	to
civilian victims of acts of cruelty, violence or mal-treatement (including injuries to life or health) as a consequence of imprisonment, deportation, internment or evacuation, of exposure at sea, or of being forced to labour, wherever arising, and to the surviving dependents of such victims.
(3)	Damage caused	by	Germany	or her allies	in
their own territory or in occupied or invaded territory to civilian victims of all acts injurious to health or capacity to work, or to honour, as well as to the surviving dependents of such victims.
(4)	Damage caused by any kind of maltreatment of prisoners of war.
(5)	As damage caused to the peoples of the allied and associated powers, all pensions and compensation in the nature of pensions to naval and military victims of war (including members of the air force), whether mutilated, wounded, sick or invalided, and to the dependents of such victims, the amount due to the allied and associated governments being calculated for each of them as being the capitalized cost of such pensions, and compensation at the date of the coming into force of the present treaty, oh the basis of the scales in force in France at such date.
(6)	The cost of assistance by the governments of the allied and associated powers to prisoners of war and to their families and dependents.
(7)	Allowances by the governments of the allied and associated powers to the families and dependents of mobilized persons or persons serving with the forces, the amount due to them for each calendar year in which hostilities occurred, being calculated for each government on the basis of the average scale for such payments in force in France during that year.
(8)	Damage caused to civilians by being forced by Germany or her allieg to labour without just remuneration.
(9) Damage in respect of all property wherever situated belong to any of the allied or associated states or their nationals, with the exception of naval and military works or materials, which has been carried off, seized, injured or destroyed by the acts of Germany or her allies on land, and sea, or from the air, or damage directly in consequence of hostilities or of any operations of war.
(10)	Damage in the form of levies, fines and other similar exactions imposed by Germany or her allies upon the civilian population.
As the House will readily see, Canada has various claims against Germany, and when Canada is invited to relinquish such claims it is a matter which affects the public exchequer. Therefore it comes under the rule which was quoted last evening by the hon. member for New Westminster. Under that rule in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms I find the following:
620. This House will not proceed upon any petition, motion or bill for granting any money, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown but in a committee of the whole House.
Then I find further:
029. The recommendation of the Crown is needed for such measures as bills relating to the extension of time for the repayment of the deposit which has become liable to forfeiture in the case of a private bill; the release or compounding of sums due to the Crown; the repeal of an exemption from an existing duty, as the

burthen of the duty is thereby augmented; a proposal to repeal an existing drawback on export of sugar, as it effects an incrense ot charge upon the importers who desired to export sugar.
I also find in May 12th edition, at page 461, the following:
In pursuance of standing orders Nos. 66 and 67 a petition praying directly or indirectly for an advance of public money; for compounding or relinquishing any debts due to, or other claims of, the Crown; or for remission of duties or other charges payable by any person; or for a charge upon the revenues of India, will only be received if recommended by the Crown,
And so on. So that the principle of rule 78 is clearly laid down, in May. In Bourinot I also find the following:
Referring to this right of members to move such abstract resolutions all authorities agree that it is one "which the House exercises, and should always exercise, with great reserve and only under peculiar and exceptional circumstances." Such resolutions are considered virtually "an evasion of the rules of the House, and are on that account objectionable, and should be discouraged as much as possible."
It might be said that the resolution is only the expression of a pious wish. I grant that in an ordinary matter the Speaker might ignore the rule and acquiesce in a debate such as has taken place since last evening. But here we are face to face with a very serious matter. In my humble judgment, if the House of Commons of Canada, under the present circumstances, adopted this resolution it would have far reaching consequences. Internationally speaking, it would be a notice given to the allied powers that Canada relinquishes her share of the reparations. Therefore, I think I am only doing my duty in adhering to the rule and in following the precedents which have been adopted in Great Britain and in Canada, precedents which have received the support of the best parliamentarians in our country such as Sir John A. Macdonald, Mr. Holton and Mr. Blake. As Bourinot says:
Sir John A. Macdonald, Mr. Holton, and Mr. Blake pointed out the necessity of considering with the fullest deliberation all propositions which may involve an appropriation of the public moneys.
An appropriation of the public moneys or relinquishing debts or claims owing to the Crown is the same thing in my humble judgment and consequently, following on these authorities, I declare that the point was well taken and my ruling is that the resolution is out of order.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. NEILL:: What is the aggregate value (calculated at par) of all bonds issued by the Government of Canada, exempt from income tax ?

Questions


William Stevens Fielding: Bonds and domestic issues, exempt from Dominion income tax, $1,103,972,550; of New York issues, $50,874,000.
In addition, $160,000,000 of bonds issued and payable in New York are exempt from Dominion taxes except when beneficially owned by persons residing or ordinarily resident in Canada.
.MINISTERS' AND OFFICIALS' TRAVELS
On the question of Mr. Stansell being called:


Mr. STANSELL:: 1.	What Ministers of the Crown have been absent from Canada since the close of last session?
2.	What were the several tours taken by each Minister so absent, and what was the object of each trip?
3.	What were the names of those who, at the public expense, accompanied each Minister, and what was the purpose ?
4.	What officials of the various departments have been out of Canada since the last session and for what purpose in each case?
5.	What were the several tours taken by each official so absent, and what was the object of each trip?
6. What has been the cost to Canada of such trips by Ministers and officials, and those who accompanied them?
7.	What has been the cost to the Dominion of the various trips made by Ministers and persons who accompanied them since the last session of Parliament: (a) within Canada; (b) out of Canada?


Hewitt Bostock: I understood the question was dropped yesterday.


William Stevens Fielding: I said the hon. gentleman should convert it into a motion, when it would be more conveniently dealt with. I did not say "dropped."


Arthur Meighen: I did not think the hon. minister said "dropped."


William Stevens Fielding: But that was my answer. We were not prepared to answer in that way, but if he would convert it into a motion we would deal with it.


Arthur Meighen: Could it not stand as an order for return?


William Stevens Fielding: No, not in its present form.


Arthur Meighen: We will leave it as it is.


William Stevens Fielding: I have given the answer of the government, and I would prefer if the hon. member would bring it forward as a motion, because we desire to give him information.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask what is the matter with the question?


William Stevens Fielding: The question occupied some space and would call for poscsibly a good deal of information. At all events in the judgment of the government it should not be dealt with in that form. We are perfectly content to bring the information down if he will move for it. There is nothing remarkable in that.


Arthur Meighen: The only course the government has to pursue in that case is to have it stand as an order for return.


William Stevens Fielding: But suppose I do not want it to stand in that form.


Arthur Meighen: What other alternative has the government?


William Stevens Fielding: I propose to move an amendment.


Arthur Meighen: To the question?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I cannot do that, but I can move an amendment to the motion.


Arthur Meighen: Then, there is no motion.


William Stevens Fielding: If there is no motion, only a question, I could not answer it.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman says he will not answer it-


William Stevens Fielding: I have given the answer. If it is converted into a motion it will then be considered.


Arthur Meighen: Then it stands, as an order.


William Stevens Fielding: No, it does not stand as an order.


Arthur Meighen: Why does it not? Has the hon. gentleman a right to strike a question off the order paper?


William Stevens Fielding: No, but I have a right to answer the question. The judgment of the government in that respect must be accepted. The hon. gentleman can proceed to move, but he cannot compel me to answer the question in any other form than that which seems to us to be proper.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. Minister of Finance assert that he can stand up in the House and say "We will not answer the question ", and then ask the clerk to record that as an answer?


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say I would not answer. I said I had answered.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman says " I will not answer ", and then says, " I have answered ".	'


William Stevens Fielding: No, I did not.
Questions


Arthur Meighen: His words are down and his words are " We will not answer it in that form


William Stevens Fielding: Exactly.


Arthur Meighen: And then he says, " I have answered ".


William Stevens Fielding: That is the answer.


Arthur Meighen: If the government is entitled to do that, I think, Mr. Speaker, your well known capacity to hunt for precedents will be taxed in vain. If he says, "We will not answer it in this form ", and instructs that the records of the House show that that is an answer, then the whole practice of questioning falls to the ground, and the government has it in its power to deny everything, giving no reasons whatsoever.	.


William Stevens Fielding: Most certainly-


Arthur Meighen: If it is a matter of length, if the minister has said the answer is going to be too long and entail too much work, then the government can say, " Stands as order for return ", and the House has no alternative. That is the only reason the minister has given for his very strange attitude. If that is the objection to the question, all right, the government has its alternative, it can stand as an order for return, but the government has no right to say " We will not answer it in its present form, we do not like it, and we say that is our reason-"


William Stevens Fielding: I am surprised at the hon. gentleman. It is in his power and in the power of any member of the House to frame a question as he pleases, and it is the right of the government to say whether they will answer it in that form or not. We take the liberty to say that if this is put in the form of a motion we would bring down the information.


Arthur Meighen: That is the same thing as having it stand as an order for return.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference?


William Stevens Fielding: As a question I can not amend it, but as a motion before the House I can ask the House to amend it. That is the difference.


Arthur Meighen: It is not of the nature of a motion. It is in the nature of an inquiry.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, I have answered.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon.'gentleman is satisfied, I do not think he will be proud of the record when it appears in print.
TMr. Fielding.]


William Stevens Fielding: Very well.


Hewitt Bostock: If hon. members will
look at Rule No. 37, paragraph 3, they will find the following:
If in the opinion of Mr. Speaker a question on the order paper put to a Minister of the Crown is of such a nature as to require a lengthy reply, he may, upon the request of the government, direct the same to stand as a notice of motion, and to be transferred to its proper place as such upon the order paper, the Clerk of the House being authorized to amend the same as to matters of form.
Para. 4. If the question is of such a nature that in the opinion of the Minister who is to furnish the reply such reply should be in the form of a return, and the Minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the Table of the House, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the House, be deemed an order of the House to that effect, and the same shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite prepared
to abide by either one.


Hewitt Bostock: Then my ruling is that it comes under paragraph 3. It will stand as a notice of motion.


Arthur Meighen: For return?


Hewitt Bostock: As a notice of motion.
The other one is in the form of a return. One is the notice of motion, and the other one is the form of return.


Arthur Meighen: Then it stands as a
notice of motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That is satisfactory.


Hewitt Bostock: It stands as a notice of
motion.


MILITIA AND DEFENCE DISBURSEMENTS
Mr. BOYS:: 1.	What expenses, payments or disbursements of any kind have been made since April 1, 1922, out of other moneys than those included in the amounts voted by Parliament for the Department of Militia and Defence in respect of items or charges paid in the fiscal year 1920-21 out of moneys voted for the Department of Militia and Defence?
2.	Under what authority were such moneys so paid from other votes, and why was the change made?
3.	Were objections offered by the Department of the
Auditor General to payments being so made or to other attempts to make similar payments? If so, in what cases?	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: , I think this question was called yesterday and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Graham) asked that it be allowed to stand so that he could really understand what the hon. gentleman wished by his first question. He asked the hon. member to put it in different lan-gauge, so that he would be able to give him the information. The question does not quite convey what is desired.

The Civil Service


Arthur Meighen: I have looked over the
question since the Minister of National Defence made the statement the other day. The question seems clear to me. If I were to put it in other words than those which appear on the order paper, it is this: what the hon. member desires is a statement .of payments made charged to other departments than the Department of National Defence, in the present fiscal year, in respect of expenditures that in former years were charged to Militia and Defence. I could illustrate that by an example. Presuming that in the fiscal year 1921, the rent of a building used as an aimoury was paid and charged to Militia and Defence, and in 1921 paid and charged to Public Works, that would be such an item as would be covered, and asked for by a return to the House.
Question stands.


WINNIPEG SAMPLE MARKET
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Millar:
1.	How much grain has been sold on the Winnipeg Sample Market in each of the last four years?
2.	What amounts have been received by the Government from the proceeds of terminal elevator overages for the last year, for which returns are available?
3.	Did the Government propose towards the close of the 1922 shipping sesaon to waive the regulations forbidding foreign boats carrying Canadian grain between Canadian ports?
4.	If so, did any Canadian carrier or carriers make objections, and what are the names of such objectors?
James Alexander Robb: This question must stand until we can get the return from Fort William.


Hewitt Bostock: As an Order for Return?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Question stands.
THE CIVIL SERVICE *



MOTION BY MR. POWER FOR REPEAL OF THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT

Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable to repeal chapter 12, 8-9 George V., an Act respecting the Civil Service of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with this resolution which stands in my name on the order paper, I should like, through you, to ask the House to allow rue to amend the resolution by adding after the words "Civil Service of Canada" the following words'
and to restore, in so far as circumstances will permit, the Civil Service Amendment Act of 1908.


Hewitt Bostock: This can be done only by unanimous consent. I take it that the House agrees to the amendment to the motion.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the hon. member should proceed with his motion to-day under an amendment just introduced. I think I understand the effect of the amendment, but there certainly might be hon. members a shorter time in this House who would not.


Hewitt Bostock: As the unanimous consent of the House is required, I take it that the hon. gentleman will not proceed on his amendment. He may, however, proceed on the motion unamended.


Charles Gavan Power: I am surprised that the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has not seen fit to allow me to proceed with my amendment. If, however, I understand parliamentary practice, it will not be very difficult for me to induce some of my friends to move to the resolution an amendment somewhat similar to that which I have suggested.
I had intended moving this amendment in order to reassure a number of hon. members who were under the impression that the resolution as placed on the order paper was somewhat too radical and would have the effect of bringing about chaos in the Civil Service of Canada. The effect of the amendment will be that one piece of legislation will be repealed, and that immediately another act, which is, to my mind, far more advantageous, will replace it. There are. certain portions of the act of 1908 which, of course, would not apply to the circumstances of the case at the present time. For instance, if my memory serves me well, a schedule of salaries is attached to the act of 1908. These salaries are in many cases much lower than those which at present obtain in the Civil Service, and they would naturally have to be increased. It is not my intention in any way to urge upon members of the House the advisability or expediency of diminishing the salaries of the public servants of Canada. I feel that the cost of living has increased so much in recent years, and that the salaries paid are in many cases so low, that it would be impossible or, at any rate, most ungenerous, for us to ask that these be diminished.
This proposed resolution of mine has received a certain amount of criticism, =ome of it very harsh, some of it, perhaps, a little ungenerous, in the press and even in this House of Commons. We have heard from some hon. gentlemen who sit directly opposite, an ultimatum delivered to the government warning the Prime Minister and his colleagues not to allow impious backbenchers of the Liberal party to lay their sacrilegious hands on the sacred Civil Service Commission. In order that the responsibility
The Civil Service

for this resolution may .lie where it properly belongs, allow me to tell my hon. friends that the resolution was drafted and
5 p.m. placed on the order paper without my having entered into any consultation whatever with the leaders of the party to which I have the honour to give my allegiance. Permit me to say, too, that I await with some little anxiety the announcement of the point of view which the government intends to take on this subject. I am here, however, to represent, in so far as I can, the opinions of the constituents who elected me, provided always that their opinions and views are consistent with and conducive to the best interests of Canada. So far as I am able to judge from the frequent and sometimes rather forcible representations which have been made to me, I am inclined to believe that the great majority of my constituents have not for the Civil Service Act or for the Civil Service Commission the respect and admiration which a large number of my hon. friends seem to have. They do not seem to wish to perpetuate in our statutes as a monument of wise legislation, as a law not to be altered nor assailed, the act of 1918. And it is to represent their views as well as I can that I propose this resolution to-day.
My objections to the Civil Service Act are based mainly on two grounds, which I might call constitutional and practical. From a constitutional standpoint I am and have been a firm believer in the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. I believe that the duty of our ministers is to carry out the wishes of the people, and to be responsible to the people for their every act and deed. There has been a tendenqy in recent years in this Dominion, as in other countries, to urge that national affairs will be best administered by those who are not responsible to the people, that it is well that those who pay taxes should not have direct control and management of the national purse to which they contribute. This tendency has increased considerably in recent years, and as a consequence we have had a perfect avalanche of boards, bureaux, and commissions, all administering in some degree the affairs of the people, and many of them in no way whatsoever answerable to the nation.
It seems to be generally accepted that whatever may have been his previous record, the moment a person is appointed to a position of public trust where he no longer has to answer for his stewardship, he immediately becomes clothed in a kind of mantle of grace and gifted with all wisdom, and that his decisions, however injurious they may be to the public, 
must be accepted as infallible. With this theory I must respectfully beg to differ.
A number of hon. members in this House and a number of people throughout the country have been preaching democracy, the government of the people by the people, on the one hand, while on the other they have been urging the country to take the administration of the people's money out of the control of the people. This tendency increased perhaps more during the war than at any other time, due, I think, to the theory that a democracy was unable to ' carry out great undertakings without first sacrificing the very principles upon which it was built and had its being. We heard throughout the days of the war, and we have heard since, that it is impossible for any great democracy to be victorious in war. Sir, we have only to go over the history of the last few years to find that the two most democratic nations on earth, England and France, after four years of struggle emerged victorious over the two most bureaucratic nations of Europe, Germany and Austria. However, in spite of this vindication of the views of those of us who hold that any encroachment upon or curtailment of the rights of the people is dangerous, we have had in Canada the strange spectacle of public-spirited men, men of standing in the community, urging upon us the advisability of allowing our national affairs to be administered by boards, bureaux and commissions.
These attacks on what to my mind is the proper theory of democratic government, namely, representation so far as possible of the people by those responsible to the people, reached their culmination in 1918, when our parliament created the most irresponsible body which has ever been known in the history of Canada. This commission-of course,
I refer to the Civil Service Commission- which has power almost of life and death, at any rate power of affluence or starvation, over thousands of our fellow-citizens, and power to expend millions of public money, is not directly or indirectly answerable to parliament. It makes appointments to positions of public trust, fixes salaries, awards bonuses, and distributes favours of all kinds, without being obliged to accept any suggestions of the representatives of the people and without even taking into consideration the recommendations of those best fitted to make them.


Mr. SHAW:: May I be permitted to ask the hon. gentleman a question? When speaking about the creation of the Civil Service

The Ciihl Service
Commission, is he referring to the commission under the act of 1908 or under that of 1918?


Charles Gavan Power: I am afraid I did not make myself quite clear. The Civil Service Commission was created in 1908-my hon. friend is quite right; but the exceptional powers which it received in 1918 are those to which I object. I was saying that this commission is under no obligation to accept even the slightest recommendation from those who are in the best position to know the wishes of the people and to state what in any locality under any given circumstances should be done. The commission goes even further, as do its friends, and contend that no recommendation of the people's representatives can be acceptable to it-a contention in which they take great pride. As I understand it, we have been called here to advise His Majesty the King on the carrying out of the affairs of state and to vote supplies for the administration of the country. When we by our own act neglect to carry out the duties which are imposed on us by our mandate as members of parliament, I do not think we are faithful to the trust which has been placed in us by the constituents whom we represent. We allow an independent body to usurp the functions which should, properly speaking, belong to those who advise in the administration of the country and those who should vote supplies for the carrying on of the government of the country.
It is true there are a number of us who say we do not wish to be bothered by patronage; that we only make enemies by distributing patronage; that if we give a position to one we offend ten others who are seeking the same position. I submit, Sir, with all respect that we are not doing our duty unless we fearlessly tackle all the problems which confront us. To shirk our responsibility by saying that we do not wish to have the burden of patronage is, to my mind, unworthy of our position.
It will be said, I think, during the course of this debate that the present act, the Act of 1919, was endorsed by the electorate of Canada on two occasions. Sir, I think you and any of those who took part in the election of 1917 will readily admit that other issues were involved; that public opinion was more agitated by other questions than it was by those which had reference to the Civil Service of Canada. It will be said, perhaps, that the 1921 election was an endor-sation of the Civil Service Act of 1919. Permit me to recall to your memory, Sir, the fact that during the whole course of that
election the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleagues appealed to the people from every platform throughout the length and the breadth of the land to free them from autocratic and bureaucratic control. To my mind it was due in large measure to those appeals, and to the fact that there was in Canada a reaction against the arbitrary methods of ruling which had been employed during the war and shortly after, that the Liberal party is in power today.
The present system of making appointments under the Civil Service Commission is, as I have said, impracticable. I should like to quote a few words spoken by a man who is, without doubt, one of those most experienced in the public life of Canada. In a speech which he made when this 1918 act was first proposed in the House of Commons-a speech which might have been made after instead of before the advent of the present commission-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding, speaking on the Civil Service Amendment Act, on April 12, 1918, said:
I think we are getting away from the purpose for which the Civil Service Commission was created. It was never intended to be a patronage distributing body, but a body with distinct purposes, a body to hold examinations and to take means of guaranteeing the qualifications of applicants for the public service.
He goes on further:
Where is the Civil Service Commission going to get information regarding all the virtues of this man who is to fill the office of postmaster away out at Blankville, in Cape Breton County? I do not know what the experience of others has been, but I have had some of the worries of my life in getting a capable man to accept the position of postmaster, and how these excellent gentlemen in the city of Ottawa are going to get a postmaster for Blankville better than any one of us, I fail to comprehend.
The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) at that time failed to comprehend how the Civil Service Commission was going to make these appointments and make them properly. I think he will admit that in the light of experience it has been found that the Civil Service Commission is not able to make these appointments properly and judiciously, and that every word he uttered on that occasion has proved to be true.
I have here also, in order that my hon. friends of the opposition may not be disappointed in my not quoting from some of their leaders, the words of a gentleman with whom I have had occasion to differ at times, but for whose capacity, energy and fighting ability I have the highest regard; I speak of the Hon. Mr. Edwards. He said:
I also, Mr. Chairman, want to repudiate the suggestion that I am one wrapped up in the theory that "to
The Civil Service

the victors belong the spoils." .... But I say that I do not see how it will be possible for the Civil Service Commission, sitting in Ottawa, to ascertain the proper persons to appoint to these positions without applying to those who might be reasonably expected to know who were qualified for them. I repudiate the reflection which I maintain is to a certain extent thrown upon members of parliament generally by the wording of this resolution and by some of those who are supporting it. In effect, you are saying that no man who has been chosen as a representative of the people to sit in this House can be trusted to make an honest recommendation or to select an efficient man to fill a vacancy in the Civil Service.

That is putting members of parliament on a very
low plane.
The history of the commission since that time has, I think, fully borne out the predictions made by the gentleman whose remarks I have just quoted. It has been found to be practically impossible for the Civil Service Commission to make the impartial and judicious choice which was had in mind when the commission was appointed. They do not, either from choice or through fear of adverse criticism, wish to take into consideration the suggestions and recommendations of those who by their local knowledge are best fitted to understand the situation in any given locality. They are thus forced to call in and to take counsel from persons who in many cases have neither the confidence nor the respect of the inhabitants of the locality, and in a number of other cases have themselves been appointed to the positions which they hold from partisan motives and in order to increase the prestige of some political party. The result of this system is that instead of what was formerly called patronage we have a species of nepotism,-a kind of series of family compacts spread over the length and breadth of the land. Instead of the appointments being made by someone who is responsible to the constituency in which the vacancy occurs, the appointments are made by officers or by outsiders many of whom do not understand the conditions of the locality and are not fit in some cases to make any recommendations.
It is not my intention to ask that competitive examinations be done away with altogether. In fact, my understanding of the act of 1908 is that in a large number of cases competive examinations must be held, but I do contend that there are certain positions for which competitive examinations, written or oral, are unnecessary and in many cases useless. When it devolves upon the commission to choose a man for a position requiring certain technical or professional knowledge, I contend that the Civil Service Commissioners are not qualified to judge whether or not the applicant has the necessary qualifications, and when it comes to the appointment of manual labourers I contend that 
the Civil Service Commission cannot, by written or oral examination held in Ottawa, judge which man should be selected and which rejected in, say, Prince Rupert, British Columbia.
There has been some question of economy brought into this discussion. It is not the intention of those who support the resolution to ask that any more positions in the civil service of Canada be created. Their intention is simply to ask that appointments be made on a more impartial and more judicious system than has obtained during the last five years. I contend, Sir, that the efficiency of this service was just as high, that the public servants did their duty just a3 well, and probably better, five years ago than they do to-day. Almost since confederation we have had what might be called political appointments, and I think that, generallyspeaking, the public service of Canada was as efficient under that system of political appointments as it is to-day under the present arbitrary system. I cannot understand how it could be otherwise. The business administrative head of a department, the deputy minister, can surely not obtain from his subordinates, those who work in his department, the same loyal support and the same steady-work under a system which gives him no right to punish, as he would get when he was absolutely and personally responsible for carrying on the affairs of his department. I contend that owing to this system under which appointments are made by someone who has no interest whatsoever in the efficient carrying on of the work of the department, discipline has slackened, the morale has been lowered, and the esprit de corps, of the department lessened. Would any hon. member -and I appeal particularly to my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), who was laughing a short time ago-accept, in his own business, appointments made by someone outside of the executive head of his business? Would he accept from a third party, say, the manager of his business, particularly when he had no confidence whatsoever in that third party? I think my hon. friend will agree with me that if we are endeavouring to have business government in this country we must carry on government on business principles, and if we are seeking to obtain the most efficient service possible, let those who are in charge of this service have perfect liberty to choose those in w-hom they have the greatest confidence and who, in their opinion, may be best, able to do the work.
Before taking my seat I should like to reiei t< the fact that in 1921 a debate took place on

The Civil Service
a resolution somewhat similar to this. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance smiles again. I will tell him that on looking up the Hansard, I find that I did not vote on that occasion. However, I do not intend to hide behind that kind of an alibi. Had I voted I would undoubtedly have voted against the resolution contained in what was then called the Spinney bill. I will be quite frank with the House:	I should have voted that way
because I mistrusted the Tories. We were on the eve of a general election, and knowing my Tory friends I was under the impression that they would make of this bill an instrument of political corruption. I was not aware at that time that every nook and cranny of the civil service had been filled chock-full, so that not another man could be got into the service anyway. Had they wished to appoint any more they would have had to create new departments and build an annex to nearly all the public buildings.
I want to protest against the feeling which seems to be prevalent throughout the country that politics should be eliminated from politics. We have heard from platforms innumerable that there is too much politics in Canada. Now, as I understand politics, it is the science of government, and politicians are those who devote more or less of their time to looking after the affairs of the public There has been throughout the country, and more or less on the part of certain, hon. gentlemen,-I speak with particular reference to some of my hon. friends directly opposite- a certain amount of desire expressed to do away with politics and politicians, the implication being, I presume, that my hon. friends themselves are not politicians but statesmen. Now, I have no ambitions to reach the unattainable, and in this parliament and in this country 1 would like to reach what I think I can attain. I think that by considerable study, by hard work, and by paying some attention to the wants of my constituents I may some day be adjudged a good politician. My constituents themselves will no doubt judge whether I am or not, and the results of elections will show whether my ambitions have been attained. But to endeavour to reach a higher category, that of statesman, is I think somewhat more difficult because I know of few statesmen who ever attained to that high grade in the public service until they had passed beyond, and then purely mundane appreciation is not of very much use to them. So, I would ask my hon. friends to be a little more charitable to those of us who are. mere politicians; to give us the benefit of the doubt and to imagine that we sometimes try to do our best in the country's interests; to recognize that the interests of this country are to some extent connected with the interests of the parties which we sometimes uphold; and to feel that there is no great virtue in being the only person to hold an opinion, but that rather one can obtain greater credit by being able to carry out urgent reforms or to work in the best interests of the country, and submerge at times one's own personality and one's more extreme opinions. I ask my hon. friends in all sincerity, and I ask other hon. members also, to give to those of us who are what might be called "party men" the credit for thinking that we are doing our very best in the interests of the country, and that we think the country's interests will not suffer by carrying on a system of party polities.
Now, Sir, in conclusion may I ask hon. members to view this question free lrom prejudice, to discuss it calmly and quietly and not be carried away by the shibboleths of the moment, such as we have heard, that there should be no party politics, and to discuss with us the question as to whether we would have a more efficient service under which the country's business would be more properly carried on, and whether we are remaining more true to the real spirit of our constitution b3' keeping the law as it stands at present, than by repealing it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) could not see his way to permit the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) to present his resolution to the House in the form which most appealed to his mature consideration and best judgment. I think that privilege ought to have been accorded my hon. friend, because it must be apparent from his remarks to which we have just listened that the intention as expressed in the resolution as it stands is different from the intention as it would have been expressed had he been allowed to offer the resolution in the amended form suggested. As the resolution stands it is a motion for the abolition of the Civil Service Act. I need hardly say that in that form his motion would not be acceptable to the government. I think it would be a great mistake to repeal the Civil Service Act. The Civil Service Commission, of course, is the main feature of the act and, I imagine, the one to which attention is being particularly directed. On the other hand I should like to associate myself with my hon. friend in much that he said about the importance of maintaining ministerial responsibility, and having government by a respon-

The Civil Service
sible ministry and not by irresponsible authority.
I would like the hon. members to consider this whole question in the calm and deliberate manner in which my hon. friend has suggested they should, and in particularly the fundamental question of government by commission or responsible government. We all know that during the period of the war the business government was very greatly increased. Cabinet ministers could not begin to give attention to many matters in connection with their departments, in connection with the work of public administration, which they would, and should, be able to give in normal times, and through the period of the war there were a very large number of new commissions created and the powers of some existing commissions considerably extended. Speaking of the experience that I have been privileged to have in the administration of public affairs during the time that I have had the honour to hold my responsible office, not a very long experience it is true, I should like to say that it has become wholly apparent to me that in many particulars the government is being held responsible by the country for certain aspects of administration over which it has no control whatever, and that as a consequence the ministry is being put in an entirely false position.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask
my hon. friend to tell us in what regard he finds himself in that position?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer my hon. friend immediately. No need has been stressed so strongly in this House as that of economy. I say, without any fear of contradiction whatever, that had the government in the framing of its estimates been free to act in accordance with its own judgment in the matter of appointments it would have been able, in the case of a number of departments, to have administered the affairs of the country with fewer servants than there are in the public service at the present time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it not the truth that the salaries are fixed by order in council and not by tile commission, and that it is also the truth that the government can abolish any position they desire?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question of classification, is one quite apart from the competency and the suitability of the individual who may be filling a particular position-


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not my question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and the government finds itself-I speak now from the 
knowledge of the difficulties with which the ministers of the different departments have to contend-the government finds itself continually in the position of being obliged to endeavour to carry on the work of the country with clerks who are sent to the government by the Civil Service Commission but who do' not possess the qualifications which if the minister himself were free to make the appointment, he would see were possessed by whoever, was appointed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it not a fact that under the law as it now stands the ministers can get rid of those men they do not think are competent? They are only sent there for trial.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might point out to my hon. friend, just in connection with what he has said, that after getting rid of a clerk fresh application has to be made by the deputy minister to the Civil Service Commission. As a consequence the correspondence that, is necessary to be carried on between the department and the Civil Service Commission is very considerable; in other words, there has been added to the Civil Service of Canada a not unappreciable number of employees, necessitated solely by the increased amount of correspondence that has to be carried on between the different departments and the Civil Service Commission before any appointment can be made, or before any change can be made or any particular work undertaken.
During the recess between the last session and the present, the government has made a sincere effort to effect economies in the public service. It has endeavoured to work with the existing machinery of government in the most effective way, and to make that machinery just as effective as possible. In that regard, two conferences of particular importance were held; one conference was with the Civil Service Commission itself. The other conference was with the deputy ministers of the departments, who are the permanent heads. The members of the Civil Service Commission and the deputy ministers came into conference with the government to discuss the act, and its workings, in the light of experience. At these conferences the view was expressed by both groups that the act in its present form is not as workable as it should be, that it was capable of amendment and improvement. The deputy ministers themselves have, in joint conference, gone very carefully into the whole matter, and they are unanimously of the view that the act as it stands at the present time is in some of its aspects embarrassing public service, that it is in-

The Civil Service
creasing the cost of the service, and that if it were amended all the good that is in the act might be obtained and very much of the evil eliminated.
In view of that circumstance, I should like to suggest that it is in the public interest that some consideration be given to the necessity of amendment of the Civil Service Act as it stands. I would not for one moment support any proposal for the repeal of the Civil Service Act, but I do think it is in the public interest that that act should be made to serve the ends of economy and efficiency to the fullest degree, and as it stands I do not believe it begins to serve these ends as it should. What I would suggest is this: Instead of proposing an amendment to the resolution at the present time, as has been suggested by my hon. friend that some one of his colleagues might propose, it would be infinitely preferable that a committee of this House composed of members of all groups represented here should be appointed for the purpose of considering the Civil Service Act, hearing the members of the Civil Service Commission themselves, hearing the views of the deputy ministers, and after having carefully considered the existing measure, make to the government what recommendations may be deemed advisable in the matter of its necessary improvement. I would suggest that course should be adopted and followed by hon. gentlemen, instead of support being given to any motion to abolish the Civil Service Commission, or to any motion at this stage to amend the act in any particular. If a committee of this House thinks well to suggest an amendment as a result of the opportunities of inquiry it may have, the necessary amendment may be expected to meet with the general approval of the House.
I have a further reason for suggesting that a committee of this House should have an opportunity of going carefully into this whole matter of the Civil Service Commission. I believe the government has been put in a very false light before the country as to its relations with the Civil Service Commission. Looking at the reports that have from time to time appeared in the press one would gather the impression that in some way the administration had tried to influence the commission in the matter of appointments. I should like every hon. member of this House to have an opportunity before a committee of this House of asking the members of the Civil Service Commission just what the relations between the government and the Civil Service Commission have been. If there ever was a government that sought to work loyally with another body, this government has sought to do
that with the Civil Service Commission. I think the commission will be the first to make apparent to hon. members of the House wherein much that has appeared with respect to an alleged endeavour by the government to get back to what is called party patronage is entirely erroneous and misleading.
May I assert, speaking of patronage, that patronage cannot be abolished by statute. It is impossible to make appointments to the public service unless they are made by some body. The Civil Service Commission as constituted to-day is a body of three or four men. Hundreds of appointments-yes, thousands of appointments-have to be made to the public service. Those who favour appointment by commission must remember that these gentlemen have the determining as to who is to fill particular positions. They have patronage, as long as they have to make appointments. But while they have the patronage they are responsible to no one. The government is without patronage, as matters stand at the present time, but is held responsible for appointments with which it has nothing whatever to do. That is not in the interests o: the public service. I believe that the act as it stands is working out in ways that were wholly unforeseen. I will support any measure that will help to free the Civil Service from anything in the nature of' favouritism on the part of those who are at the head of departments, and in favour of anything that will give increased security to those who are in the service, to see that justice and fair play are carried out in the matter of appointments, piomotions and the like, and I would favour strongly the maintenance of a body which would see that such appointments as are made are made on the basis of efficiency and on the basis of merit, but it does not follow that because some particular body with no ministerial responsibility sees fit to make an appointment in one wray rather than another, that such is going to be the method that will produce efficienc3'' or economy in the long inn.
As an illustration, I draw the attention of the House to the facts concerning an order in council of which a good deal of mention has been made, under which a large number of positions were withdrawn from the operation of the Civil Service Act. I venture to say there are many hon. members who think that in some way the withdrawal of hundreds, possibly thousands, of positions from under the operation of the Civil Service Act was the result of some action on the part of the government. I have in my hand the oi'der in council to which reference was made. It is not an order originating with the government.
The Civil Service

it is an order based on a recommendation of the Civil Service Commission itself, with which recommendation the government had nothing whatever to do. It came to the government from the Civil Service Commission and this is the language in which it is worded:
Section 38B of the Civil Service Act, 1918, as amended, prescribes:
In any case where the commission decides that it is not practicable nor in the public interest to apply this act to any position or positions, the commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, exclude such position or positions in whole or in part from the operation of the act, and make such regulations as are deemed advisable prescribing how such position or positions are to be dealt with.
The Civil Service Commissioners are of opinion that the following classes of positions should be exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act under the above section, namely:
1.	All positions where the salary does not exceed $200 per annum. (The Order in Council P.C. 1694 of the 19th August, 1919, is hereby cancelled.)
2.	All positions for which the compensation provided is fees of office and positions of an honorary character to which no compensation is attached.
3.	Positions of orderly in the office of the Governor-General's Secretary.
4.	Positions of Indian interpreter, Department of Indian Affairs.
5.	Positions of physician performing the duties of port physicians, under the Department of Health at the following points: Province of Nova Scotia, province of New Brunswick, province of Prince Edward Island, province of Quebec, province of British Columbia.
A large number of centres are enumerated.
6.	Positions in the following classes of skilled and unskilled labour and domestic service.
Then follow two or three pages of different positions, all of which are enumerated and *which run up into hundreds. What is said in regard to these positions? This is said not by the government, but by the Civil Service Commission, as a result of its experience of the act as in operation:
The Civil Service Commission is of opinion that it is not practicable to prescribe a system of competitive examinations or tests as required by the Civil Service Act.
In other words, the act as passed, placed upon the Civil Service Commission the duty of making all those appointments. The commission struggled with it; they sought to fix examinations and competitive tests for those classes, and after having struggled with it for months, they come of their own accord and ask the government to exempt those positions inasmuch as they find it is not practicable to prescribe a system of competitive examinations for such appointments. If the Civil Service Commission itself makes an appeal to the government to free from the operation of that act thousands of appointments in the public service of Canada, there is, I submit, strong justification for what my

hon. friend has just suggested, that the act requires some revision, and I think it is very much in the interest of the country as well as of the Civil Service Commission and the government that a committee of this parliament have an opportunity of discussing with the commission and with the deputy min isters, as the government has done, the various phases of the act, in order to see whether in some particulars amendments cannot be made which will help to make the act more efficient, more economical in administration, and of greater service.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
when the House rose at six o'clock, I was making mention of a few reasons which seemed to me to justify the consideration by a joint committee of this House of the present Civil Service Act, with a view of seeing if it were not possible to have the act amended in a manner which'would make it a more efficient and economical instrument of government. I was making particular reference at the time to a recommendation from the Civil Service Commission, in virtue of which a number of classes of employees were removed from the operation of the Civil Service Act, and I pointed out that a good deal of misconception had arisen in the public mind as to the attitude of the government towards the Civil Service Commission, largely as a result of references to that particular recommendation.
I hope I made it very clear that I would strongly oppose any move to abolish the Civil Service Commission. I think some commission or other body should have the power to see that the members of the Civil Service are duly qualified for their positions before being appointed to them, and that those who are already in the service should receive promotion and salaries in accordance with merit. This is wholly in the public interest, and I would do anything in my power to prevent any amendment to the act which would destroy those all-important considerations. On the other hand, I believe that the Civil Service Act as it was placed on the statutes in 1918 went lengths which have rendered it in many particulars far from workable and have caused it to operate in a manner quite the opposite to that which the framers of the measure either intended or expected.

The Civil Service
In reply to the question put to me by the hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) as to wherein the Civil Service Act has increased the expenditures of government, I cannot give a better example than by again referring to the particular order in council passed on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, which I have already mentioned, removing from the operation of the act large numbers of classes of employees to be appointed to the civil service. The last recommendation from the commission came to the Cabinet on the 14th December last. In other words, with the exception of the last few weeks, during the whole of the past year, the Civil Service Commission .had been making appointments of different classes in accordance with the methods which it adopts but which it has found to be impracticable. These methods imply competitive examinations, advertising the positions, correspondence between the. departments and the commission as to the necessity of particular positions, followed by further correspondence between the commission and the departments advising them of the persons whom it is about to recommend for appointment.
Hon. members will see that all this means a large amount of work for the staff of the commission. I need not re-enumerate the many classes of which these particular recommendations make mention, but I should like the House to bear in mind what I have just said, as respects all of them: that if the commission had been doing its duty in accordance with the terms of the act it would have been advertising the positions, setting examinations for those who were seeking to be appointed to them, and conducting all the correspondence necessary in connection with such examinations. Up to the end of the year, after having pursued their own methods for that length of time, the commission comes to the government-it was not a case of the government going to the commission-and says: In our opinion these many classes of employees should never have come under the Civil Service Act, and we ask the government to withdraw them from its operation altogether.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if those classes of employees had never been put under the act, and if the commission had not had to advertise those positions, examine the various applicants and correspond with the departments in reference to them, we would have saved many thousands of dollars which have been simply wasted as a result of the measure being in the form in which it was originally drafted. If that is true-and it is beyond gainsaying -in regard to these classes, why may it not
be equally true in regard to certain other classes which are still under the act?
As a matter of fact, more than one recommendation was made by the Civil Service Commission to the government to withdraw certain classes from the operation of the act. I have here a further order which came before council, in which the Civil Service Commission recommends:
That the Order in Council above mentioned (P.C. 1053) be amended by adding to this list, the classes of fireman, fireman's helper and fireman labourer, the commission being of opinion that it is not practicable to prescribe a system of examinations or tests as required by the Civil Service Act, 1918, for making appointments to positions of this nature.
If the experience of the commission itself during the past year has shown that the act as drafted goes too far, I think it is reasonable to assert' that in other particulars as well the act may go further than was intended, and that it would be very much in the public interest, as well as in the interests of the commission itself, that its workings should be made the subject of examination by a committee of this parliament.
I have another reason, Mr. Speaker, for suggesting that parliament should have an opportunity of inquiring fully into the methods by which the commission is carrying on its work and the relations between government departments and the commission as well as between the government and the commission. There are grounds for believing that there has been commenced in this country an insidious campaign the purpose of which is not to improve the working of the Civil Service Commission but rather to undermine the confidence of the Civil Service and of the public in the government in its relation to the Civil Service Commission. I think that the sooner the gentlemen who are associated with this movement have an opportunity to state before a committee of this parliament the grounds on which they base a view of that kind, the better it will be for all concerned. That hon. members may have reason to feel that what I am saying is not without justification, I would remind them of an article which appeared in a Toronto paper, an.i which has been largely quoted throughout this country, with reference to an address that the chairman of the Civil Service Commission was supposed to have delivered before the Rotary Club in Toronto in December last. A Toronto paper, reporting this alleged address, came out with the heading:
"Strong Element Favours Patronage. Doctor W. J.
Roche Expresses Fear regarding Future of Civil
Service."

The Civil Service

service of promotion on the ground of merit and right. But I do say, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have merit recognized and the measure of justice which we should have for the service, if we are to have that economy and efficiency in the public service which we should have, we shall have to get back to where the government has a larger measure of responsibility for how the public service is carried on, where it will have some substantial authority and will not be manacled and shackled by regulations and rules of a body that is responsible to no one but itself, and that in many cases makes appointments not by itself, but, as can be shown if the commission is brought before a committee of this House, by its own appointees who conduct examinations and make recommendations. I think this subject is deserving of the fullest inquiry this House can give it, and I must thank the hon. member, though I shall strongly oppose his resolution in the form in which it stands, for introducing the subject for discussion in the House. I hope every member of the House will express his views very plainly in order that the country may know the truth of the situation.


Arthur Meighen: The House has been plunged with remarkable suddenness into what appears to be nothing more or less than a crisis in connection with the entire public service of this country. The motion, of course, of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), if it had been suspected to be really a motion inspired by the government, would of itself have put the House in a state of warning and premonition.


Charles Gavan Power: I stated at the beginning of my remarks that the members of the government had not been consulted with reference to this motion.


Arthur Meighen: I remember that. What I said was, if there had been any reason to believe that this was a motion that had in any degree whatever the inspiration, or if my hon. friend prefers it, the sympathy of the government, we would have had some premonition of what was to come. Apparently, judging not so much from the motion as proposed but from the speech of the Prime Minister, the government has made up its mind to destroy the merit system. The government has made up its mind to get rid for all effective purposes of the body of men, and the organization under that body of men, which is now entitled to the making of appointments and promotions, and to return that power to itself. If the meaning of the

Prime Minister's words is different from that, then I am sorry I could extract nothing but that conclusion from his speech.


Mr. BUREAU:: You only extract what you want.


Arthur Meighen: He' stated that a body not directly responsible to this House has the matter of promotions and appointments in its hands. He objected to that. He said such a power must be in the hands of the government which is responsible to parliament and responsible to this country for the administration of affairs. Can any hon. gentleman tell me what the difference is between that and the old patronage system under which this country laboured for forty years? That is the purport of his address. It does not matter what the resolution is: The resolution is only the road they purpose to follow, it is only the pathway the government has in its eye in order to reach the goal of patronage and satisfy the hunger of it3 followers. The resolution proposes to repeal the act. The Prime Minister says " I would oppose it ". If I had in mind, if I had averred to this House, the opinions the Prime Minister has averred, I would support the resolution of the hon. member for Quebec South. That is precisely the way to take from an independent commission control of the appointments to the service of Canada and of promotions, and bring them under the control of the government. That is precisely the way embodied without any amendment in the resolution of the hon. member.
Now the government proposes if I understood rightly-and I hope I will be corrected if I am wrong, because I did not get the very first part of the Prime Minister's address- the government proposes an amendment to this resolution which will provide for a .committee of this House to consider amendments to the Civil Service Act. That I understand to be the official position, that I understand to be the method of treating the resolution, and it proposes to force that policy before this House. But I ask hon. members to remember, the accompaniments with which that amendment was pressed. I ask them to keep in mind the declarations of the Prime Minister. It is with a view to securing the results that he has in mind, as stated in his speech, that this amendment is now proposed.
The Prime Minister in the latter part of his address sought to convey the impression that what he was after was to delve into certain charges which, he said, had been levelled against the administration, a certain movement that he described as surging over this country to undermine confidence in the

The Civil Service
administration and its relation to the civil service, and particularly to bring to book a gentleman whom I fear he considers "an undesirable citizen,"-the Principal of Upper Canada College-to bring him to book and make * him pay dire punishment for some alleged offence. Well, that is a wholly different thing. If there are charges made inside this House or outside this House which the Prime Minister wants to inquire into nobody here is going to stand in his way. Let him have an inquiry made into Dr. Grant's charges, into the Globe charges, into the Star charges, into the charges of all these other offenders who he says are trying to undermine confidence in the administration in connection with the Civil Service Act. That is one thing. But to start on the pathway, to the return of patronage is something wholly different. To appoint a committee whose commission from the government will be to so amend the act as to bring about the results which the Prime Minister describes is another thing altogether.
Now let me makfi a confession of ignorance while I am on my feet. If there is a movement on foot to organize dissatisfaction and accumulated grievances arising out of the civil service law and its operation-to organize those in an attack on the administration and consequently for the benefit of the opponents of the administration I am bound to confess such is a phenomenon that I never knew of at all. I do not think I ever met Dr. Grant- to the best of my knowledge I never have. I never knew Dr. Roche had delivered the address in question; I never knew Dr. Grant had written the article referred to. I never read anything of the kind in the Globe or in the Star. I never knew of any Civil Service Reform League in Canada-never heard such a league suggested. If all these are movements of the opponents of the administration they have managed to display their support of the party which I lead without any knowledge of mine.
Now let us come back to the concrete matter which from the speech of the Prime Minister, is before this House. It is necessary to go some years into the past in order fully to understand just the course that has been traversed, just the mountains that have been [DOT]scaled in the long pathway of civil service reform. I do not know that I can give it to the House with particularity. I am certain I cannot give it with accuracy-but so far as I give it at all I will endeavour to be accurate. Patronage was unrestrained, until an act was passed, under the Laurier administration, applicable to the Civil Service at Ottawa-applicable to what was known as the
inside service, which, I think, in practical residuum meant only a part of the Civil Service in this city. A commission was then appointed which had very limited power even as regards that limited section. I think in essence the law was this-that the government made the appointment, the government looked around and chose its man, they got such recommendation as they desired, but before the appointment could be confirmed- that is before the man could be really permanently in his office-he had to have the imprimatur of that commission. Perhaps I have done the law over-justice, perhaps I have done it under-justice-but such is my recollection of its main provision. An agitation became-I will not call it an agitation -a feeling became pretty general throughout this country that there should be an extension of that principle. An extension of it not only to the inside service-an extension of its applicability and operation there, but,-as well, that the outside service should be covered by the reform, and that political patronage as such should disappear from the service of this country.
The road was not an easy one to travel. It was surrounded with difficulties of an almost insuperable character-difficulties that for years proved insuperable at the hands of purely party governments. No matter how desirable a party government might have been of ridding itself of the incubus of patronage, it found itself powerless to extricate itself from the bondage because of the strength of the influences which surrounded it. But on the formation of Union government-and I am not saying this at all to boast of Union government-a juncture of circumstances took place which, under the stifnulus of the war feeling, enabled the government to reach its goal. I doubt, whether if there had not been a war such a course would have been possible, but political patronage took on a darker hue before the public of this country, in the light of the war itself, and as a consequence the government of the day, formed in 1917, took the courageous, the final step. In this regard I want to say that one of its chief proponents, one of its mostr determined advocates, was the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), lately the leader of the Progressive party in this House. Another of its foremost defenders through every crisis-[DOT] because you cannot get these reforms without crises-one of its foremost defenders was the hon. member for Halifax, the senior member from that city (Mr. Maclean). He is absent from this House to-night. I wonder what would have been his feelings had he
The Civil Service

listened to the astonishing speech from the Prime Minister this afternoon. Not only did these men stand valiantly in battle for us but others of hon. gentlemen opposite did as well and I think I may include-although I speak subject to correction, the Finance Minister of this government. Ah, yes, and more -hon. gentlemen opposite as a party when in opposition were in favour of that reform. Hon. gentlemen opposite looked with jealousy and suspicion on every move which ventured to infringe by the thousandth of an inch the integrity of our Civil Service Act. It is easy t,o so act in opposition; such a course is no evidence of character or principle. I do not pretend to any particular exhibition of moral strength because I opposed when in opposition this plan for the renewal of patronage. But standing in power it is a difficult thing. It is different when you have the responsibility of office and have around you all the influences and pressure that office entails. Then it is a difficult thing to stand by this reform; and this government-weak in every fibre, weak in heart, pitifully weak-has surrendered to these forces and has consented to throw overboard all the achievements that these years have brought about.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the right hon. gentleman oblige me by mentioning one sentence of mine which intimated, directly or indirectly, any desire in any way to change the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Meighen: I did not say the Prime Minister proposed to change the commission, but the sentence the Prime Minister uttered, not once but twice at least, means the results exactly which I have described. It is not nominally whether there is a commission or not, that is not the essence of the problem. The real question is, what is to be the power of that commission? The Prime Minister said that an irresponsible commission must not have power of appointment and promotion; that a commission not responsible to parliament-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg pardon, I made no such statement. I do not wish to be understood for one moment as saying that the eommissipn shall not have the power of making appointments and promotions. There are ways of arrogating to it control in the matter of promotions or appointments, regardless altogether of the needs of the situation, which can be most embarrassing to the country and the government. I think it is proper those should be looked into, but I have never suggested that the commission as a body with power to see that certain qualifications are
rMr. Meighen.]
met in the matter of appointments, and that merit is duly considered in the matter of promotion, should in any way be interefered with.


Arthur Meighen: I will have to plead my own density but I do not know where the Prime Minister is. What is the difference between saying they shall not have power to appoint and promote, and saying that the commission has now a control which it should not have and can arrogate to itself authority which it should not arrogate and that such power might well be taken away? Really I do not know what he means. If you leave the appointing authority in the commission, you leave it, over such an area of appointments and promotions as the government and the commission think wise. If you leave it there, you leave it, and if you take it, you take it, and I venture to say if you take it, you take it one place and no other, you take it right into the hands of the ministers and restore the conditions from which, after a struggle, we emerged some years ago.* Very well. Such became the law in 1917. The difficulties this government battles with now, are the same as every government has battled with. And less and less are the difficulties as years go by. The British government, which has the merit system, has not anything like the struggles it had years ago. These difficulties we encountered too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say the British government has the civil service system we have here?


Arthur Meighen: Not precisely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should think not.


Arthur Meighen: But the patronage system is gone in England, and the patronage system cannot be gone if the government responsible to parliament is to take to itself appointments and promotions. In 1921, the government of which I was the head introduced a bill into the House of Commons-I have the statute before me-sponsored by an hon. gentleman at that time member for Yarmouth, N.S., then minister without portfolio, Mr. Spinney, and the bill was commonly known as the Spinney bill. Its effect was, as far as I can remember, just about the same as this motion would be if it were amended as proposed. We proposed then to submit the bill to a committee of parliament, and we urged that the authority of the commission should be left intact, so far as the committee felt it right that the commission should operate at all. We believed that, in the opinion of the commis-

The Civil Service
sion itself, there were certain classes of appointments which would be better not under the purview and control of the commission, which were not of sufficient consequence, attached to which the salaries were not large enough, in respect to which the duties were not important enough to warrant the care that the commission necessarily takes under the law in the matter of appointments, to warrant the machinery that the commission erected to take care of them. As a consequence a committee sat and heard evidence for some time, and on its recommendation an amendment was put through, which I have before me, chapter 22 of the statutes of that year, under which it was provided that the commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, exclude such position or positions, in whole or in part, front the operation of the act, as in the opinion of the commission could not practically in the public interest be filled under the Civil Service Act. There was another amendment put through of very little consequence, but this important amendment was recommended by the committee and became law, and thereafter where, after the experience the commission would have, the commission itself felt there was any class of appointment, or single appointment, of a character that could be filled by the government, and not by the commission, without any fundamental return to patronage, where in a word they deemed on account of the rather cumbersome machinery they had to apply, there was not sufficient cause for its application, they may recommend to the Governor in Council exemption and if the Governor in Council approves, that particular position or class of positions becomes exempt.
To show that the government of the day did not contemplate any invasion of the Civil Service Act, let me say we were in power for eight or nine months after that law was passed, and I am not sure that any recommendations were ever made to the government, or any order in council passed exempting positions from the operation of that law. I am not saying there were none made. It is possible there were, but if so they were very few; they were indeed negligible. But after hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, in the month of June of this year a recommendation came from the Civil Service Commission, quite within its power- and for the moment I do not criticize it; it is not necessary to criticize it here-a very sweeping recommendation which, though in the main it did apply to minor offices, did cover a tremendous area of appointments a very wide field. I do not say it covered ten thousand. The Prime Minister does not
say how many it covered. I doubt if there is a member of the government who can say, but if it covered ten thousand I do not know what was wrong with the statement of the principal of Upper Canada College. He estimated the numbers at that figure. Evidently such is his opinion; I do not know. At all events the recommendation was sweeping The recommendation, I need scarcely tell the House, was eagerly accepted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, it was not eagerly accepted. My purpose in rising was to answer my hon. friend in the matter of Principal Grant's statement. There was no exception taken on the part of the government to the figures that Principal Grant gave. The exception I took to his statement was that Principal Grant said that these exemptions were brought from under the act at the instance of the government, whereas it was at the instance of the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Meighen: I know the recommendation was from them, and I have no reason to say

I have never suggested to anyone myself-that it was at the instance of the government, and I have no objection to the government appointing a commission to find out at whose instance it was. I add that I will attend such a commission with considerable interest and curiosity as well. A large area was made exempt, a very large number of classes of positions. From that day forward the government became entitled to make those appointments. The Prime Minister says the government was not eager to accept this duty at all. Well, if not, the government has suddenly changed its opinion since June, 1922, if the Prime Minister's words to-night represent the concerted opinion of his administration. How could anyone listen to his speech this afternoon and come to any other conclusion than that the government very eagerly accepted the recommendation of the commission for the exemption of large classes from that act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The recommendation was made in June and it was accepted in December. I do not call that eager.


Arthur Meighen: Accepted in December?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman sure of that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the order in council here.


Arthur Meighen: I sent for the order in council last midsummer, and I do not remember exactly what the date was. I
The Civil Service

thought it was June. However, I suggest it was accepted pretty early. I have before me now the order in council itself. The hon. gentleman says December. The order in council is marked " June."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which one is that?


Arthur Meighen: The one the hon. gentleman sent over.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one in December.


Arthur Meighen: This is " 29 June." I will read it. I recollect now the Prime Minister said it was June the other day in answer to the question of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Duncan). I will read the order and the House can decide.
The committee of the Privy Council-	[DOT]
This is dated June 29, 1922.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The one of December was lying on my table. I have sent it to Hansard. That was the last order that came over.


Arthur Meighen: The December order is an addition and exempts only a very few. This one is the big sweeping order in council and it was passed in June. The government was far more eager than the Prime Minister knew:
The committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration the following report from the Civil Service Commission, dated 14th June, 1922-
I do not know when they received it. Perhaps, it would not be cruel to suggest that it was the evening of the 28th of June.
-submitted by the Secretary of State;
Section 38B of the Civil Service Act, 1908, as amended, prescribes:
And then it quotes what I read to the House from the Statute a moment ago. It goes on to say:
The Civil Service Commissioners are of the opinion that the following classes of positions should be exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act, under the above section, namely:
1.	All positions where the salary. does not exceed $200 per annum.
2.	All positions for which the compensation provided is fees of office and positions of an honorary character to which no compensation is attached.
This is the one which the Prime Minister himself read:	.
3.	Positions of Orderly in office of the Governor General's Secretary.
4.	Positions of Indian interpreter, Department of Indian Affairs.
5.	Positions of physician performing the duties of port physicians under the Department of Health at the following points:
And then a list of classes is given, covering the whole of a page:
Positions in the following classes of skilled and unskilled labour and domestic service.

I will not weary the House with reading them all; but the House will see, as I raise the paper, that the classes of positions cover the first entire page. Then following is another page with classes of positions exempted from the Civil Service Act, and then there is about one-third of a page more. So I was emphatically correct when I said that the vast number of exemptions were made in June of last year, and if not made eagerly, were made at least with remarkable promptness upon receipt of the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission.
I call attention in this connection as well to the fact that the recommendation upon which the government acted lacks the signature of the chairman of the commission, and hon. members of both sides of this House, who have known the chairman of that commission for many years, who have had to do with him, men of all parties and of all persuasions, know that the chairman of the Civil Service Commission is a man 9 p.m. of high status and authority in this country, a man who has performed his duty with absolute fidelity and undoubted capacity. Hon. gentlemen in this connection may recall that when the government of 1921, of which I was the head, suggested a committee, the object being to secure authority in the commission, where it thought wise, to rid itself of appointments, even then apprehension was felt, and either the chairman of that commission gave a statement to the press or his opinion was announced in the press in opposition to the course which the government contemplated pursuing. Thus it was indicated that Dr. Roche at that time, just as to-day, guards jealously the integrity of the act, and in guarding jealously that integrity, he is no respecter of political parties.
Under the law of 1921, all those positions have been exempted, as recommended, and the Prime Minister's argument is this: "Why, if it was wrong to put those in, it may have been wrong to put others in." Well if it was wrong to put others in, there is a way to get . them out. If the government is to be allowed to take out all it wishes, then there is no more Civil Service Act. If the commission believes it to be in the public interest to do this, it can recommend so under that act. No, this, however, is not the purpose of the government. The purpose of the government is to restore to those who are pressing them at this hour the control which that law took from them in the interest of the Civil Service and of this country. Consequently, because I believe the amendments of 1921 are ample,

under which to correct any working out of the law that may be thought desirable, ample for all purposes; moreover, because of the speech delivered by the Prime Minister in which this resolution is launched before this House, and because of the clear purpose the government has in view in having this committee appointed, I oppose altogether its appointment.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), in introducing this resolution, undertook to give the members in this part of the House just a little lecture about the position that they took in the political life of this country. I do not know whether we are politicians or statesmen. I do not think we make any pretences along those lines; I think, perhaps, we are anxious to do the best we can in the interest of the public life of this country, irrespective of what name we may be tagged by.
I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches that have been delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). I am sorry to have to confess that I am not as familiar with this subject, with the whole history of the Civil Service Commission as hon. members who have been speaking this evening. I know something, however, about the old system, what we used to call the "spoils" system, and I hope no one in this House will ever, for a moment, think of returning to that bad old system. I noticed that the leader of the Opposition stated, what I already knew, that the Civil Service Commission came into existence through the efforts of the Union government. It may be rather a sad commentary upon the state of public life in Canada that we know it would have been almost an impossibility for any political party to carry through that measure, unless it had been some sort of coalition like the one we had during the time of Union government.
I am not going to take up very much time to-night in discussing the "spoils" system or the system of patronage, because I think we are all ready to condemn that system. What was it? It was simply a lever that politicians who were in office could use to keep themselves in power. I can remember a time some years ago when public servants spent a good deal of their time working for the party in power, simply in order that they might retain their positions, and we all know that when a change of government occurred, there was generally a clean sweep made of those same public servants. The Prime Minister, in
The,' Civil Service
speaking to-night, stated that public servants should be judged by their efficiency. I cannot understand how it would be possible to have efficient public servants, were they to know that their remaining in the public service was dependent upon the fact of the party which put them there remaining in power.
If you are going to have a really good Civil Service, public servants must feel that they have some security of position. I have here a short extract taken from an editorial, in regard to the old country Civil Service. It reads:
"We serve the State", is the motto of the British Society of civil servants, and it might well be adopted, with all it means and implies, by those engaged in the Civil Service of this country. But to serve the State best, those so employed must be contented and effi- , cient.
I claim, Mr. Speaker, that we can never have an efficient public service until our civil servants enjoy security of tenure in their positions. We know something about the degrading effects upon public life that the old patronage system had, and I can assure you, Sir, that, speaking for myself and those in this section of the House, we view with a good deal of alarm any attempt to infringe upon the powers conferred upon the Civil Service Commission by the present act.
I understand that a short time ago a committee of the House did examine into the operation of the act, took evidence and made recommendations. I do not know what has happened since then to cause some hon. members to be of opinion that a further exhaustive examination into the workings of the act should be made at this particular time. The Prime Minister has pointed out some defects in the present act. The government has been in office for some time, and if they have discovered certain weaknesses and defects in the Civil Service Act, it is quite within their province to come before this House and tell us what is wrong with this legislation. We will then examine what they put forward and give our opinion whether we think they are right or not.
I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister state that we ought to have a committee of this House to deal with the Civil Service Act because a certain newspaper in Toronto commented upon a speech which the chairman of the Civil Service Commission had delivered. I do not think for a moment that this House is going to authorize the formation of a com

mittee to investigate the Civil Service Commission or any other department of the public service just because some journal makes certain statements that are not just exactly correct. Indeed, I do not consider it at all necessary
The Civil Service

that a committee should be apppointed on such grounds.
After all, the main question is: Have we got an efficient Civil Service? If not, what fault have we to find with it? The Prime Minister has stated that the government must not be manacled and shackled. Well, what does it mean? Does it mean throwing the whole service open again, with the government empowered to make and unmake civil servants just as they please? I do not see any other alternative. We must either have a civil service commission with sufficient power to function properly, or we might as well not have any civil service at all.
It is apparent from the evidence we have had to-night that there already exists a way of making some reforms in the methods of the. Civil Service Commission. We have seen the long list of positions which have been withdrawn from the operation of the act upon the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission itself. If in the opinion of the commission that list is too small, it seems to me that there is a way to enlarge it.
When the Prime Minister first spoke I thought there might be something in the suggestion to appoint a committee for the purpose of examining into all the conditions surrounding the civil service. But I did not know at that time that there had been a committee examining into the same matters in 1921. It seems to me that the proper course for the government to take now is to recommend to this House what changes they think should be made in the act, and we wiil then give those recommendations due consideration, examine into their merits or demerits, and give our decision.
But I do not believe that at the present time it is in the public interest to appoint a committee to inquire fully into the operation of the Civil Service Act. I cannot help being suspicious when I realize the character of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). It was only upon the suggestion of the Prime Minister that it was amended. This shows that there may have been some thought of blotting out the Civil Service Commission altogether. Therefore I am just a little afraid that this may be the thin end of the wedge, the taking the latch off the door to reintroduce the old spoils system, although I do not believe for one moment that the Prime Minister really intends such a- radical change. However, I am afraid it would lead in that direction, and I am therefore opposed to the appointment of a committee as proposed.
fMr. Forke.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend allow me to correct a misapprehension he is labouring under? I did not like to interrupt him while he was speaking. He mentioned that he understood there had been no Civil Service Commission until the Union government was formed. As a matter of fact a Civil Service Commission was appointed in 1906 by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That commission was confined entirely to the service in Ottawa. The Union government extended its operations to the outside service.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, I understood that perfectly well. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) made it very plain that the first Civil Service Commission was appointed by the Laurier government. But its powers were very limited, and it never had any wide powers until the Union government was in office. I think I am correct in that.


Jacques Bureau: It never had the arbitrary powers.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: I think it is a rule of this House, Mr. Speaker, that when it pleases you to name as the seconder of a resolution one of the hon. members that may be sitting next to the mover of the resolution, it is not to be taken ns an expression of his concurrence of opinion therein. I say that at the outset because I want to dissociate and free myself from some of the opinions that the hon. mover of the resolution has given expression to. The resolution as it now stands is that the Civil Service Commission be abolished. To that I cannot subscribe. I would willingly subscribe, however,. to the motion as amended, namely, for a return to the act of 1908 as far as present circumstances may warrant.
Having made that clear, there is another point I want to establish, and it is this. There is no thought in my mind at present, and there will be no thought in my mind during the course of my remarks, that can be construed in any other way than as simply, sincerely and honestly wishing for the promotion of and the maintenance of efficiency in the Civil Service. I say that because it has pleased a number of hon. members sitting opposite to lightly use the term "distorted mind," and I, Sir, will not allow that anyone with a distorted mind should read into my own thoughts ideas that I do not entertain. Therefore, I wish to say clearly that I stand on this particular occasion as I have always stood in the past on the question of civil service reform, namely, that any reform

The Civil Service
should be on the basis of merit and efficiency alone.
Now, let us for a moment review this legislation and see how the Civil Service Commission was established. The present act is the outcome of legislation that was passed in 1S82 and came into force on the 1st of July, 1883. The body then appointed was called the Board of Civil Service Examiners, and, if I recollect correctly, the operative section of that act was Section 3, which appointed a board of three examiners whose duties were to establish tests for the admission of candidates into the Civil Service. Under that old system, as hon. gentlemen will remember, a large number of appointments were .made, and I must say to the credit of those now in the Civil Service who were appointees under that regime that to a large extent they constitute the backbone Of the Civil Service to-day. That legislation was carried down until 1908. Now, it has pleased the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), to say that we wish to destroy the merit system. That thought is far from my mind. It has also pleased him to say that the government made the appointments under the act of 1908. May I point out that the working section of the act of that year, section 10, said:
The duties of the commission shall be-
(a) To test and pass upon the qualifications of candidates for admission into the service and for promotion in the service.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition has stated that these appointments were made by the government and that the Civil Service Commission ratified them. Well, section 13 says:
Appointment to positions in the inside service. . . . shall be by competitive examination, which shall be of such a nature as will determine the qualifications of candidates for the particular positions to which they are to be appointed, and shall be held by the commission from time to time in accordance with the regulations made by it and approved by the Governor in Council.
So that under that system appointments were not made purely and simply upon the recommendation of the government.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman not admit that under those two sections the basis for the commission's ratification was provided, but that was all? The appointment was with the government, so far as those two sections were concerned at least.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am reading the law; unless the commissioners of that day disobeyed the law, then I fail to see how these appointments could be made otherwise.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. gentleman understands me, but if he does not I would like to make myself clear to him. So far as those two sections go-and I do not dispute that he has read them aright-the appointment was still left with the government. The commission had no power of appointment under those sections. In the exercise of whatever duty it had-giving a certificate to the candidate-it based the certificate upon the examinations referred to in those sections. I hope that is clear.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I fully appreciate the right hon. leader of the Opposition's point; but section 18 will answer that.. Before I proceed with that, however, let me call attention to this provision:
Immediately after the examination the commission shall make out a list of the successful competitors thereat for each position, in the order of merit, up to the number computed in accordance with scetion 15.
Now, here is section 18:
From the said list the commission, on the application of the deputy head, with the approval of the head, of any department, shall supply the required clerks, whether for permanent or temporary duty.


Arthur Meighen: Does that not leave it to the head or the deputy head?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It says that the commission, on the application of the deputy head, shall furnish the required number of clerks. That is, on application being received from the deputy head for a clerk, the commission shall send a clerk to fill that position.


Arthur Meighen: But would the head or the deputy head not designate whom the commission should send from that list? I just want to know.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Not under that act.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: May I ask the hon. member what is his interpretation of the words in section 18, "with the approval of the head of any department"?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That means that under the old system, when a stenographer or a bookkeeper or an accountant was required, the deputy minister would ask the Civil Service Commission to send a stenographer or a bookkeeper or an accountant. The Civil Service Commission would then select from the list of eligibles a person to fill the position and would send him on, and on the approval of the deputy minister or the minister-


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It is all veiy well for hon. members to laugh, but that is the law. If they fail to see it, it is not my concern.
The Civil Service


Jacques Bureau: What is the law to-day? You can put a man out if he does not suit.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is how it stands.


Jacques Bureau: That is the law to-day.


Arthur Meighen: You have to take that responsibility.


Jacques Bureau: We always did take the responsiblity.


Arthur Meighen: Not under the old law.


Jacques Bureau: We did before you tried to shift it. We are willing to take it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The act of 1908 applied only to the inside service; the outside service was not then under the jurisdiction of the commission. In 1918 the government of the day proposed certain changes in the Civil Service Act for the purpose of placing the outside service under the Civil Service Commission. That was a commendable idea, because in the outside service there are a number of clerical positions, a number of higher positions, that should quite properly come under the operation of the Civil Service Commission. But here is where we disagree: the act of 1918 does awaj'' with the responsibility of the deputy ministers in the matter. Under the old act the deputy minister was really responsible for the administration of his department. As it is now, he has nothing to say in the selection of the clerks that make up his staff; he has no say in the matter of promotions, of statutory increases or sick leave, nothing to say in regard to many things that have to do with the adminstration of his department.
I have no great quarrel with the act of 1918, but that act stipulated-and this is a point that has not yet been touched upon-that the Civil Service Commission should proceed with the organization of the departments and then take up the work of classification. But what was done in that case-and this will appeal to hon. members who sit immediately opposite to me-was to put the cart before the horse; the Civil Service Commission, instead of proceeding with the organization of the departments, proceeded with the classification. That may seem very innocent in itself, but the result is most apparent in the chaotic condition of the civil service to-day, in the turmoil and the trouble and dissatisfaction that exist in the ranks of the Civil Service. This condition, I say, is due to the fact that the commission proceeded with the classification before proceeding with the organization. They should have proceeded with the organization first. That is; they should have said that a (Mr. Chevrier.]
given department should consist of a minister, a deputy minister, an assistant deputy minister, if the work required it;	a
secretary; an assistant secretary, if the work required it-so many divisions and so many clerks to take care of the work. Then you say these divisions carried with them a salar3- of so much; but they did not. Unfortunately the service has grown up in various departments each practically separate one from the other, with an administration different in each, and requirements in the one that could not fit the other, and so forth through all the departments. You could not apply to the departments any rigid classification, any iron rule. There had to be a certain amount of elasticity in the classification, but the foreign experts were unable to see that, accustomed as they were to classify only large industrial concerns. When the classification came down the government found that it could not apply it under the Civil Service Act as it stood then, because the schedules of salary that had attached to the act of 1918 divided the service into certain well defined categories, few in number, with clear-cut divisions in salary:	the act
of 1919, section 42, was passed for the purpose of bringing in that classification. Whilst I am on that subject, great faith did the legislators of that day have in that act when they had to embody in section 42 that "the Civil Service shall as far as practicable"-note that-be classified in accordance with this classification. But that wTas not sufficient. They found out that that classification was a monstrosity, and so they proceeded to say:
The commission shall hereafter as it may from time to time deem necessary establish additional classes and grades and classify therein new positions created or positions included or not included in any class or grade and may divide, combine, alter or abolish existing classes and grades.
You would have thought that after all the years that had been spent on it and the enormous amount of money that had been squandered-and I use the word squandered because the results show that that was the fact-they would have brought down a real classification, but .we found that the classification was not yet a classification. The last report of the Civil Service Commission for the calendar year 1921 shows this: The classification approved by parliament in 1919 contained 1,729 classes. You would think it was a pigeon-hole business or something of that kind. It has since been found necessary to add to these classes that were established. You would have thought after the amount of time and money that had been spent on that classification, that that would be an end to it, but we find according to the Civil Service Commission's report that

The. Civil Service
it was necessary to add 587 new classes, to revise the salary range of 515, to amend the definition of 205, and to abolish 158. The net increase at that time was 429 classes, or a total variation in two years of 1,470 positions.
Let us be serious about this, because this pertains to the Civil Service Commission. The leader of the Opposition has spoken of a large number of exemptions, and I shall refer to that in a moment. I hold in my hand what I called last year "the joke book," the civil service classification. This will appeal to hon. gentlemen sitting directly opposite to me, who in a very commendable spirit are always preaching economy. This first volume, after having been translated into French, was destroyed, burned as it was not satisfactory, after thousands upon thousands of dollars had been squandered upon it. The second edition is now in my hands, and I have also brought in here as an absolute physical demonstration the supplements that have been added to this joke book. There are now four volumes each bigger than the original volume, containing over two thousand additions, modifications, alterations and combinations of that classification.
Does it not seem that it is time for us to stop? As one hon. gentleman sitting directly opposite well said last year, we have created this commission as a machine without a brake. The expenditure goes on perpetually increasing and money is squandered just because of the lack, not of administration, but of a proper legal determination as to what the civil service law should be. I say that those who make the appointments should be responsible to someone. If the commission would undertake to follow out every word of that law of 1919, I have not very much to say, but I say that they cannot, and more than that, they have not in the past stuck to the wording of the statute. If we are going to have a statute and it is not going to be obeyed, then I for one voice my protest as a legally trained man, for I am not going to be an accomplice with regard to a statute that we break every day. I say in all sincerity that the commission is doing the best it can to administer the law, and let me say right now I have the greatest faith and the greatest confidence and the greatest respect for the civil service commissioners. I have received nothing but courteous treatment and considerate attention at their hands every time I have had anything to do with them, and I say that also of the officials of the commission. It is not to them that I am looking. It is not to the law, and I blame those who put that law on the statute book in that way, just as I would blame myself if having an opportunity to change that law I did not change it, and for what? Again I repeat, and I challenge anyone to find in my speech of last year or my speech this year anything but the thought of keeping efficient the Civil Service and promoting its best interests. This act says that all appointments to the Civil Service must be by competitive examination or by demonstration of skill. If the right hon. leader of the Opposition would undertake to make all appointments in that way, I would agree; but the commission have found, quite loyally and sincerely found, and I give them credit for it, that there were certain portions of that act that could not be administered in the way in which the law was put on the statute book, that there were certain appointments that could not be filled by competitive eaxmination or demonstration of skill. Would the right, hon leader of the Opposition appoint a charwoman upon a demonstration of her skill or by competitive examination? Would he appoint a bricklayer upon a demonstration of his skill, or any other of these labouring positions? If he would, then again I have nothing to say. But the commissioners in their wisdom, in their loyalty and sincerity, and I was not responsible for the placing of these gentlemen there, have decided that they could not hold a demonstration of skill for the appointment of people to these positions, and making use of Section 38 of the act, which after all the government of that day was responsbile for introducing, they proceeded to hand back to the departments the positions which could not be administered by the commission itself. True there were exemptions made last year. But let me recall to the memory of the leader of the Opposition that all labourers all assistant labour foremen, all labour foremen, all charwomen-now mark the category-all labourers, all assistant labour foremen were exempted by an order in council passed on September 21, 1921. Then all positions carrying an annual salary of not more than $200 were exempted on August 14, 1919.


Arthur Meighen: Why was it done again
in 1922?


Mr. CHEYRIER:: I beg the leader of the Opposition's pardon. I have here Sessional Paper No. 102 of April 7, 1922, giving the report for the year 1921 of positions excluded, under the provisions of section 38b, from the operation of the Civil Service Act 1918. Now let me answer the leader of the Opposition further:	In those positions which were set
out, and which he held out to this House were a number of positions that were included in the category released previous to the


Mr. LEWIS:: Would you substitute the minister of any particular department for any of the people whose names you have read?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Most decidedly. If a minister or a deputy minister is paid a salary over and above the others there must be some responsibility attaching to the position. I would let the deputy minister select the appointee provided that the latter had passed a proper qualifying examination for that position. But the hon. gentleman would not do this; he would not let Mr. Claudet, or Dr. La-fortune, the president of the Poultry Association at Gatineau Point, for that purpose say to him how to, find out the best hen in his barnyard. But the hon. gentleman would take the recommendation of his managing director, or the president, or the vice-president of his company; they would be responsible to him. That is what the hon. gentleman would do if he is a business man, and I think he is.


William Irvine: Do you not think that a
commission appointed, say, from the heads of departments of the Civil Service, would be more efficient than any authority recommended under your proposal?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have not yet said what my proposal is.

The Civil Service


William Irvine: You have just suggested that the minister or the deputy minister would be better than the Civil Service Commission.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If I am not wearying the House I will come to the point my hon. friend mentions later. I am afraid I have already spoken at too great length, especially as I went fully into this matter last year. But now, I think, the time has come for constructive criticism on my part. It is now impossible to make appointments to the Civil Service in the case of these minor positions, of these labouring or manual positions, by a demonstration of skill or competitive examination. The only way that it could be done would be by having a board composed of bricklayers, charwomen, boilermakers, and the like, who would put these applicants through the respective tests and grade them in the various categories. I say that the appointment to these positions should be handed back to the department and not to anybody else; that the deputy minister should then arrange a scheme whereby these positions could be handled through his department, and he should carry the responsibility. Now I will be asked in regard to this category, as I will be in regard to the third category: If a member of parliament makes a recommendation, should it be followed? Why should it not be followed? If the deputy minister is the responsible individual in charge of his department, he will obey that suggestion or he will not. If he obeys that suggestion and makes a good appointment, nobody will suffer. If he obeys that suggestion and makes an improper appointment, then the deputy minister is responsible to parliament and he should be censured.


Mr. HOEY:: In view of the fact that the hon. member is familiar with the Civil Service in a sense in which some of us are not, would he tell us whether there are many such positions outside the present exempted list?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am not speaking for the Civil Service Commission, but I think I say what is right when I state that there are now within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission the categories of elevator men, caretakers and watchmen. All the other labouring positions have been returned. Why in their wisdom they have kept the elevator man who runs the elevator purely and simply by putting on and shutting off the power, and why they have released the highly technical qualified electrician who makes the repairs to that elevator is more than I can say. Why they have kept the caretaker and watchman
and have released, say, a bricklayer who earns six or seven dollars a day, I cannot say, but just at present I think I am speaking correctly when I say that there remains but those three categories within the Civil Service Commission. And then we are told that we are going to disrupt the whole Civil Service.
Now, I come to the second class, that of positions of a clerical nature. I say that all positions of a clerical nature, no matter what the salary may be from the start, where the minimum salary is $800 or $900, up to a standard where they cease to be ordinary clerical positions, and become technical positions, where the salary is about $2,400 or $2,500, should be filled after competitive examinations. All appointments to the Civil Service in those categories should be made by competitive examination, by special board under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and paid by the government. This board would be responsible for the holding of examinations and responsible to this parliament. All the appointments to these positions would be by qualifying examinations. As a result of these examinations those who came up to the required standard would be placed on the list of eligibles. Here now is where we again part. The deputy minister should assume the responsibility of his office, and from that list of those who have passed the qualifying examination, who have a standard of the minimum marks, the deputy minister would be at liberty on his own responsibility to select the clerks that he thinks are best fitted for the particular positions for which he requires them. Again, I will be told that that is a return of patronage.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Would he have the power
of dismissal?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The deputy minister would have the power of dismissal, the power of promotion, and the duty of looking after statutory increases and sick leave. I am coming to all those points. In regard to those particular classes I recognize the necessity just as well as hon. gentlemen opposite, of introducing into the Civil Service of Canada only such men and women as are capable of filling the positions for which they are fitted, and I can say for the credit of the Civil Service that the vast majority are in this category, and it ill behooves hon. members of this House, or any other person, to criticize blindly, and to use the pet phrase of certain people, and say that the Civil Service of Canada is overmanned and overpaid. That is one reason why I urge that a commission should be appointed-to amongst other
The Civil Service

things dispel this idea. All these appointments to this second category should be by competitive examination. Now I come to the third containing those that I term technical, professional and administrative positions. For those positions I unhesitatingly say that the deputy minister should assume the responsibility. Again, if the deputy minister listens to the recommendations of a defeated candidate, or to a member of parliament, he may go astray or may go right. If he goes wrong there will be no more harm done anyway than there is at present, when Mr. So-and-So makes a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission and is responsible to nobody, and if he is right there is no harm done.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I should like to ask the hon. member, divesting his remark from any confusing words and returning to plain language, does he favour a return to the old party system of patronage?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have endeavoured to state my position. Probably I cannot use the King's English to the satisfaction of all hon. gentlemen, but I have endeavoured to make it as plain as I can. True it is that there is no legislation in this or any other land that is absolutely perfect, but we would be getting nearer to perfection, and I think we should get away from the present system. We can modify our system. There is no law that cannot be modified with a view to making it better, .and when a modification is suggested hon. gentlemen say it is a return to patronage. It would not take the hon. gentleman very long to find out-I do not care where he places the responsibility-that to-day there is much more patronage under the present system of irresponsible patronage than there would be under the old system, and those who are familiar with the working of the Civil Service Act, as we are bound to be, living near the seat of government, can understand how it works out. You can only ascertain that by a very close study of the act and by coming into close and daily contact with the administration. I am not going to enter into any personalities, and I am not going to cite individual cases in order to prove that, but I make the assertion, to use a word which is very familiar and highly prized by hon. gentlemen, that there is distorted patronage to-day, and no responsibility attaching thereto.


William Charles Good: Would the hon. gentleman give us some idea as to how the patronage is operated at the present time? I cannot quite grasp his meaning.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman would investigate all of the appointments to the Civil Service' that have been made-I have named a few and I might go a little further-he would grasp the idea. When a postmaster is appointed, the subagent himself makes a recommendation. Is that not patronage? Let him call it patronage, or by a better word if my hon. friend wants to use a better word. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." When Mr. So-and-So, Mr. So-and-So and Mr. So-and-So, three legally trained gentlemen are used in Ottawa, or Montreal, or Toronto to appoint to the Civil Service a legally trained man, the Civil Service Commission do not make that appointment by a test of skill or competitive examination. That is patronage. When a technical officer is appointed, and the recommendation for his appointment has been made by Mr. So-and-So of the Royal Institute of Architects, that is patronage, and it is not responsible patronage. Last year I spoke for over an hour on this question, and the word "patronage" never crossed my lips or entered my mind. I would not have mentioned the word "patronage" tonight, but that hon. gentlemen are full of it.


Mr. BIRD:: I understand the hon. gentleman wants the responsibility placed with the deputy heads. I notice in paragraph 13 and also in paragraph 16 of the act that a very considerable selective power is conferred upon the deputy heads; also in paragraph 28 a very considerable selective power is conferred upon the government.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: From what act is the hon. gentleman quoting?


Thomas William Bird: An act respecting the Civil Service of Canada, chapter 12.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: What is the date?


Thomas William Bird: Assented to on the 24th May, 1918. What is the hon. gentleman's opinion as to those sections of the act?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: My hon. friend is a
year behind, and the portion of the act to which he is- referring is repealed. We are operating now under what may be called the 1919 act. If my hon. friend had followed my reasoning, he would have understood that the 1918 act was amended, and that, Sir, is another proof why there ought to be a committee of this House.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman right? The act of 1921 is an act entitled, "to amend the Civil Service Act of 1918." If the Civil Service Act of 1918 was repealed, the act of 1921 would not read that way.

The Civil Service


Noé E. Chevrier: The Civil Service Act of 1918, was amended by chapter 10 of the statutes of 1919, second session. That, is, this act may be cited as the Civil Service Act of 1918, amended in 1919.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is the one we are operating under, and that act-


Arthur Meighen: The act of 1918?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It is called the 1919 act?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Well, it is just a rose by any other name. There is no section 16 in this act. Section 16 of the act of 1918 is headed "promotion," is it not?


Thomas William Bird: Yes.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman will look at the amendment passed in 1919, he will see that the government of that day repealed sections 15 to 21, namely, those referring to professional and technical positions, and those sections do not now apply.


Thomas William Bird: What is the hon. gentleman's opinion as to section 13?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Section 13, which is now carried through this act, the act under which we are now working, covers simply the matter of probation. That is all right; I have no quarrel to find with that. When the Civil Service Commission send in an appointee, the minister has a right, within six months, to disapprove his appointment. But that does not refer to promotions; it does not refer to anything but the power to refuse within six months. Section 13 of 8-9 George V is now carried through the present act, which is the same as the act of 1918, except that sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the act of 1918 were repealed in 1919, and those sections are not now in force.
I come now to the technical positions. These positions should be under the jurisdiction of the deputy minister himself, because he has a knowledge of the requirements of the situation. He knows just what is wanted. Let him assume the responsibility of placing in that position the man or the woman
10 p.m. who, he thinks, is best suited for the purpose. If he does not seleo the best one out of the list of eligibles, then he is accountable to parliament. I think I have made my stand clear on that point.
There remains but this. Promotions should be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the deputy minister, and transfers should also be under the deputy minister. Why? Hodo the Civil Service Commission make these promotions to-day? Do not let hon. gentlemen run away with the idea that the Civil Seryice Commission do everything in an angelic mood or manner. I do not think they are moved by any sentiment; I give them credit that they do not want to do anything that is vnong; but they are good artisans working with very poor tools, which do not give them the power they should have. Are hon. gentlemen aware that these promotions are rrade by the Civil Service Commission, who have no means of inquiring into the various positions except that they must rely to a very large extent upon the reports of the heads of the various branches. In very few cases do they get first hand information. They send experts; they send clerks of their own to investigate, and they report upon the recommendation of the heads of branches. The deputy minister can do nothing; but the head of a branch, if he wants to be dishonest, if he wants to boost a friend in that branch, can make the recommendation to the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission, in the exercise of its greatest good faith, may make that recommendation for promotion, acting upon that fraudulent representation. In that case you have a miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, if a deputy minister looked after his business himself, he would have knowledge of what was going on in his department, and he would make the proper recommendation. In matters of transfers, why should all this red tape and loss of time and money and energy take place? If the Minister of Finance is satisfied to take a clerk from the Minister of Public Works, why should he not be allowed to do so, if both are satisfied? To-day the Civil Service Commission has to examine into all the details, consider the positions, make reports, recommend transfers. [DOT] This takes weeks, months. You cannot blame the commission foi that, for to-day they are in possession of this cumbersome and unwieldy machine. There is no better way of illustrating the point than to say this. When I was in the Civil Service in 1907, in one of the largest departments, it took one clerk about a day and a half to prepare the list for recommendation to council of those who were entitled to statutory increases once or twice a year. Now it takes two clerks thirty days to make up the list because of the unwieldy machinery which the Civil Service Commission has to work with and because the experts in efficiency turned everything upside down in the service. For each and every clerk in the department-and there are 1,400 of them-a large sheet, on which are questions just as

The Civil Service

silly as those mentioned in the classification book, has to be filled up, three copies of it made, or 4,200 sheets in all, to which must be added the carbons. Instead of the deputy minister signing a report, as he did in the old days, he O.K's one of those sheets, and the other 4,199 are marked with a rubber stamp. These 4,200 sheets are then sent to the auditor general and the treasury board, where they are again manipulated. Thereupon 1,400 of those sheets are returned to the Civil Service Commission, 1,400 files are taken out of their respective places, those sheets are attached, and then those 1,400 files are replaced. You will see, Sir, the immense amount of work involved. I am not blaming the Civil Service Commission, for that is the heritage they have succeeded to under this law. That is one of the many instances I could produce to hon. members to show that there is something unwieldy and cumbersome under the Civil Service Act which ought to be weeded out. That cannot be accomplished by simply arguing the matter on the floor of this House. I am confident that if hon. members who have sat in this House for two sessions would investigate the operations of the Civil Service Commission,

not with any idea of turning things upside down, not with any idea of hostility, they would immediately say that there is something wrong.
Another instance will suffice for the present. Last year the auditor general's report showed that there were 280 odd clerks in the Civil Service Commission drawing salaries amounting to $291,000. For 1921-22 the temporary employees of the commission received $77,391 in salaries. Did hon. members of the Progressive wing ever sit down and realize how much it costs to run the Civil Service Commission? Last year it cost a total of $342,000. The year before it cost $524,000. In all these remarks I have endeavoured to be frank, and I will at once explain that that total includes about $130,000 for the machinery used on the reorganization of the Printing Bureau. But last year it cost this country $342,000 for the administration of the Civil Service Commission. Hon. members would be well advised to look into the Auditor General's report. The setting of examination papers by outsiders has cost $1,000. That amount has been paid to outsiders. We cannot blame the Civil Service Commisison for that expenditure because they did not have these men in the office. Why not have on their staff examiners composed of college professors, technical and professional men, and pay them reasonable salaries to act as an examining board which would be responsible to this parliament? Last year the stationery 
and printing account runs to $26,700, telegrams $2,200; the corresponding items for the previous year were $44,000 and $4,000 respectively. There is evidently something wrong, and hon. members who are interested in economy would be well advised to investigate and see whether or not the brakes should be applied.
Now, Sir, in closing let me say that I cannot subscribe to the abolition of the Civil Service Commission. I am not an extremist, I do not believe in radical measures. I stand for everything that will promote and maintain efficiency in the Civil Service at the least possible cost to this country. Therefore I think we ought to set aside any preconceived ideas and agree on the principle enunciated by the right hon. Prime Minister in asking that this House appoint a committee to look into the workings of the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning t_
think that hon. members for the city of Ottawa are not in love with the Civil Service Commission.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gen-man if he was in his seat with his ears open when I said what my feelings were towards the Civil Service Commission?


William Garland McQuarrie: I know the hon. gentleman is something of a joker. He has told us that himself. I do not have to prove it: he admits it. The predecessors of my hon. friends took the same stand in regard to the Civil Service Commission. I can only suppose that by reason of living so close to the commission they must think they know better than we do whether or not its usefulness has been outlived.
Now I cannot agree with hon. gentlemen on the government side who think that we should displace the Civil Service Commission. It has been my privilege on a number of occasions to adopt this attitude. I was elected on a promise that I would stand for the abolition of patronage, and I have maintained that stand ever since. I shall do so to-night. The hon. member who has preceded me (Mr. Chevrier) called the classification a joke book. Well, I think he will admit that those who were responsible for preparing the classification had a very difficult task indeed to perform. For many years there was no classification of any kind and the civil service was not in a very satisfactory condition. It became imperative that there should be some kind of classification. I am not going to say that I am satisfied with that classification, or that I have not myself made com-

The Civil Service
plaints about it. But that does not prove that there should not be a classification. If the classification is not right, it can be put right. That does not go to the foundation of the system at all; it is a mere detail.
Referring to the matter of expense, the hon. member pointed out that it cost $290,000 last year to run the Civil Service Commission, and he urged that that amount was too large. Perhaps it is; if so, it may be possible to reduce it. Then he says also that the procedure is too complicated; that there are too many details to be attended to. That may be true also. I do not say that the system is perfect, but these are only details, and I submit that it is the duty of the government or of the Civil Service Commission to endeavour to simplify the procedure as much as possible.
I must congratulate the mover of this resolution upon his frankness. He does not beat about the bush; he does not say that he is not in favour of abolishing the Civil Service Commission; he comes right out in the open and says he wants to get rid of it-and when he made that statement I noticed that he received a good deal of applause from hon. gentlemen on the other side. Now, I commend him for his frankness.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. gentleman will pardon me; I did not say I wanted to get rid of the commission. I do want to get rid of it, but I did not say so.


William Garland McQuarrie: To put it in another way, my hon. friend's resolution says so. And if he did not expressly say so before, he says so now, and I again congratulate him on his frankness. In taking that stand he is only following in the footsteps of some very distinguished gentlemen on the other side of the House. I have in mind certain ministers of the Crown; because I remember very distinctly the occasion when, during last session, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) stood up in his place and said, "For God's sake give us power if we are going to have responsibility."


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I never said that. Hansard will disclose that that is not so.


William Garland McQuarrie: I must accept the hon. minister's statement, but I think he said something like that. He may have put it in different words, but I gathered that it was his view that if he was to assume the responsibility he should also have something to do with the appointments.
24i	SI


William Richard Motherwell: Sure.


William Garland McQuarrie: He says "Sure." Well, I do not see that there is much difference. We have heard other statements from hon. ministers of the Crown and from many supporters of the government. The thing is obvious enough to me, in view of a circumstance which I presume will not be contradicted, namely, that there are at the present time hundreds of appointments to the Civil Service that have been held up for months awaiting the time when the government shall have control over those appointments. If I am wrong about that, I will stand corrected, but that is my information.


Mr. MARTELL:: Will my hon. friend kindly inform us where he got that information?


William Garland McQuarrie: That is the information and it is not contradicted.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend is simply dealing with rumour.


William Garland McQuarrie: It is alleged that hundreds of offices have been left vacant, many of them for months.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is economy.


William Garland McQuarrie: It is quite plain what the reason is: the government is not yet in a position to control the Civil Service Commission. I am told-I do not know whether it is correct or not-that the first thing every minister of the Crown did, one and all, after taking office, was to notify the Civil Service Commission that they were going to have control over their appointments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend mention the name of one minister of the Crown who made such a statment?


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear-"one and all."


William Garland McQuarrie: I included them all. If it is not correct, of course, I am very, very sorry.


Lewis Herbert Martell: May I ask my hon. friend a question? He is a lawyer, and he must know that if he alleges a thing he must produce the evidence. Will he produce evidence as to one single minister in the present administration, from the Prime Minister down, who has in any way interfered with the Civil Service Commission?


William Garland McQuarrie: No, I won't attempt to do that. I will admit freely and frankly that
The Civil Service

my information is simply hearsay; that it did not come from any reliable or responsible source. But that is the information which I have received.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Now you are frank yourself.


William Garland McQuarrie: Well, I am telling you the truth. The hon. member who moved this resolution said that the Civil Service Commission was not responsible to anybody; that it was not clothed with the mantle of grace, and that it should not be allowed to exist. I must say I cannot agree with that. He says that the responsibility is cast upon him and other members of parliament when they come to Ottawa to advise His Excellency the Governor General how the affairs of the country should be conducted, and he asserts that he does not intend to shirk that responsibility. I do not know whether or not His Excellency would go out of business if the hon. gentleman did shirk that responsibility. However, he intimates that his business is to see about the appointments in his constituency, and he says that all appointments should be in the hands of the responsible parties -those who are elected by the people. Well, I suppose the hon. member would be frank enough to qualify that by admitting that the appointments should be made on the recommendation of supporters of the government, I do not suppose for one minute that he would give us on this side of the House any say in the matter of appointments. And what does that mean? It means that in respect of practically fifty per cent of the constituencies of this Dominion the appointments would have to be made by defeated Liberal candidates- persons in whom the electors did not have confidence. Would that be the proper thing? I submit not. If my hon. friend wished to do the right thing and would let us in on the appointments, there might be some force in his argument that the representatives of the people would then have some say in the appointments.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. gentleman
pardon me? If I accept his suggestion, will he vote for my resolution?


William Garland McQuarrie: No, I certainly will not. I do not want the patronage; I never did want it, and I hope I never shall.
A great many things have been said to-night about the Civil Service Commission, about the system of appointments, and so on, but not one word of criticism has been directed towards appointments which have been made. How many cases have been cited here to-night of improper appointments which have been made by the commission? I have not heard of any

We only can speak with respect to our own constituencies. It is said that comparisons are odious, but sometimes I think they are useful, and I think it might be of interest to the House to know something about appointments that have been made by the Civil Service Commission out in British Columbia, just to show how the thing i3 working out. Within the last few months to my knowledge certain appointments have been made by the Civil Service Commission in British Columbia. One was that of warden of the penitentiary at New Westminster. He was appointed from the staff of the penitentiary. He had been employed in that institution for something like thirty years and was a man of high standing and thoroughly competent. He had previously held the positions of chief keeper and deputy warden. There is no criticism of his appointment.
The next is that of Crown timber agent at New Westminster. That also went to the man who had been assistant Crown timber agent for a great many years. That appointment was also quite satisfactory.
A collector of customs in Vancouver was also appointed. That position went to a man who had been collector of inland revenue a Vancouver for some years. He had been ir the department for something like thirty-five years and was thoroughly competent and well qualified in every way. All these appointments have been made by the Civil Service Commission within the last few months, arv' all are satisfactory. That is one side of the picture.
Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House say, we can make better appointments if you let us go back to patronage. Well, they have made some appointments out there during the last few months. There were some vacancies on the Vancouver Harbour Board which this government has filled. The board is under the control, I think, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. If I remember correctly the man who had been in the position of chairman of the board for some time, and who had performed his duties to the satisfaction of every one concerned, a thoroughly competent man, was asked for his resignation, together with the other members of the board, and appointments were made by the government under the old system of patronage. Who do you suppose they got for chairman of the board, Mr. Speaker? A man who had been a druggist up in the interior.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend who the chairman of the board is.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Beattie.

The Civil Service


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Beattie is not chairman of the board.


William Garland McQuarrie: I beg your pardon; I thought he was. He was appointed as one of the members of the board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is not the
chairman of the board Mr. Kirkpatrick, who was appointed by my right hon. friend opposite?


William Garland McQuarrie: I believe that is right, and I apologize. I believe that he was retained for the time being, but it was reported at the time that he was to be removed, and that he was holding the chairmanship temporarily till he could tell the druggist something about his business. That was one of the appointments this government made under the old system-a druggist up in the interior appointed to the Vancouver Harbour Board. I suppose a druggist is presumed to know something about water, but I do not think this druggist had ever seen salt water before in his life. He had perhaps one qualification that I should not overlook, and that is that he had held the seat of East Kootenay in this House, the seat which my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) now holds. He resigned his seat in this House to let the Minister of Public Works come in. I say nothing about that. Possibly it is a proper arrangement. I am not criticising it in any way, nor am I criticising Mr. Beattie's appointment. I am simply giving it as an illustration of the way appointments sometimes go under the patronage system.
The government appointed another man out there, and instead of going into the interior for a druggist, this time they went into a brewery and secured a book-keeper employed there in the person of Mr. Prenter. He was also appointed to the harbour board. I have not one word to say against him. He has lived in Vancouver a long time, and had seen the salt water for some years, so perhaps knew something about it.
Then the government appointed a director to the National Railways Board. They went up to Prince Rupert and got a grocer there for that appointment. I guess he is all right, but he did not know anything about railroading. Yet he was made representative for British Columbia on the National Railways Board, when we have in the province many of the most eminent railroad men in the world, some of whom might have been obtained for this position. I am not saying a word in criticism of these appointments, but I do say that is the way things go when you have patronage.
The Prime Minister is not perhaps as frank as the mover of the resolution, although he did congratulate the mover on what he had said and on bringing this resolution before the House. The Prime Minister said: No we do not want to get rid of the commission at all; that is not our idea; we never thought of such a thing, but Dr. Grant, the Principal of Upper Canada College has been saying that there is in process of formation a Civil Service Reform League, and consequently we will have a committee to investigate this whole business. I do not see the force of his argument at all.
The Prime Minister also said that the deputy ministers are not satisfied with the way the Civil Service Act is working out, and they would like to come before a committee and give some of their experiences. We heard the same kind of story in 1921, when we were told that the deputy ministers did not like the Civil Service Commission, and that they would say all kinds of things if they were brought before a committee. But if any hon. member will look up the proceedings of that committee and read the evidence taken at that time he will find that the deputy ministers came and said: The commission is all right, and with one or two exceptions the appointments are certainly up to the standard of previous years, and in some cases better. If, as the Prime Minister says, some of the deputy ministers are not satisfied now, what is responsible for their change of heart? Has all the trouble occurred since this government came into power, and if so, why is it?
I say that we have tried out this committee business before, and to my mind there is no necessity for going through the same painful process again. We know where it is leading to. It is too evident what the object of the government is, and I for one am opposed to this resolution, and opposed also to it in the amended form suggested by the Prime Minister.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: It was not my intention to intervene in this debate and I shall do so very briefly because of certain statements made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), following what I thought was a very reasonable suggestion advanced by the Prime Minister. I may say at the outset that I am opposed to the resolution as submitted by the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). I think it would be a misfortune if we returned to the system of patronage such as we had prior to the act of 1918. But I would not say that the act is not capable of some improvement. I do not suppose that we have ever had a piece of legislation that was perfect, and I
The Civil Service

believe that to be the case with the Civil Service Act, especially in view of the fact that it deals with a matter of far-reaching importance. I take it, Sir, that all the members of this House-whether they belong to the Progressive party, to the Conservative party, or to the party that sits on this side-[DOT] despite the fact that they may, perhaps, like to take a little political advantage or make a bit of political capital-that all the members of the various groups have at heart the true interest of the country in the matter of the Civil Service and that what we are looking for is real efficiency. If in the working out of efficiency we find that we cannot make a law so absolutely rigid as the pesent Civil Service Act, and if that involves some slight departure from the act as it is to-day [DOT]-introducing, if you like, a slight degree of patronage-1, for one, would not be particularly alarmed at the word.
It seems to me, therefore, that the suggestion of the Prime Minister was quite in order, that the various members of the House might get together in committee with a view of investigating the difficulties and the disadvantages that have been exposed during the operation of the act in the last two years. It seems to me also that it does not at all follow, as was intimated by the leader of the Opposition, that it was the intention of the Prime Minister to return to the system of patronage, and I, for one, was glad to hear the Prime Minister say that he was not in favour of the resolution and that he has no intention of returning to the old state of affairs.
But even if that were true I would think that the same reproach could very fairly be made to the leader of the Opposition. He was the leader of the government in 1921 that brought in a government bill, which, in its provisions, went a great deal further than any suggestion of the Prime Minister could possibly be construed to go, and that is one of my reasons for rising on this occasion. When the Spinney bill was introduced in 1921-


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member be good enough to tell the House how the bill of 1921 went further? The bill of 1921 was a bill simply submitting the question to a special committee.


William Daum Euler: I was just coming to that. The bill of 1921 was known as the Spinney bill, because it was introduced by a responsible member of the government, Hon. Mr. Spinney. I have not the bill before me but, as the leader of the Opposition says, it was referred to a committee of this House of

which I was a member. According to Hansard -because not having the bill I cannot quote its exact terms-the measure made provision for the exemption from the operation of the Civil Service Act of certain classes and the result of these clauses if adopted would have been, as the chairman of the Civil Service Commission said, to drive a coach and four through the whole Civil Service Act. The Prime Minister to-day merely suggests an inquiry.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows that the government of that day when it presented the bill stated that the committee would be absolutely free. As to what was inserted as a schedule to the bill representing what was exempted, there was no restriction or specification. The government's action was merely a submission of the act to the special committee.


William Daum Euler: On that point I must take issue with the right hon. gentleman. The bill definitely and distinctly declared that professional, scientific and technical men were to be exempted from the operation of the act.


Arthur Meighen: That is not my point. I know that was in the bill, but the government in presenting the measure to the House stated that it was quite prepared to allow the bill to go to a committee without any restraint, restriction, or specification whatsoever, and that the committee should be sole judge as to how the act should be amended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is not that exactly what I have suggested? What objection can there be to my suggestion?


Arthur Meighen: As the act was amended there is ample liberty for exemptions from its provisions so there is no further object in submitting it now to a special committee.


William Daum Euler: In reply to the leader of the Opposition I would say there must have been in the minds of the government something very closely approaching what I am arguing; otherwise, why insert these words in what my hon. friend is pleased to term a blank bill, or why, indeed, introduce an amending bill at all? On the face of it, it was an indication on the part of the government that they felt that the law which they themselves had brought into existence was, in its working out, found to be impracticable and undesirable in certain directions. However, the bill was referred to the committee. It was very clear proof- proof at least to my mind-that the intention of the bill was, to some extent at least, to

The Civil Service
reintroduce the practice of political patronage. I was not at all alone in that impression because throughout the length and breadth of Canada the press took alarm and viewed it in the same way; so much so that protests were made, and these grew so extensive and vigorous that we had not been in session very often in that committee before the words which I have quoted were eliminated from the bill. But the majority of the members of that committee devised something else and I speak deliberately when 1 say, that, in my opinion, the changes which were made in the bill, even after the elimination of the words which I have quoted, while not apparently alarming in themselves, were, according to the wording, intended to carry out exactly the ideas which were first in. the minds of the government when they did insert the original words. Clause 38 of the Civil Service Act, 1918, read as follows:
Provided, however, that in any case where the commission decides that it is not practicable. . .
And I would draw your attention to the word " practicable "-
... to apply this act to any position or positions, the commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council may make such regulations as are deemed advisable prescribing how such position or positions are to be dealt with.
If it was not practicable, the clause stated the commission could, in effect, exempt those particular classes from the operation of the bill and, I presume, such classes as it might think it was not practicable any longer to control by the commission should be placed back into the hands of the government and thus, to that extent, restore patronage. And the change that was made was this:
In any case where the commission decides that it is not practicable or in the public interest. . .
And then the rest of the clause reads very much as it did before. The only change made was to insert the words "in the public interest.' Now hon. members may judge for themselves whether the addition of these words "in the public interest" widens the power or whether it does not. The vice-chairman of that committee, the Hon. Mr. Calder, a member of the Cabinet, stated that he thought the power wider than if those original classes-the professional, technical and other classes which I have spoken about before-had been included. But that was passed in the House. Now the point I desire to make is this: The previous government drew up what they thought was a perfect act in 1918. They either found that it was not practicable, that it was not workable, that it was not for the advantage of the public service, or else the pressure upon the government for the return of patronage by their followers was so great that they found it could no longer be resisted. The evidence, as shown in that committee by the actual introduction of that bill, was at least as strong an indication of the desire on the part of the then government to return to patronage as is indicated by any remarks made this evening by the Prime Minister.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a further suggestion. The hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) has stated, I think, his opposition to the appointment of a committee. I should like to see him alter that attitude, for this reason: it is amply shown, I think, both by the action of the previous government, and by the instances which have been quoted by hon. gentlemen who have spoken before me, that there are conditions in the operation of the Civil Service Act which might very well be improved. What then is the natural and logical thing to do? Instead of debating the matter here, instead of examining instances, which we cannot do in any great number on the floor of the House, is it not the most natural thing that representatives of all the groups in the House should gather together, take evidence, satisfy themselves of weaknesses in the present act, and make such recommendations as they may see fit to make?
I think that is perfectly logical. I would add to that the statement that during the meeting of the committee, when it was finally decided to add these words "in the public interest," I know as a matter of fact the chairman of the Civil Service Commission was very much opposed to it. He would have preferred to wait a year-these are his own words-to see how the act would work out. My own impression was that it might very well go on for some time longer, and then the commission itself, and the various officials of the department, including the deputy heads, might very well make the recommendations to the government as to what remedy might be applied to make the act more workable. We have now waited two years more. It is time to review the whole situation.
A statement has been made that by order in council some ten thousand employees have been exempted from the operation of the act. I do not know whether that number is correct or not. I believe that there were certain classes of employees that could very well, and with public advantage, be exempted from the operation of the act; for example, such as country postmasters, who, I believe, are now exempt. I do not think hon. gentlemen will argue with any great force or conviction that
The Civil Service

a body of men sitting in Ottawa will know more about the qualifications of a man out in a little place in British Columbia, or in the northern part of Ontario, or Nova Scotia, for the position of postmaster than the men who come directly from these places. If this means consulting the member of parliament, and to that extent a return to patronage, I am quite willing to say that I would be in favour of it. If ten thousand have been restored, and if as the leader of the Opposition says, that was done with exceeding promptness, I would merely like to say that, if that were done in June, I think the very same thing would have been done in 1921, after the change was made in the act. The change was made in the act enabling the commission to divest themselves of these powers in June of 1921. I think it was about the month of September when the leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, made the announcement that he was about to make an appeal to the country, and he had not very much time, and the commission had not very much time, to deal with matters of that kind; so that to my mind that is no reflection on the good faith of the government in the matter.
I would in conclusion make an appeal to the Progressives that it is perfectly reasonable and logical that a committee of this House composed of members of all the parties get together, review the whole situation and honestly and fairly make their recommendations to this House on the whole question.


Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):: If it is perfectly logical and natural for the members of this group to whom the last speaker appealed to agree to the appointment of the committee that has been suggested by the right hon. the Prime Minister, is it not just as logical and just as natural, and far more in accord with parliamentary practice, that the government itself should submit certain proposals, if they feel those proposals to be in the public interest, to this House, and then have us consider these proposals, instead of the general question as to whether these proposals should be made or not? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that would be more in accord with parliamentary practice in this House than the procedure which they are taking. I must confess that it was with a good deal of surprise that I saw this resolution on the order paper, and with a good deal of surprise that I saw coupled with this resolution the name of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), because I was of the opinion that not long ago he was very much opposed to any change being made in the Civil Service Act. He admits that two 
years ago he was very much opposed to any change in the Civil Service Act, and he is quite frank in saying that he opposed the change at that time because he did not trust the Tories. I might just say to the hon. gentleman that there is a large body of public opinion in this country which, in respect of the appointment to the public positions, has a very profound distrust of both Grits and Tories, and why should the public trust either Grits or Tories, or Progressives for that matter, in regard to making public appointments.
The people of Canada desire to see an efficient Civil Service. They desire to see the administration of our public affairs carried out not only economically but proficiently and in the best possible manner, and, recalling what was said by the hon. gentleman from Brandon (Mr. Forke) about patronage being the system that was in use in this country in making public appointments for a good many years, the struggle that there was in this House to get away from the evils of patronage, and the impossibility under either political party of any substantial measure of civil service reform being enacted which would absolutely get away from party patronage, I cannot help thinking that if we go back in the very slightest degree towards that old system and recognize party patronage at all in the making of public appointments, it will be a very grave mistake for this House, it will be a grave mistake for the members of this parliament, and it will be only getting ourselves into difficulty and will not lend itself to efficiency in public administration.


Harold Putnam: Is the hon. gentleman opposed to the government in power making the appointment of Superior Court judges, or would he like that to go to the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: Whether I would be in favour of the appointment by the Civil Service Commission of Supreme Court judges and that kind of thing, or whether I would not, is a question I am not prepared to answer offhand. I am quite frank in answering my hon. friend in that way. But I think it has been generally recognized in this country, even in days of patronage, that appointments to the Supreme Court should not be regarded as patronage, and should be above patronage. Whether that has been true in practice or not I am not prepared to say. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. gentleman from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), whilst stating that there were some phases of the Civil Service Act that might require change and improvement,

The Civil Service
admit that he would not be alarmed even if a little element of patronage entered into the changing or amending of that act. I quite clearly recall that two years ago in speaking on this same question, while protesting against the very slight change that was made at that time, my hon. friend said that he was afraid that that slight change would do away with the vital principle of the Civil Service Act, which was the abolition of political patronage. Evidently, he is of the same mind as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power); he is not afraid of political patronage. But he instances the case of country post offices, small unimportant positions in outlying districts, and he contends that the member for that constituency, who knows his constituency and the conditions surrounding his locality, is in a much better position to choose the proper man for a position of that kind than is the Civil Service Commission sitting here at Ottawa. That may be true and it may not; but we have the evidence of men in the Post Office Department, for instance, evidence which was given under oath two years ago before the special committee, going to show that the system now in vogue of making those appointments by the Civil Service Commission is working out fairly well.


Mr. CARROLL:: That is not in vogue now.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The post office inspectors say that they are getting good appointees and good service under the present system.


William F. Carroll: Does the hon. member say that appointments to small country post offices are to-day under the Civil Service Commission?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Of course, there are a few of the very small ones that are not, but very many of them are. It is a small post office, indeed, that does not give a remuneration of $200 or more.


William F. Carroll: There are many.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am speaking only for my constituency and I know that to be the case there. I do not know that there is in my constituency one that is in the category of which the hon. member speaks.
The outstanding feature, to my mind, of the discussion this evening was brought out by the hon. member who just preceded me (Mr. Euler). He said that two years ago, when the bill which is commonly known as the Spinney bill, was introduced in this House, it was done because such pressure was brought to bear upon the administration of that day by
many of their prominent supporters in this House, that the government submitted a bill. Is that not the situation that we have here to-day? I suspect that to be the situation, that such pressure is now being brought to bear upon the administration, and has beeD for the last year, that they are feeling their way as to whether it will be wise to bring in a bill to amend the Civil Servica
11 p.m. Act or not. That is why I am taking the ground that I am opposed to the suggestion that a committee of this House should be appointed. I was rather surprised to hear some prominent members across the floor state that the Civil Service Commission were an autocratic body; that they had power without responsibility, and that the government, who shoulder the responsibiltiy, should have the power. The present administration have not shown until the present time any particular anxiety to assume responsibility. If they are willing to assume responsibility, why not submit a measure for our consideration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A good deal has been said by my hon. friend and his friends as to the desirability of the government consulting parliament or a committee of parliament before taking matters into their hands. I have intimated, on behalf of the government, that we desire to do that, to as large an extent as possible. Would we not be proceeding more in accord with that spirit if we asked parliament or a committee of parliament, after examining the whole situation, to give us the benefit of their views, and then acted upon their views, rather than if we took the matter into our hands, making an arbitrary suggestion and leaving it to parliament to decide?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I can see
there are many cases in which the Prime Minister is correct. I agree in general with the principle that he has laid down, and I think it is quite proper for the government to consult this House on many questions. But it is not two years since we had an investigation of a similar nature, an investigation as wide as one could possibly make it, by a special committee appointed for this very purpose. All the information that was collected by that committee is available for the present administration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A very different parliament.


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. member not think that an additional experience of two years in the working out of that act would tend to throw light on it?
The Civil Service


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have no doubt an additional experience of two years would throw more light on the attitude of many members in this House towards that act.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman, I hope, remembers that even that investigation was opposed by the present Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that it was a very different parliament.


Arthur Meighen: You have let the cat out of the bag.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is quite true that it was a very different parliament, but there were on that committee many members who are sitting in this parliament. The hon. member for North Waterloo was on that committee, and had the privilege of asking any questions he chose to ask. We had the privilege of summoning all witnesses we chose from amongst the civil servants, deputy ministers, heads of branches and other officers from the different departments. No effort was made to circumscribe the inquiry or to deny information, and the information laid before that committee, which that committee elicited from men who know that service from top to bottom, is sufficient ground on which to base any recommendations for a change in the act. It would be more in accord with parliamentary practice for this administration to make their proposals on the information thus gathered and then to bring down to the House a bill for our consideration.


William Daum Euler: Is the hon. member in favour of the action taken by the Civil Service Commission in the exemptions which they have already made? Does he approve those exemptions or does he not?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think, in the main, the exemptions made by the Civil Service Commission are proper exemptions to make from the operation of the act. A few of them may not be. I am not just familiar with all the exemptions that have been made; but I quite remember that according to the information which we elicited from the chairman and secretary of the Civil Service Commission two years ago, they thought the act would be made more workable and more efficient in the public interest by making some of these exemptions which have already been made.


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. member know that they include those postmasters in favour of whose exemption I spoke this evening and FMr. Euler.]
also two years ago? I am glad to hear that my hon. friend is also in favour of exempting them.


Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up the time of the House. My hon. friend and colleague from Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) has gone into this question very fully, and I wish to associate myself with him in the statements he has made in support of the proposal that the Civil Service Act shall go before a committee. I spoke on this subject last year, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to repeat what I said then, that I stand for civil service reform. Civil service legislation was first introduced in 1908 by the Laurier government. I had my experience from 1908 to 1911 under the act as it then was administered for what is known as the inside service at Ottawa. That act was founded on the British Civil Service Act. The idea of civil service reform is that you must have an honest competitive examination for entrance to the Civil Service. If you do not, then you must have influence. That is the point. If you are going to have influence of some kind without responsibility in the making of appointments to the service I would prefer the responsibility to rest with the administration.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I ask the hon. gentlemen if he is suggesting that the Civil Service Commission does not prescribe honest, competitive examinations?


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: No, certainly not. But I say that one of the reasons given here for the appointment of a committee is that in very many cases the Civil Service Commission cannot possibly prescribe a competitive examination. Take the classes of appointments lately withdrawn from the operation of the act at the request of the commission itself, no competitive examination is possible. For instance, what competitive examination can you set for charwomen? Are they to be required to measure their mops, and so forth? The same condition applies to lots of other appointments. What is the result? It is left to certain men to advise the Civil Service Commission as to who should be appointed to such positions. I submit that the responsibility of making these appointments should rest with the minister or the deputy minister, for it is doing harm to civil service reform to have the commission in charge of appointments which it cannot justify.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the personnel of the Civil Service

The Civil Service
Commission. As a matter of fact two of the commissioners were formerly members of this House and my personal friends; but I do object to the act, and I think a committee should be appointed to investigate not only the making of appointments but the principles governing promotions, transfers, etc.
In the debate last year my hon. friend, the former leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar)-and I sincerely hope he will soon be in his seat again-made it very plain that he was against political patronage. After stating that the Civil Service Commission should be entrusted with the duty and responsibility of seeing that any person coming into the service possessed the necessary qualifications, he went on to say:
But after that is done it seems to me that on the whole we would perhaps get better results if ministers and deputy ministers in charge of the various departments had greater latitude in control of the services than they have at the present time. If a minister or a deputy minister in a department wishes to promote some one in his department, if he wishes to transfer him from one branch of his department to another, that should certainly rest in his hands.
In other words, the responsibility of administration should rest with the minister or his deputy and not with the commission. My hon. friend continued on the same lines as regards the right of appeal from the decision of a deputy minister. While I believe that the administration should absolutely be in the hands of the minister or the deputy minister or of the heads of branches, I would still leave to the individual civil servant the right of appeal, but not to the Civil Service Commission. Rather I would propose the adoption of the practice followed in Australia and New Zealand. I would have a civil service judge, equivalent to a judge of the Exchequer Court, a man of the highest character, to deal with appeals. I would further protect the civil servant by introducing in the various departments what the civil service organizations have asked for, namely, Whitley Councils in each department and inter-departmental councils. Then any civil servant who feels aggrieved in regard to promotion or otherwise submits his grievances to his fellow civil servants composing the council, and if they think he has a just case against the head of his branch or against his deputy minister they take it before the judge.
Frankly, I want to see the most efficient and the most satisfied Civil Service that we can have, and I believe that it is the honest intent of every hon. member, but if the bogey of political patronage is to be trotted ouc every time any attempt is made to correct what we believe to be faulty in the act, then we might as well not attempt any improvement. I think my hon. friend and colleague, (Mr. Chevrier) made out a splendid case, and I strongly support the question being taken up by a committee. Let us try to make progress. There are other very serious questions in connection with the Civil Service that later on can be taken up, but in the meantime the law governing the Civil Service Commission needs amending. Mr. Speaker, I shall have much pleasure in voting to have this matter referred to a committee.


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (Sainte-Marie) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to strongly support the motion proposed by my hon. colleague of Quebec South (Mr. Power). Those were precisely my sentiments last year, and I have no fear to state this evening that my views have not since changed. I wish to congratulate the member for Quebec South on the initiative, courage and talent which he displayed in asserting his contention. This act, as draughted and applied, of which he urges the repeal, is certainly an arbitrary and unconstitutional measure. Such legislation belongs to ancient history, and to find its parallel, one must go back almost a hundred years, when the governors of Canada, at the helm of public affairs, ruled through an executive power irresponsible to the people and also had the privilege of voting themselves salaries and dividing among themselves the public funds. This kind of administration brought on those times of crises of which history still vividly reminds us. During that period we witnessed individuals living in London, rendering no services to Canada, not having even set foot in this country, drawing fabulous salaries. As the same thing is happening here, at present, although on a smaller scale, I shall have the opportunity in the course of my remarks, to ask the Civil Service Commission, who has the care of watching over the interests of the country, why they are paying out salaries to persons who are not even in the country's service. Those powers conferred on the Civil Service Commission, remind us of the times when the country was governed by a group of friends or a Family Compact. At the time, a few persons were allowed to distribute all public offices amongst friends and relatives, claiming salaries to their hearts' content without any compunction, exactly as the thing is practised to-day. This I stated and proved last year, on the floor of this House.
Of all these independent commissions, the Civil Service Commission is certainly the most arbitrary and unconstitutional, owing to its extensive powers. However, the principle which places the administration of the country un-
The Civil Service

his time, with the exception of his monthly visits to the department to draw his cheque.
I am convinced, Sir, that none amongst us who have private business to look after would wish to have such a system perpetuated. So far as I am concerned, nothing in the world could induce me to connive at such a state of affairs.
To my mind, it behooves the government to bring on a change in the administration of the country. With this system of independent commissioners, the representatives of the people are but honourable messengers in touch with a receiving and transmitting instrument, which is the Cabinet, and which in turn is powerless and has but to transmit requests and recommend the disposal of public funds at random to unchecked officials which are uncontrollable under the law. I urged before the electors of my county, a return to responsible government, and, I urge it again to-night. In my county I was listened to and understood; I hope to be equally understood here and that my request will be given due consideration. I will admit that a commission may at times be necessary, but only when it is entirely under the jurisdiction of parliament and not when it creates a system of administration obliging the representatives of the people to vote public money blindly. For my part, I refuse to be dragged into the current, dead fish only are swept away by the current and I am not one of them. I protest against my colleagues being considered as parliamentary pedlers promenading through the country, and held responsible for other people's doings.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to abuse the patience of the House, but I think I have sufficiently stated in a few words what I think of these independent commissioners and so long as you have not acceded to the request made last year, to have a parliamentary commission verify the charges which I brought forward and that cannot be contradicted, I shall maintain the same stand. It gives me pleasure, this evening, to support the resolution of my hon. friend, the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), even though the resolution is somewhat of a sweeping nature, however, I believe in applying the hot iron to all evils.
Mr. SHAW moved the adjournment of the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unless there is really a desire to have the debate go over I hope my hon. friend will find it possible to continue to-night.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I would very gladly indeed accede to the wishes of the Prime Minister, but it is a matter of some importance and I see no objection to the debate going over unless there is some special reason for continuing the discussion to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have no objection to having the debate adjourned, but I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that there is a great demand for economy and the duration of the session is one of the factors in that regard. If we can expedite business we are ready to go on. However, we will not insist if hon. gentlemen opposite wish the debate adjourned.


Arthur Meighen: We are now half an hour past the regulation hour so long promised by the government before it came into power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Monday, February 19, 1923.