1932-05-12

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Romeo Xavier Vandette.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Adlena Emma Sills Burrow, otherwise known as Adlena Emma Sills Burrows.-Mr. Garland (Carle-ton).
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Ida Judith Clark Freudberg.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Elizabeth Ann Routledge Gunther.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Chesley Hastings Potter-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Theo Alice Mac-Farlane Lamb.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Chia Hannah Shiiff.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Margaret Spencer Heald.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

Civil Service-Report of Committee


Mr. J. EARL LAWSON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to move concurrence of the house in the report of the select special committee on civil service matters, I desire at the very outset to express my personal gratitude to the members of the committee for the effort which each of them made to present every aspect of the situation without evidence of partisanship. In the deliberations of the committee subsequent to its open sittings they demonstrated a very high sense of public duty.
Although the report presented to the house is unanimous, it is not to be expected that men from different vocations in life who have been subject to different environment should reach those conclusions by the same processes of reasoning, and hence I wish to make it clear that in what I have to say in moving concurrence of the report I am expressing my own views which led me to those conclusions.
Civil service legislation was first introduced in Canada in 1868. That legislation set up a civil service board consisting of fourteen deputy heads of departments, five of whom should be a quorum to exercise all the functions of the board. A chairman and a secretary were to be chosen annually from among the fourteen. The duties of the board were, inter alia:	,
(a) To examine candidates; (b) keep a record of the candidates for examination; (c) grant certificates of qualification to candidates whose fitness and capacity, and whose testimonials as to moral character have been found satisfactory; (d) to investigate and report upon claims for promotion; and (e) to perform such duties as the governor in council thought fit; and to investigate such matters as might be referred to them connected with the administration of the civil service as to promotion, appointment, salary or the efficiency and welfare of the service; and to summon and examine witnesses and to call for persons and obtain papers.
From the resume of the legislation it is apparent that the boaird had to some extent the functions of bath our present civil service commission and a parliamentary committee. Some amendments to that legislation were made in 1872. In 1882 the two previous enactments were repealed arid the Canada Civil Service Act of that year was enacted. This legislation provided for a board of examiners of three members-
-who from time to time shall be appointed by the governor in council, to examine all candidates for admission to the civil service of 41761-179
Canada, and to give certificates of qualification to such persons as are found qualified according to such regulations as shall be framed for the guidance of the board.
There were two examinations prescribed: (a) a preliminary examination to decide if the applicant could read, write and add; (b) a qualifying examination to decide his fitness to fulfil any position for which he might be a candidate. The board had first to satisfy itself as to the man's age, health and character. The examinations were open to all and might be held in either language. By chapter 46 of the statutes of 1885 a consolidation of the acts of 1882, 1883 and 1884 was made, and the board of examiners was placed under the supervision of the Secretary of State. Provision was made for a secretary and a clerk to assist the board.
No change of any moment was made in the legislation I have just outlined until the Civil Service Amendment Act of 1908, which for the first time provided for a civil service commission consisting of two members appointed by the governor in council. Each commissioner was to hold office during good behaviour and could be removed by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons. The then existing civil service examiners were to continue during pleasure, but under direction of the commission.
It will be observed that up to this legislation of 1908 we 'had in Canada in respect of civil service matters a merit system, namely, a system by which only those holding the certificate of qualification from the examiner could be appointed to a position in the civil service. By this act of 1908 there was introduced what is now commonly called the merit system, but which in reality is something more; that is, this act with its amendments established a competitive merit system, whereby the person ranking highest in qualifications shall at all times be appointed to the vacancy which is to be filled. By this act appointment was to be made as a result of competitive examinations, and promotion was to be made for merit :by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the department, based upon the report in writing of the deputy head, accompanied by a certificate of qualification by the commission, to be given with or without examination as determined by the regulations of the commission.
By the amending act of 1918 the commission was to consist of not more than three members, and the tenure of office of future commissioners was to be for ten years during good behaviour. It also provided for the

2842	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
retirement of a commissioner at the age of sixty-five. That act, subject to some minor amendments, is the Civil Service Act of today which is found in the revised statutes of 1927, and in respect of which a reference was made to your committee.
It might be well at this time to outline the nature of the organization of the Civil Service Commission. It can be divided into four main classifications, namely the examination branch, the organization branch, the assignment branch and the administration branch, and the last branch in turn may be subdivided into three, namely the secretarial, the personal services and the central register. Under the control of the Civil Service Commission there are approximately 35,000 civil servants. There are in Canada a total of 45,581 civil servants, as of March, 1931. Briefly, these are divided as follows: Permanent employees at Ottawa, 8.009; permanent employees outside Ottawa, 24,706, or a total number of permanent em-employees of 32,715. There are in Ottawa temporary employees numbering 3,757, and outside of Ottawa 9,109, or a total of 12,866 temporary employees. If you add together those two subtotals you get a grand total of 45,581 employees for the month of March, 1931, who that month received in salaries the sum of 15,905,303.97. In those figures there are not included the non-enumerated classes of employees, rural postmasters, casual labour, fee office positions and so on, who received in March, 1931, in compensation for their services, a further sum of 81,990,287.51, making a total payment by this government for the civil service, for the month of March, 1931, of $7,895,591.48.
For the purpose of determining who shall be appointed to the civil service of Canada there is prescribed an examination system, and in their nature these examinations are threefold. They may be written, they may be oral, they may be a rating for education and experience, or any combination of any two or three of the methods I have outlined. Oral examinations are held throughout Canada by a local representative of the Civil Service Commission, in conjunction with one or more representatives of the department, and now usually a representative of the Canadian Legion. Rating boards consist of a representative of the commission and one representative or more of the department. According to the theory of the examination system, these rating boards should always have upon them a representative of the commission, and it must be borne in mind that these boards make their ratings on a man's education and experience from an application form which has been submitted by him, in respect of 
which there has been little if any check as to the accuracy of the statements therein contained, and these ratings are made without the boards seeing the candidates who are applying for the positions in question.
I said the theory was that there should be on each rating board a representative of the commission, but from the data and material filed with the committee it appeared, in selecting at random some of the rating boards for different years, that on many such boards there was no representative of the commission. For example, in the Department of Agriculture in 1925 there were fifty-five competitions, but there were representatives of the commission on only twenty-six of those boards, while in connection with the fifty-five competitions there were eighty-one departmental representatives on the boards. In the Department of External Affairs during the years 1925, 1926, 1928 and 1930 there were four competitions. On only one of those boards was there a representative of the commission, while on the four boards there were six representatives of the department. In the Insurance department, in the years from 1925 to 1931, there were seven boards, on not one of which was there any examiner other than those appointed to represent the department.
Then there is brought into this examination system what are known as weights. It will be apparent that where the appointment to a position is determined by a percentage based on the combination of an oral examination and the rating given by a rating board, if a man is rated sufficiently high by the board and that rating is given sufficient weight as against the oral examination, while he may have qualified highest in the oral examination he may not get the position as a result of the recommendation of this rating board. For example, in the case of one appointment, of which we had the details before the committee., an appointment was to be made to a position by an oral examination and by a rating for education and experience. The weight given to the oral examination was only three, while the weight given to this rating for education and experience was seven.
May I point out to the house the effect of that weighting. As an illustration let me assume that candidate A is given 80 marks on his oral examination. If you multiply that by the weight of three you get a total of 240. Then let me assume that the rating board gives him a mark of only 60, and bear in mind that this rating board acts upon the application only, with no personal knowledge or observation of the man. If you multiply that mark by the weight of seven you get 420, and adding the two totals together gives

Civil Service-Report of Committee
a grand total of 660. Dividing that by 10 gives candidate A an average of 66 per cent.
Then take candidate B. On the oral examination he receives only 60 marks as against the man who received 80. You multiply that 60 by three and you get a total of 180. We will say that on the rating board he is given a rating of 80; multiply that by seven and you get a total of 560. If you add the 560 to the 180 you get a total of 740. In other words, he receives 74 per cent, but in the result the man who receives the highest mark on the oral examination is by no means declared the successful candidate, because by the operation of this weighting system, he may have a rating for education and experience which will not give him the highest percentage of qualification.
Time is not sufficient to permit me to outline to the house an instance which occurs in the evidence and which illustrates clearly the point I want to make. A. man gets a temporary appointment in a department on the recommendation of a departmental official: consider the fact that two of these departmental officials sit on the rating board as against one representative of the Civil Service Commission, together with the fact that a much higher weight may be given to the mark fixed by the rating board than the mark given by the oral examiners and you at once appreciate the opportunities there are in this system for what I will call, for want of a better word, abuses of the competitive merit system. In the case of written examinations there is little room for abuses. Before leaving the matter I wish to point out to the house the opportunities there are for creating those conditions of which we members of this House of Commons so frequently receive complaint. It is not possible for me, in the short time at my disposal, to deal with all the clauses of the committee's report; therefore I will confine the remainder of my remarks to three or four which, in my opinion, recommend the most marked changes in the present statute or regulations. But just in passing may I refer to one clause of the report which recommends an amendment, because on re-reading it, it occurred to me that it might not express with sufficient clearness the recommendation of the committee. Clause 9 of the report states;
Your committee recommends that section 60 of the Civil Service Act, as enacted by chapter 3S of the statutes 19-20 George Y, be repealed.
The intention of the committee was that the amendment which made possible the putting into the service of the private secretaries of ministers at a minimum salary of S3,120
41761-179J
per annum, should be repealed, but we do not suggest the repeal of that section as it stood prior to the 1929 amendment. The effect of the amendment w'hich the committee recommend will be that in future private secretaries of ministers will not be entitled to preference in appointments to the service, and can obtain admission thereto only through the usual channel of competitive examination.
I should like to refer to clause 18 of the report, in which your committee recommend that the secretary of the Civil Service Commission be called upon to perform only those duties which are peculiarly those of the secretary. The present secretary of the Civil Service Commission is one of the oldest employees in the civil service, in point of years of service, and during the years that he has been in his present position a practice has grown up of loading upon the secretary an enormous number of duties which are in no way related to the position. For example, all correspondence passes through his hands. Your committee can understand that it would be necessary for incoming correspondence to pass through the secretary's hands, but for the life of us we are unable to see why a query with respect to marks which some candidate made on examination should not be referred to the examination branch and replied to direct by the chief examiner. Again, recommendations of the organization branch with respect to matters of reorganization in departments or *with respect to classification pass through the secretary's hands, apparently for his approval or disapproval-matters which surely are entirely within the judgment of the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, in order to relieve this very worthy official of onerous duties which it is unnecessary for him to perform, we recommend to the commission the consideration of the change as suggested in the report.
Clause 20 of the report recommends that there be added to the committees of this house a select special committee on civil service matters. Time was not available to the members of your committee to introduce in evidence before the committee many files which some of us had read and from which it would appear that there were departmental abuses of the competitive merit system, as well as any which may have occurred in the administration of the civil service.
Temporary appointments are obtained on the requisition of a department in cases where, in my opinion, there was not in the beginning a bona fide intention that the employment should be temporary. By requisitions of departments and by statements made accompanying each of these requisitions, the Civil
2S44	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report of Committee
Service Commission has been induced from time to time to extend and extend temporary certificates. At the moment I have in mind a case in one department where a young lady had been occupying the position of clerk, grade 3, for upwards of a year. Finally, when the commission insisted that there must be an open competition, the department said, "Very well, hold it." They held a competition, but the young lady who had been in that temporary position ranked second. So then, after much correspondence and delay, the department had this position reclassified and the young lady who had originally held one classified position for upwards of a year was immediately re-appointed temporarily to the new classification, though really doing the same work in the same department for the same pay and under exactly the same conditions.
Your committee did not have time to deal with many of these phases of the matter, but we believe that if there were each year a select special committee of this house sitting in review upon matters such as I have outlined, we should then have taken a great step in curtailing any abuses which may exist in the present competitive merit system.
I come next to clause 25, in which your committee recommend that the orders in council therein specified be amended so as to exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act the appointment of postmasters in revenue post offices where the revenue does not exceed $3,000 per annum. I know of no better way in which I can illustrate to this house things which have occurred with respect to the appointment of postmasters than to cite three of the many illustrations which hon. members may find in this evidence, if they care to peruse it. In 1926, for example, there was a vacancy for a postmaster at St. Arsene in the constituency of Temiscouata, province of Quebec. Under the system then in existence-it has since been changed slightly-the district superintendent or inspector of the Post Office Department was temporarily absorbed as an official of the Civil Service Commission. This poor, unfortunate man who may be totally unfamiliar with any particular locality or the residents thereof is called upon to go out and interview a number of persons who may be applicants for a position, then to come back and make a recommendation not to the Civil Service Commission, bear in mind, although he is their official, but to the Post Office Department, as to how he rates those individuals in order of merit, from a post office standpoint.
Recently the system has been slightly changed. In the old days he used to say,

"I rate them as follows: John Jones, Bill Smith and William Brown." Now they have imposed upon the poor man a much more onerous duty in which he must rate them by marks. He is called upon to go out and interview six, eight or ten men he has never seen before; he may have to conduct his interviews in the space of two hours, and must give marks. Hon. members may observe that the marks are 90, 87, 85, 83 and so on all down the line.
The inspector had to make a report with respect to the appointment of St. Arsene, and he did so. When he made his report he recommended as first in order of merit Mrs. Roy, the widow of the former postmaster, secondly Mr. Laforest and thirdly Mr. Rioux. He also pointed out that in the case of Mr. Laforest's appointment there would be a decrease in the cost of postal service to the government of $91.42 per annum, but that in the event of Mr. Rioux' appointment there would be an increase in the cost amounting to $60.95 per annum, a difference of approximately $150. The post office inspector further reported that the location offered by the second man in order of merit, Mr. Laforest, was a more central and a better location than that offered by Mr. Rioux. Mrs. Roy-or probably the better French pronunciation would be "Roi"-was disqualified for good and sufficient reasons, as appeared from the evidence. However instead of Mr. Laforest, who was rated second in order of merit, getting the appointment, the appointment of Rioux was made by Commissioners Tremblay and MacTavish by a majority decision from which the chairman of the commission dissented.
I think it might be well if I read to the house the decision of the chairman of the commission in dealing with that particular case. He said:
As Laforest has been placed second in order of merit and his site reported more central than Rioux/ the former costing the department less at present and the latter costing more, his education and experience being, to say the least, equally good with Rioux, I am in favour of Laforest's appointment.
Naturally your committee sought if possible to find a reason for this appointment. I do not know whether or not we have succeeded, but from a letter on the file I found that the then Postmaster General, long before the Civil Service Commission had received the report of the post office inspector upon which their judgment should be based, in writing to the Civil Service Commission said:
As the other two applicants appear to have equal ratings, may I suggest that E. Rioux would seem to meet the wishes of the people there, according to recommendations received.

Civil Service-Re-port of Committee
Then we find on the file another letter written by a reverend gentleman apparently to the Postmaster General, but finding its way to the files of the Civil Service Commission. In it is the following paragraph:
With my excellent friend, Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot, member of parliament for this county,
I have recommended to yourself and to Mr. J. F.mile Tremblay, a member of the Civil Service Commission, the immediate nomination of Mr. Ed. Rioux as acting postmaster.
In endeavouring to justify his judgment in that case before your committee Commissioner MacTavish told us he favoured the appointment of the second man over the first in order of merit because of the age of Mr. Laforest. However if hon. members would turn to the file of the Civil Service Commission with respect to the appointment of a postmaster at Belwood they would find that in that case Commissioners MacTavish and Tremblay appointed a man 71 years of age, although Laforest's age was only 60 years.
I must hasten on, and shall not take time to deal with the details of those appointments. Commissioner MacTavish attempted to justify that appointment on the ground that there had been a petition on the file in favour of Mr. White at Belwood signed by patrons of the post office. On examination of that petition we found it was signed by 19 persons. Then if hon. members would turn in the evidence to a record of the appointment of a postmaster at East Broughton Station they would find that Commissioners MacTavish and Tremblay recommended in that case the appointment of a man, whereas the other one whom Dr. Roche favoured had a petition filed in his favour signed by 500 patrons of that particular post office.
In view of comments which have been made with respect to this recommendation I think it would be well for me to read the dissenting judgment of the gentleman who was chairman of the commission. He says:
It does not require varied experience for the postmastership of East Broughton Station.
The reference there was to the fact that the man Dr. Roche favoured had had three years' experience. He continues:
Post office experience has always been emphasized by the department as entitling an applicant to preferential consideration. This is one of a number of instances where the order of merit appears difficult to explain except by the fact that the M.P. for the constituency has recommended the applicant who has been placed first. Mr. Vachon who has been assistant postmaster of this office for the last three years and who apparently is "persona grata" with the patrons of the office as evidenced by the petition of 500 in his favour, is in my opinion, entitled to the position.
If hon. members would like further illustrations the record of evidence filed with the committee's report is replete with them.
The next thing I should like to call to the attention of the house in connection with the appointment of postmasters is the recommendation of officials of the Post Office Department to your committee. We had the advantage of having before us Mr. Coolican, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, and E. J. Underwood, superintendent of post offices for Canada. I cannot take time to read to the house in detail excerpts from the evidence, but if I may paraphrase and at the same time attempt to make a synopsis of it, it is as follows:
Revenue postmasters are not properly described as civil servants. A revenue postmaster has no superannuation, and does not necessarily do the work for which he is paid. Be gets an assistant to do it, and he is not paid from parliamentary appropriations. I do not think it was ever intended that revenue postmasters should be under the civil service.
. . . The above principle was recognized by past civil service commissions in that they recommended that revenue postmasters in offices with a revenue of less than $400 be exempt. ... I say the postmaster up to that point ($3,000 or $3,500) should be removed from the Civil Service Commission. In the matter of appointments they are civil servants, in all other respects they are not. It is impracticable to appoint all these postmasters by present methods.
I still read from the views of those officials:
It is not economical to appoint revenue postmasters under the present system and it involves a large expenditure of money.
Then there came before your committee representatives of the Canadian Postmasters' Association of Canada.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member may continue by consent.


Mr. POULIOT:: We have no objection to his continuing.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: By unanimous consent.


James Earl Lawson: If I may have the unanimous consent of the house, I shall endeavour to be very brief, because I have only one or two other matters to which I desire to refer. The representatives of the Canadian Postmasters' Association came before your committee. Of course, let me make it quite clear that they were not asking that revenue postmasters be taken, so far as appointment is
2846	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
concerned, from under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, but they pointed out to us that their status had been ill defined; that their position was an anomalous one, and in an attempt to rectify it, they asked us to make them full-fledged civil servants where they were appointees to revenue offices in excess of $3,000. For the reasons I have above outlined, your committee recommended that the appointment of postmasters to revenue offices, having a revenue of less than $3,000, be made by the Postmaster General. Some will say that this is a return to patronage. I say: Better far a retum to patronage, if that be patronage, than a continuation of rank hyprocrisy in respect to the way in which these postmasters have been appointed. One section of the press says that if this house approves this clause of the report, it will mean entering the thin edge of the wedge which will ultimately open wide the flood-gates for the tide of political patronage. I say that in my opinion if you adopt this clause of the report, you are plucking from the thigh of the merit system an infected thorn, which infection has already to some extent undermined public confidence in this country and which ultimately, if not removed, will destroy the merit system.
I should like to quote just for a moment from a book written by Robert Moses who, I think, is recognized as an authority on the British civil service. In 1914 he published a book entitled the history of the civil service of Great Britain. I read just one short paragraph because I think it is most applicable to the subject under discussion:
No one in England dreams of reverting to patronage now. Competition is the general rule; but time has shown that open competition is not feasible in some departments, for example, for lower situations where merely physical qualifications are necessary or for higher positions where proved technical skill or business experience are requisites.
In that statement I heartily concur.


Mr. MARCIL:: Why was not the same
principle recommended in connection with the outside service in the various other departments as was recommended in the case of the Post Office Department? Why did the committee not bring up that phase of the question? Why should the employees in the other outside service not be treated in the same way as those in the Post Office Department?


James Earl Lawson: I am prepared to answer
that question. I thought I had taken some pains to point out, briefly, it is true, that postmasters were in no sense civil servants, nor have they had any of the benefits of the

Civil Service Act or the Superannuation Act and so on. Postmasters have never been considered as civil servants. Had this committee brought in a recommendation in favour of the exemption of lower positions that require merely physical exertion, I am sure all hon. members can well imagine the protests there would have been to high heaven about the introduction of the evils of the patronage system.


Mr. RALSTON:: The hon. gentleman has stated that rural postmasters in offices with a revenue under $3,000 have not had the benefits of the Civil Service Act. Have they not had the benefits of the section 29 of the act providing that returned soldiers shall have preference in connection with those appointments?


James Earl Lawson: Rural postmasters have
had no benefits whatever under the Civil Service Act except the doubtful benefit of appointment by the commission. It is true that section 29 of the Civil Service Act provides a preference for returned soldiers, but if the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) will read the order in council passed in 1922, P.C. 1053, and the amending order in council passed in 1929, P.C. 1751, he will find that they make provision for the preservation of the returned soldier preference, and the change in these orders in council as recommended by the committee would in no way interfere with the returned soldier preference.
With the permission of the house I should like for a few moments to deal with section 26 of the report wherein your committee recommended the retirement of the present commission. The Hon. Doctor Roche, chairman of the commission, is an honourable gentleman who has long served the public of this country as their representative in the House of Commons. Subsequently thereto he has given, so far as your committee have been able to observe, faithful, efficient and diligent service for fifteen years as a civil service commissioner of Canada. He has brought to that position a high sense of responsibility; but whether we like it or not, increasing years are bound to bring about a degree of physical disability which gradually saps one of that dynamic force and mental alertness which are necessary to guide the destiny of this great machine of civil service which has something over 45,000 employees. Because of the age which that honourable gentleman has reached, because of the fact that the statute now provides that all appointees to the commission, other than himself because his appointment preceded the

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
statute, be retired at the age of sixty-five years, your committee made a recommendation for his retirement. Coupled with that is a recommendation that there should be given to him as an expression of appreciation of the service he has rendered to this country an honorarium or gratuity.
With respect to the other two commissioners, the three instances I have brought to the attention of this house I think will justify this house in coming to the conclusion that neither of those two gentlemen possesses the qualities of judicial determination which are necessary for the high office of a civil service commissioner. Suffice it to say that because of the evidence adduced before us, because of opportunity we had of observing the character and demeanour of these two gentlemen, we deemed it advisable in the interests of the reorganization of this commission that they too should be retired. One of these gentlemen, Commissioner Tremblay, served faithfully and well for a number of years in the civil service of Canada prior to his appointment as commissioner. Both may be able, probably are able, in some other field of activity, and both have family responsibilities. In view of the facts that I have just outlined we recommend that with their dismissal there be paid to each of these gentlemen a gratuity.
It was not to be hoped, even though the report of the committee was unanimous, that it might meet with the unanimous approval of this house. We have endeavoured as a committee conscientiously to perform the duty and task which the house assigned to us and in the hope that our recommendations may meet with the approval of a substantial majority in this house I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Plunkett), that the second report of the special committee on the civil service and the Civil Service Act be concurred in.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker. I have but few remarks to make in connection with this report, but I feel that I owe it to myself and to my adherence to the Civil Service Act for many years to make them.
Taken as a whole it is my belief that this report has not strengthened the Civil Service Act nor has it added support to the merit principle, but on the contrary has in a large measure weakened both. It has not, for example, recommended the inclusion under the operation of the act of those branches of departments that are now excluded, such as the income tax branch, customs appraisers, and so on, and to that extent it is in my opinion a weak report.
Many of the recommendations are worthy ones, but most of them deal with mere technical or routine procedure. The principal changes recommended are, of course, the retirement of the civil service commissioners and the adjustments with regard to postmasters. With respect to the first I have nothing but the strongest approval of the recommendation of the committee. I have long felt from information at my disposal that action of this kind should have been taken, and I am in hearty agreement with the recommendation in that respect. I do wish, however, that the report had embodied the recommendation to replace the three-men commission with a one-man commission. I seriously believe that in the operation of an act of this character, if one has a good, strong capable man who retains public confidence, it is more likely that the act will be administered with the least possible friction and the least danger of encroachment.
In the matter of the postmasters, however, I find myself in serious disagreement with the recommendation of the committee in the main. The chairman (Mr. Lawson), who has just concluded an eloquent and excellent speech based on his report, offered as an explanation for the action of the committee several reasons. He cited three cases of appointments to post office positions which were of a questionable character. With his criticism of the method of those appointments I take no issue, but may I submit to him with all deference that the fault in those cases did not lie in the merit principle nor in the Civil Service Act. but in the venal character of the commissioners who administered the act; that is all, and the chairman proved nothing else but that the two commissioners to whom he referred, Tremblay and MacTavish, were actually guilty of violating the merit principle in making the appointments in the three cases he cited. He proved nothing beyond that by the citation of those particular cases. He then proceeded to say that the recommendations of the officials were to the effect that after all the revenue post office positions were not in the same class or category with the positions of the civil servants proper, and they therefore suggested that postmasters up to three thousand dollars should be exempt from the Civil Service Act. May I submit that if their contention is correct, if the principle enunciated is sound, it should apply to all postmasters, and not merely up to the three thousand class. On the other hand, if the principle is unsound, and I presume it is unsound or the committee would not recommend that the occupants of the higher
2848	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report of Committee
positions should be made permanent civil servants with all the privileges and attributes of what the chairman himself described as a fully fledged civil servant, they would hardly have made that recommendation in the case of the higher salaried postmasters. If the principle be sound in the case of the higher salaried postmasters, is it not equally sound in the case of the lower salaried postmasters?


James Earl Lawson: May I interrupt my hon.
friend for a moment? I know him so well I know that he would not want to base his argument on incomplete information. The officials of the Post Office Department, as is disclosed by the record, indicated that with respect to postmasters in offices where the revenue is in excess of three thousand dollars, it was their intention to have them made civil servants on straight salary and no longer the incumbents of revenue offices.


Edward Joseph Garland: I cannot
see any reason why w*e should deviate from the merit principle. If it be sound in the case of the higher salaried post offices, it is equally tenable in the case of the lower-revenue post offices. I cannot for the life of me differentiate at this moment as between the two classes, and frankly, in my opinion, the report of the committee is distinctly weak in that regard. I am personally opposed to any further extension of the system of patronage, and I feel that most of the hon. members in this comer of the house and many others on both sides of the house share my views in this matter. Those who have the obligation, the questionable pleasure, of administering patronage, will now have some additional seven thousand jobs to distribute. It will be to their everlasting discomfort that they have that privilege, and since the government has the majority of the members on that committee the government must take the larger share of the responsibility for this violation of the merit principle, and unquestionably for the possibility of endangering the whole principle of the act by commencing this retrograde movement. I objected some years ago to the orders in council passed by the late government excluding certain minor positions, day workers and so on, from the operation of the act. My objections are even more strenuous against positions of this kind being excluded. I am in complete accord with the suggestion of the postmasters' association that all postmasters should be completely subject to the merit system and completely enrolled within , Mr. E. J. Garland.]
the ranks of civil servants, and that they should by virtue of their positions carry with them all the privileges of civil servants.
Therefore with regard to the second part of recommendation No. 25 I am in accord, but with regard to the first part to which I have referred, the exclusion from the operation of the act of postmasters in revenue post offices where the revenue does not exceed 83,000 per annum, I am in disagreement. So I move:
That this report be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the committee with power to amend by striking out the first six lines of recommendation No. 25 of the said report.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I second the amendment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As written this motion is
entirely unintelligible.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is customary for members to address the house alternately from each side.


Jean-François Pouliot: But no Liberal members
have yet addressed the house.


Mr. J. L. BOWMAN (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, rising to speak briefly in support of the motion for adoption of the report, I wish first to express my very great pleasure on having been chosen a member of this somewhat important committee. That pleasure became greater as the work of the committee proceeded and it became apparent that the members intended to treat the evidence from a strictly impartial and non-partisan viewpoint. I think the very cordial feeling which existed throughout all our proceedings and which resulted in the presentation of this unanimous report is to be attributed in very large measure to the tact, good judgment and diligence of the chairman of the committee.
Throughout the proceedings I was particularly impressed by the very high type of civil servants and the able representatives of the various civil service organizations and the war veterans' association who appeared before the committee. The lucid and logical manner in which they presented their evidence created a most favourable impression.
My purpose this afternoon is to deal briefly with the major finding of the committee, that is, that the commissioners be retired. The retirement of those gentlemen will give the government of the day an opportunity to wipe the slate clean and start over again. The chairman has given to the house a full history of what led up to the Civil Service Act of 1918, which was subsequently amended by the act of 1927. It is with respect to the

Civil Service-Report of Committee
period from 1918 down to the present time that I propose to address my remarks. It is quite true that perhaps the findings of the committee as a whole do not meet with approval of everyone. That was to be expected. Nevertheless I think it speaks well for the manner in which the committee approached their work that, although composed of four Conservatives, two Liberals and a Labour member, they were unanimous in coming to the conclusion that the heads of the Civil Service Commission should be retired. Up to the time of the Civil Service Act of 1918 we did have a period when political patronage governed appointments to the civil service, and from that year down to the present time it may be said that we have been going through a transition period. The chairman has pointed out the immense power of those having, wholly or partially, jurisdiction over some 45,000 civil servants drawing in salaries every month in the neighbourhood of $7,895,000. I find that in 1919 when the present Civil Service Commission was appointed the salaries of the commissioners were fixed at $7,000 for the chairman, and $6,000 each for his two associates. It does seem to me that then and there a mistake was made, and that that mistake has not been rectified down to the present time. I contend that the salaries paid at that time were entirely inadequate to get the type of men needed to administer the affairs of this commission, which as I have said, has partial [DOT] or total control over the whole civil service. At that time it must be borne in mind, too, that the more important positions on the staff were filled at very low salaries. We find the chief examiner with an initial salary of $2,050, that the initial salaries of other examiners were from $1,800 to $1,850, and that the salaries for investigators in the organization branch were as low as $1,320. These were the salaries of the staff of a commission having jurisdiction over the civil service wherein the salaries of deputy ministers ran from $9,000 up to $12,000 a year, and in one case as high as $15,000, and the salaries in the higher branches of the various government departments ranged from $4,000 up to $6,000 a year. Yet at the inception of the commission it was attempted to appoint men at the salaries to which I have referred-men who were to have authority over the civil service. Bearing in mind that this commission and its staff have charge of appointments, promotions, classifications, organizations and reorganizations throughout the whole of the civil service, one would at least expect that the qualifications of the heads of that commission, and those occupying the higher positions in the staff, would be at least as great
as if not greater than those required of the people over whom they exercise control. This is one of the reasons to which I attribute the fact that, to some measure at least, the merit system was not given full force and effect from 1918 or 1919 to the present time. I am quite willing to admit that while many of these positions were filled at low salaries, with the experience subsequently gained they have given many valuable men to the commission, but these men have been educated and developed to fill the positions they now occupy, to some extent at least, at the expense of the public service.
Now we come to 1926, when two of the commissioners, Mr. Jameson and Mr. . Larochelle, were retired for reasons which are familiar to every hon. member. Later two new commissioners were appointed, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. MacTavish. Shortly after the appointment of these gentlemen an investigation was held into the staff of the commission by two subordinate officials of the commission itself, and from that investigation resulted what was known as the Kemmis and Simmons report. In connection with that investigation I want to point out that Mr. MacTavish and Mr. Tremblay, the two new commissioners appointed, had so little experience that they determined that the proper way to have an investigation into their own staff was not to have it undertaken by the heads of the departments but by two subordinate members of the staff, and the very fact that this investigation was held at that time indicated to me that from the very beginning these gentlemen were not the type or calibre of men that should have been appointed to the positions of junior commissioners. We had many instances brought before us where the commissioners differed, and where there were adverse findings. Then we come down to about a year or so ago, when we had the Bouchard trial and disclosures, and coming to the investigations of this committee, we have now recommended the retirement of these gentlemen.
In that connection I do not wish to do more than quote from an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen under date of April 9, 1932. Speaking of the commission, the editorial states:
The machinery is devised to give Canada air efficient, civil service free from patronage interference. The present weakness is in the controlling hands on the machinery.
The chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Hon. W. J. Roche, is generally trusted throughout the country. As a cabinet minister in Sir Robert Borden's administration, he had the respect of members on both sides of parliament.
2S50	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
I should say that this respect has continued throughout his entire eareer. I think ail hon. members will agree that Doctor Roche is a gentleman of the highest character. The editorial proceeds:
It is absurd, however, to pretend that the other commissioners, Messrs. Newton Mac-Tavish and J. E. Tremblay, have any such standing in public esteem or any such claim to the confidence of the country in the administration of the merit system. They were appointed without any record of service in public life or of outstanding administrative experience.
It is hardly surprising that members of parliament, cabinet ministers and deputy ministers are dissatisfied with such an exercise of authority by ^ commissioners of very limited experience. Until this weakness at the head is corrected, general dissatisfaction will very likely tend to grow in volume.
With those sentiments I am in entire accord. In another editorial appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of April 15, 1932, we have the following remarks with regard to the Civil Service Commission:
ri The merit system is evidently being abused. I he obvious weakness is in the absence of merit in some of the very positions where it is most needed, namely, on the board responsible for the administration of the Civil Service Act.
No matter how the law may be amended, it is liable to fail in the hands of incompetent commissioners. The present act has, on the whole, stood up well under a severe test for twelve years or more. It has been commended by authorities on civil service administration in other countries as one of the most advanced.
Hon. members of the house will note that while we have made a number of recommendations they are really minor in character and do not affect the merit principle or the main features of the act itself.
Undoubtedly it meant a real step forward for the merit system in Canada. Where it has appeared to fall short has been invariably due to faulty administration.
It is hardly surprising to find members of parliament restless when they know of undoubted instances of patronage of another form, even more demoralizing than political patronage, in the civil service. When members exercise patronage, at least they have to take the responsibility for it in the eyes of constituents. They can be held accountable in the next election.
When patronage is allowed by the Civil Service Commission, under an outside influence, fraud is being perpetrated on the public. The people of Canada are led to believe that positions are filled entirely on merit after an impartial examination of applicants, when it is notorious that methods of evading the law are countenanced.
Further on the editorial states:
It may be found that the Civil Service Act can be improved by some minor amendments, but improvement is most needed in the administration of the act. There has been a marked [Mr. Bowman.l
decline in public confidence in the Civil Service Commission, particularly in recent years. The remedy is to appoint commissioners whose standing in the country is calculated to restore public confidence as well as to gain the confidence of the civil service.
Again I say I am in complete accord with the views expressed in that editorial.
It must be borne in mind by all hon. members of the house that if the Civil Service Commission and its staff are to accomplish the work for which the commission was set up, there must be mutual respect and confidence as between the commission and its staff and the various departments of the public service. That mutual respect and confidence can be obtained only when the commissioners are men of high character, undoubted integrity and some administrative and executive ability. It does seem to me that during this transition period, if there has been any fault to be found with the commission and its work it has been due to weakness at the head and, because of that, perhaps weakness through the staff.
My principal object in saying anything at all at this time is to impress this view upon the government and respectfully to suggest that in appointing commissioners to take the places of those being retired they bear in mind the great importance of this commission and its staff, and see to it that men of character, of integrity and of the highest possible administrative and executive ability are appointed to these positions.
Consider these facts: that two years ago there was appointed a grain commission in western Canada, the chairman of which was paid a salary of 812,000; that two junior commissioners were paid 110,000 each; that each of the commissioners in the four western provinces receives either $7,000 or $7,500, I forget which; and that in Ontario there was paid to the chairman of the Liquor Control Commission a salary of $20,000 per annum, which I understand is to be reduced now to $10,000 to the present chairman, and then consider that we have been expecting during the last ten years to obtain from a commission receiving the salaries I have mentioned, of $7,000 and $6,000, men to control vastly more important offices and to discharge more important duties than either of these other commissions, though, of course, one must admit that the grain commission is of great importance.
I do not intend to say more than this in conclusion. I do respectfully submit to the government of the day, and I do so in confidence, knowing the great business ability of the present Prime Minister, that in the first

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
place the new commissioners should be given salaries commensurate with the positions they are to occupy, and secondly, that in the choice of commissioners men of outstanding character and integrity, men of marked administrative and executive ability should be sought. I submit that if this were done many of the troubles respecting the administration of the Civil Service Act and the civil service would eliminate themselves or be eliminated in a brief period of time.
During the proceedings of the committee evidence was given to the effect that often the procedure was quite circuitous and that there was a good deal of red tape. Well, that is all a matter of administration. With a strong man at the head of the commission and one or two capable junior commissioners, as the case might be, that would soon be overcome. It was established before the committee that there was much overlapping and overmanning in the service. Again, I am of the opinion that with a strong commission and an efficient staff that could be obviated. And may I point out that it would not necessarily result in throwing out of employment any number of the civil servants of Canada. I was surprised to learn that approximately ten per cent of the service retired annually from natural causes such as death, marriage, resignation, and so forth. The holding-up of appointments for a couple of years would mean that there would be nine or ten thousand vacancies to fill, which surely should afford considerable scope for cutting down any overlapping or overmanning that might exist. The same with respect to the amalgamation or merging of different sub-departments of the public service. With a strong commission and an efficient staff having the confidence of and working in close cooperation with the deputy heads of the service-for this is most important-there would soon be remedied any duplication of services such as we find at the present time. So in the matter of reorganization. The head of the organization branch stated that there had been no reclassification to any substantial extent in the service since 1921, that the work should be undertaken at the present time and in this connection the statement was made that with the staff he had it would take him about a year and a half or two years to do this work, which was now overdue. That practically concludes what I have to say.
I do not intend to refer particularly to the matter of postmasters but I would call attention to page 454 of the evidence where Mr. Coolican makes the following statement in answer to a question by myself:
Q. You think, Mr. Coolican, that that would lessen a lot of the difficulties?-A. Yes, I think it would, and the result would be just as good.
And at page 455, he makes this statement:
I think the same good results could be obtained in these cases over $400.
Similar remarks were made by Mr. Underwood at page 463. It must, of course, be borne in mind, indeed it must be perfectly clear to hon. members, that there was some give and take in order to enable us to arrive at a unanimous report. Perhaps the report itself is not perfect and does not meet with the approval of all hon. members; nevertheless I do say that in arriving at a unanimous decision to retire the present commissioners, and to submit to the house a recommendation that men of the right calibre and standing in the community be appointed to succeed them, the committee have accomplished at least some small measure of good.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When the hon. member for Row River (Mr. Garland) was speaking to the motion for the adoption of the report, he proposed an amendment, but inasmuch as it was not in writing at the time, I was unable to submit it to the house. The amendment having been since reduced to writing, I will read it. It is moved by Mr. Garland (Bow River) and seconded by Mr. Mitchell:
That the report be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to delete the first six lines of recommendation No. 25 from the word "from" to the word "annum."


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: I had not in the least intended to take part in ti discussion this afternoon, particularly in view of the fact that the report submitted by the chairman to the house was unanimous, and also in view of the fact, as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bowman) pointed out, that there had been considerable give and take in order to arrive at that unanimity. If there is one thing that has somewhat disturbed my feelings it is the fact that the hon. gentleman who presided with distinction over the meetings of the committee should have seen fit to depart somewhat from the line of conduct which I had thought he would adopt on this occasion. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate my rising at the present time.
I do not think there is a member of this hon. house who will doubt my sincerity in relation to the merit system in the civil service of Canada. It was my privilege away back in 1923 to sit as a member of the committee of that day which, during three months, investigated the affairs of the civil service, and
2852	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
if I take away from this House of Commons nothing else, after the years I sat here, I shall have the satisfaction I derive from my own original draft, of the report of that day. I read from my draft the following:
Your committee is of the opinion that the two fundamental principles of the Civil Service Act are the merit system and the system of appointment by competitive examination, and that both these principles must be preserved.
Turning to the Malcolm report, I find at page XIV tjiese words:
Your committee is of the opinion that the two fundamental principles of the Civil Service Act are the merit system and the system of appointment by competitive examination, and that both these principles must be preserved.
If anybody wishes to compare my own draft with t'he report submitted in those days I do not think he will find very much difference between the two. The hon. member who was chairman of the present committee, I am sorry to say has referred to the evidence, although I think such reference was not necessary. Probably he has turned to the evidence with a view to justifying certain things done by the committee. Special reference was made by him to the St. Arsene case. I do not wish to go fully into the evidence, but if hon. members were at all interested they would find that the chairman of the commission decided one way, and that the two remaining commissioners, Messrs. Tremblay and Mac-Tavish, decided another way. Wide indeed as they were, I doubt very much the powers of the committee to investigate the use of discretionary powers, vested in these officials. If there is a ca^e wThere the commissioners had a right to exercise these discretionary and statutory powers, certainly it was in this case. I challenge anyone to say that in the exercise of these wide powers these two men did not exercise their powers in a way befitting their positions. Throughout the whole of the evidence it was revealed that whatever they did was amply justified. That is borne out in this case by a letter from Mr. Coolican, assistant deputy postmaster general, which I had placed on record, and which sums up the proceedings in the year 1927 as to who between Laforest and Rioux should have been appointed. The letter is to this effect:
The Secretary,
Civil Service Commission,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Re: St. Arsene
Dear Sir,-
Referring to previous correspondence regarding the vacant postmastership at St, Arsene, Que., your file 37614, permit me to inform you that the matter has again been brought to the attention of the department.
[Mr. Chevrier.i
It is noted that the office has been in the temporary charge of Mr. Edmond Rioux for a long time, or more exactly since the 11th November last, and that no complaints have since been received against his management.
It is also noted that there is very little to choose between the different candidates and, under the circumstances, considering the satisfactory management of the acting postmaster, it seems that the interest of the service would be well served if he were confirmed in his position.
The department would he pleased to have a certificate in this case as soon as possible.
That letter was filed simply to show that one man of a certain age rather than of another age had been appointed. Great stress was laid upon the fact, and the commissioners were blamed for appointing one man younger by some years than another. I hesitate to bring out these facts, because I thought it would not be necessary to do so. I do not like to refer to the Belwood post office, but I find it necessary to do so. The chairman of the committee produced the file, not upon the demand of the committee but upon the suggestion of some person. It showed that a Mr. White, 71 years of age had been appointed upon the recommendations of Messrs. Tremblay and MacTavish, Dr. Roche dissenting. What were the facts? The superintendent of post offices had recommended the appointment of this gentleman because of his very special qualifications, and the superintendent had made no recommendation with respect to Mr. Bellamy who was No. 2 in order of merit. Dr. Roche, in the exercise of his discretionary powers-and with those powers I have no quarrel-recommended the appointment of Mr. Bellamy. The other two commissioners upon the recommendation of the superintendent of post offices, with whose discretionary powers again I have no quarrel, decided that a gentleman, seventy-one years of age, in good health and well able to carry on should have the position. It seems to me we are simply quibbling with facts. I was about to say that it was not within the high office or dignity of such a committee to delve into matters of such futile importance. For that reason probably this discussion should not have taken place.
I come now to the matter of exempting rural post offices. It was with great diffidence that some members of the committee allowed the exemption. I am not here to say who the members were, but I think my opening remarks might give hon. members some indication. If an exemption was made, it was because of two reasons, and two only. One of the reasons was that two very high officials of the Post Office Department, Mr. Underwood and Mr. Coolican, of their own volition,

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
so far as I am aware, came before the committee and made the recommendation that these positions should hereafter be filled by the Post Office Department itself. The evidence in this connection is very lengthy, but I should like to refer hon. members to page 454, where the following is found:
By Mr. Chevrier:
Q. Are you prepared to say what that would equal in salary?-A. No. That would require some thought; but if you put the salary of a postmaster at, say, the maximum of a postal clerk, plus that of an assistant, or some other grade in the Civil Service, you would arrive at a near figure.
Q. The maximum of a postal clerk, $1,740?-* A, Yes.
By Mr. Bowman:
Q. I suppose a fair salary to these people might run around $90 or $100 a month?-A. Yes, we could make a definite allowance to the postmaster and from that he would pay his assistant.
Q. YTou think. Mr. Coolican, that that would lessen a lot of the difficulties?-A. Yes, I think it would, and the result would be just as good. By Mr. Chevrier:
Q. These men would be named under the recommendation of the departmental officers? -A. Yes. We could arrange a procedure of inquiry the same as is done now.
"The same as is done now" is under order in council P.C. 1053 providing that the soldier preference must be respected. I continue:
Prom a business point of view-
This 'is a question I asked.
-it might be all right, but how would that come in with the merit system?-A. In these appointments of postmasters you are not observing the merit system. The very returned soldier preference is a legal violation of the merit system. You have many things to consider with regard to public service.


Mr. VENIOT:: What class of postmasters was under consideration there?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: These were postmasters in the class up to $400 revenue Who heretofore were not under the operation of the Civil Service Act. The question arose as to how they could best be appointed. It was shown conclusively in evidence that the representatives of the Post Office Department went down and interviewed the applicants.


Peter John Veniot: Not under $400; above $400.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: For the time being these departmental officials were considered to be officers of the Civil Service Commission. They made an investigation in their own way; they then reported to the department, and it is in evidence that ninety-nine times out of 100 their recommendations were accepted by the
commission, as I say, for the time being the inspector being considered as one of their own men; the commission simply accepted the recommendation of the departmental official.


Peter John Veniot: The question that was under discussion at the time was about salaries from $90 to $100 a month. That is what the evidence shows.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That was not the gist of the matter, as nobody knows 'better than my hon. friend.


Peter John Veniot: We want to know what took place.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am reading at page 459 where Mr. Underwood is giving evidence:
As Mr. Coolican explained we hardly think that it was the original intention to bring the rural postmaster under the Civil Service Act, and the reason is this: Take the first reason, the question of appointments. Now, the commission themselves have made certain exceptions. They passed an order in council making certain exceptions. Take an office of $150 revenue; I think it pays 75 per cent compensation. It is hardly worth while to put a man iu there for a revenue of $75 a year. In the second place, had there been any intention of putting the revenue postmasters under the Civil Service Act surely some provision in the Civil Service Act would be there to take care of them. Yrou will not find any provision in the Civil Service Act regarding revenue postmasters. Certain benefits are given them, the benefit of the annual leave, sick leave, superannuation and so on. The Civil Service Act states that the salary range of the civil servant shall be a minimum and maximum but you cannot give a revenue postmaster minimum and maximum range. I do not think it was the intention to place the whole of the rural or revenue postmasters under the Civil Service Act.
Q. Now, would you endorse what Mr. Coolican said about the amount of salaries?- A. I think he was a little high.
This was probably on what the whole discussion was founded.
Q. What is your personal opinion?-A. My personal opinion-
And it must be remembered that the men giving evidence were some of the highest officials in the Post Office Department.
-would be somewhere around $3,000 or $3,500.
Mr. Coolican said $4,000.
We always express our own individual views. The reason is this,

This is where the hon. gentleman will get his information:
If you take $3,000 on the scale I have given you, you will find on the first $1,000 there is about $700 compensation. That is 70 per cent.
2854	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report of Committee
Then yon have $2,000 at 30 per cent, which is .$600. That makes $1,300 total without the other allowances. Generally speaking, I think you might take it as a general rule that the total amount of that office would be $1,500 or thereabouts, $1,500 compensation. In an office of that size we would have to have one assistant. I do not say he would be full time. I figure that would allow $500 for his assistant and possibly for incidental expenses, so that he will have $1,000 for commission. The minimum salary of a postal helper is $1,020 a year, therefore I assume it is logical to pay a postmaster who is just coming into the office the same salary as you would that employee who is just commencing his career. There must be an arbitrary line somewhere and that is the reason I say $3,000. I may be a little low.
Mr. Coolican says that it should be a little higher. Then Mr. Maclnnis asked a question:
Q. Do you think it would be any advantage to have a revenue postmaster, paid that amount of revenue, excluded from the Civil Service -Act?-A. I say the postmaster up to that point should be removed from the Civil Service Commission. In the matter of appointments they are civil servants. It is the impracticability of appointing all these postmasters.
In other words, it is not practicable to appoint them. That was why some of us with great diffidence took the advice of the executive officers of the Post Office Department and decided to make the reeommendatiou which is now found in the report. But those who were diffident in making that recommendation would have been much more so, and probably would not have made that recommendation, had it not been the intention of the committee at that time to insert in the report a recommendation that postmasters above the S3,000 revenue class should become full-fledged civil servants. I refer to recommendation No. 25, the last clause of which reads:
Tour committee further recommends that such amendments be made to the Civil Service Act and/or the regulations thereunder of the Civil Service Commission so that postmasters hereafter appointed to revenue post offices having a revenue in excess of $3,000 per annum shall. be within the full operation of the Civil Service Act.
Mr.	RALSTON:	Would	my hon. friend
permit a question for the sake of information? Would he suggest in what respect revenue postmasters above $400 are not under the Civil Service Act to-day?
t Mr.	CHEVRIER:	Just	as I think Mr. Underwood said, at	no time	were they.Mr.	RALSTON:	Would	my hon. friend
look at the statute which defines the civil services and tell me where anybody gets that idea?
[Mr. Chevrier.3


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: A civil servant is one
who receives a certain salary and enjoys certain benefits. They were never taken in, for what reason I do not know. They never came within the definition of civil servant.


James Layton Ralston: Not only were they
always in and are under the statute to-day, but they had to be expressly excluded by the order in council P.C. 1053 referred to by the hon. member who moved the adoption of the report. They are under the Civil Service Act, but not under the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: They may be civil servants in one sense, but when my hon. friend says that they are civil servants, they are not civil servants in the full-fledged meaning of the term in that they do not enjoy superannuation.


James Layton Ralston: That is another act altogether.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: My hon. friend can explain it as he likes. I do not see to what he is leading. For the present we will take it that these people up to $400 are not within the operation of the act, that they were exempted. They are not under the operation of the act as the ordinary civil servant is.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	They are doing civil
service work but are not civil servants.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: They are like a lot of
others who caused the committee a lot of difficulty and as to whom the committee made recommendations, such as long-term temporaries.
The committee made this further recommendation that all those postmasters hereafter to be appointed where the revenue was above three thousand dollars should become fully fledged civil servants with full power to pay into the superannuation fund and to claim all other benefits accruing to regular civil servants. There was another reason why some members of the committee felt less diffident about making the recommendation to which I have just alluded, and that was that it was understood that the committee would make a recommendation for the appointment of a parliamentary committee to look into matters connected with the civil service every year. It was felt by those whom I have just mentioned, having in mind the very strong recommendation made by the departmental officers, that such a step would simplify the procedure, speed up appointments, and make for a better administration of the act, that it was probably well worth

Civil Service-Report of Committee
while taking the chance. It was not a radical departure in any sense from the merit system. It was based upon the recommendations of the departmental officials, which the commission aocepted just as they were made, ninety-nine times out of a hundred.
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) who preceded me quoted certain editorials. That was his privilege and was done in the exercise of his own discretion, but not a tittle, not a suspicion of anything that was mentioned in those editorials found its way into the record. There was nothing of the kind. There was nothing in the way of a want of mutual confidence, and there was nothing in the evidence submitted before the committee as to a lack of integrity or a lack of confidence on the part of the chairman or any of the other commissioners. True, it was a unanimous report, and the chairman well expressed it when he said that there was give and take in the committee. I for one would have much preferred if the opening remarks of the chairman had not led to this discussion.


James Earl Lawson: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that the amendment submitted by t'he hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) is out of order. If I read correctly the effect of his amendment, which I have now before me, it amounts to a mandatory order to a committee of this house to change its report. I submit to you, sir, that such a mandatory order might be in order with respect to a bill which had been referred to a committee, some section of which might be referred back to the committee with a mandatory order of the house. But in the case of a special select committee to which a reference was made, the intention of which reference was clearly to vest in that committee discretion, I submit that the committee having exercised its discretion and its report being now before the house, the report cannot now be referred back to the committee with a mandatory order to the committee. I therefore submit that the amendment is out of order.


Peter John Veniot: Speaking on the point of
order, was not that done in the case of the customs investigation? The report was referred back to the committee with a mandatory order. The amendment was not ruled out of order in that case.


Edward Joseph Garland: On the
point of order, my intention was very clear to those of us who are concerned in the amendment. We do not desire in any way to make it mandatory. We wish to have the
amendment in the correct form if at all possible. The intention is simply to refer the report back to the committee with power to amend the report in a certain fashion. I suggest to the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) that in courtesy to the members of the house he do not persist in his point of order, if it be well taken.


James Earl Lawson: I submit that it is not a
matter of courtesy at all. It is a matter of the proceedings being correct or not, or in order or out of order, according to the rules of the house. I have no desire to be discourteous, but as chairman of the committee which was asked by the house to exercise a discretionary function I resent being sent back to the committee with a mandatory order.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 
Edward Joseph Garland: With ready willingness I accept the suggestion. It was only because of the fear that the house might not be willing to accept an amendment without referring back that I put the amendment in the form in which it is. With the consent of my seconder I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of the Minister of Justice.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: While the debate proceeds I will consider the point of order raised, and in the meantime the hon. member for Bow River can consider amending his amendment if he desires to.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Minister of Justice has suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the form of the motion be simply a motion to amend by striking out from the report the first six lines of section twenty-five of the said report.


Mr. BENNETT:: Being that part not concurred in.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am quite ready to accept that suggestion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member for
Bow River has a further amendment to suggest and will submit it, it can be considered. The action of the house might be to amend the report as it is or to send it back to the committee.
2856	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report of Committee
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	I do not intend to speak at any
great length upon this matter, but I have a few observations to make in answer to what has been said by the chairman of the committee (Mr. Lawson). One day someone was making a noise while eating his soup and on attention being called to it a friend said, "Oh, well, he means well." No doubt that the chairman meant well when he spoke on the St. Arsene case. I was very much surprised that he referred to it at all. It would have been much better for him to ignore it, but as the matter has been brought up I wish to refer to it. I regret very much to have to mention what happened in the committee, and I wonder if the chairman and the vicechairman of the committee got their inspiration from the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) when they were asking questions of the witnesses who appeared before them.
First a word as to the merit system. I wish to congratulate my good friend the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) upon his very excellent speech. In fact, he is the one amongst us who knows most about the merit system, and he told his colleagues on the committee who did not know anything about the merit system, with the exception of my hon. friend from South Battleford (Mr. Val-lance), and a couple of others, what it was all about.
What happened about that case? It is very simple. Was there anything wrong about the 1926 appointment? No. Was there a report made? Yes. Who made it? Mr. S. Tanner Green, of Quebec, the man whom the former Postmaster General denounced in this house some time before his party took office. A man can do anything when he is asked to do that. That is the man who made the report. At whose instigation? At the request of Mr. Dube, the defeated Tory candidate in Temiscouata county-although I do not blame him for having done it. Now let me refer to page 126 of reference No. 110:
December 29, 1930.
In 1926, when tile old postmaster, Mr. J. W. Roy died, I recommended that the post office should be placed at Mr. Laforests place.
Mr. Green made a report which was sent to the Postmaster General. That report is dated September 14, 1926. Because the man put one name under the other the chairman of the committee thought it was a rating; in fact no rating was given. The date of this report, September 14, 1926, is the very day of the general election, and the inspection had been made in the preceding month of August while the shadow government was in power.

In fact the gentleman whom I have named before-I will not name him again lest I give him too much advertising-went to see Mr. Green and asked him to give a chance to that man. On the record is the letter which was sent to the Postmaster General this year. The report was made by Mr. Green in favour of that man at the request of the defeated Conservative candidate for Temiscouata county. There was no question of merit, both men were about equal. The only difference was that Rioux was much j'ounger. Mr. Laforest is nearer seventy than sixty and is too old to be appointed postmaster. The Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) wrote me that during the several years Rioux had been postmaster he had given good service, and he, the Postmaster General, had no objection to his application to the Civil Service Commission for the new appointment, if he provided a better place for the post office.
A great deal of fuss has been made over the recommendation by the parish priest on behalf of one of his parishioners. In the eyes of certain persons it was a great scandal. But the parish priest did not cause any harm to the other fellow. What happens in Catholic parishes is that when a suitable candidate goes to the parish priest for a recommendation he gets it, and the. recommendation simply means that the man is an honest and respectable citizen and fit for the job. We never see a parish priest fighting for one man as against another. In fact, his recommendation is just a certificate of good character, the same as is given probably by Protestant clergymen to the people who live in their community. As my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) quoted the Citizen, I desire to quote its contemporary, the Journal. In its issue of April 18 last appeared this very excellent editorial:
A Very Grave Matter
When Mr. J. Emile Tremblay, member of the Civil Service Commission, giving evidence on Thursday before the special committee of parliament investigating the Civil Service Act and its operation, told that he considered a certain candidate was "entitled" to the position of postmaster at St. Arsene "on the facts submitted to me, and on representations made to me by the parish priest to the effect that he was the choice of the whole population and his appointment was the most satisfactory," Mr. Tremblay was told by the vice-chairman of the parliamentary committee, Mr. J. L. Bowman, of Dauphin, Man., "this is a very grave matter, in my opinion." It would be interesting to know why.
The facts submitted were that the first name on the list reported on by the postal inspector was not acceptable by reason of difficulties experienced with that candidate in former association with that same office. The inspector

Civil Service-Report of Committee
had rated the candidate in his judgment "from a postal service point of view." The "second" and "third" candidates rated were about equal in education and experience, neither having had any post office experience.
But it was claimed by the inspector that the "second" candidate's accommodation for the post office would cost the postal department about $150 a year less than would that offered by the "third" choice.
In fact it was not proved to the committee that the mail carrier's pay was increased or decreased because he went here or there.
Commissioner Tremblay said the question of site was one for the post office to consider, not the Civil Service Commissioners, and he produced a ruling from the Department of Justice. He therefore "approved" the appointment of the "third" candidate on the ground of better personal qualifications.
It was when he mentioned that representations had been made to him by the priest of the parish in favour of the "third" candidate that the matter became "very grave" to one member of the committee apparently.
At the afternoon sitting of the committee that same day, Mr. Tremblay amplified his statement as to the representations made by the priest. He said:
"He told me his standing in the community was better than the other man. I think he said he had been mayor of the village, if I am not mistaken, and stood in better with the residents than the other man, and his appointment would be more acceptable to the patrons of the office. I am only speaking from recollection."	.
The appointment was six years ago, it should be stated.
What is there "grave" about all this? Dr. W. J. Roche, chairman of the Civil Service Commission, had told the committee that there had been "honest difference of opinion" among the three members of the commission, and that he had voted for the "second" candidate on the ground of saving to the postal department. He said he remembered nothing of any representations of the priest. When that same appointment came up for consideration again a year or so ago, all three commissioners voted for re-appointment of the man in dispute.
But the so-called "grave matter" turned into something of a comedy when Dr. Newton Mac-Tavish, the remaining member of the Civil Service Commission, took the witness stand. Dr. MaeTavish's evidence was that like Commissioner Tremblay, he considered the question of site was a concern of the post office, not of the Civil Service Commission, as the post office had the authority to refuse the appointee of the commission on that ground, if the officials liked.
And what was the determining factor in Dr. MacTavish's choice of the "third" candidate? Not representations of the priest. Doctor Mae-Tavish said he could not recall that any such considerations had come before him. The factor which weighed with him was simply that the "second" candidate was 62 years old, "and getting near the retirement age," while the "third" candidate, whose choice he approved, was 47 years old.
The fact that a "priest" had made representations to a member of the commission was discussed at some length by the parliamentary 41761-180
committee. Mr. Tremblay said he did not consider such representations were likely to be "political" and he took them into account in view of their nature. He had never seen the priest before then, he said.
It is interesting to recall that when the question of members of parliament having a voice in post office appointments cropped up in the committee, the chairman, Mr. J. Earl Lawson, remarked that members of parliament might be considered "reputable persons." Might not the same consideration be accorded to a "parish priest"? Roman Catholic or Protestant?
And what is the real situation in the matter of post office appointments? Take this extract from the evidence of Mr. E. J. Underwood, chief superintendent post office service:
Mr. Maclnnis:	You do not hear so much
about the appointment as about the dismissal?
Witness: There, you put your finger on the sore spot. If you could do something to assist in that matter you would be our everlasting friend.
Mr. Maclnnis:	Could you not give us a
suggestion as to how to remedy that?
Witness:	I am afraid that is not in the
scope of post office affairs.
A return tabled in the House of Commons showed that 596 postmasters had been dismissed since August, 1930. Now if the parliamentary committee are really looking for a "grave matter" to deal with, here's their chance. And according to Mr. Underwood, who ought to know, they can thus make themselves "everlasting friends" of the postal department. Of course, that has nothing to do with the Civil Service Commission.
On April 25 of this year the Ottawa Journal published another editorial, which is very much to the point, and from which I should like to quote a paragraph:
Last week we had a great hullabaloo over the fact that a priest, exercising his rights as a reputable citizen, recommended that a certain person be appointed as a rural postmaster. Why a clergyman, no matter of what faith, should not have the right to suggest that a certain person would make a competent public official, is beyond The Journal. Yet simply because the advice of this priest was admitted to have been a factor-one among others-in the making of this particular appointment, we had a member of the committee broadcasting to the country that the revelation was a "grave" one, that it all hut constituted a crisis.
Those extracts are absolutely to the point, and I am very sorry that some members of the committee were so narrow minded as to make such a fuss about a recommendation given by a priest who was acting as a private citizen, as he had a perfect right to do. The recommendation of a priest is like that of a mayor, a municipal councillor, or any other man in good standing.


Mr. DUGUAY:: Were they both of the same party?


Jean-François Pouliot: Priests have no party
politics, as my hon. friend, who is a French Canadian, knows very well.

2858	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report of Committee


Joseph Léonard Duguay: It is because I know very well that I asked the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my 'hon. friend knows it very well he should tell the members of the committee. My hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) was the first to protest in this matter. I hope my hon. friend will tell his friends; it will be a good thing for the country at large, in the interests of peace, order and good government.


James Langstaff Bowman: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the recommendation to which he refers was sent to one of the commissioners personally and that it was not brought to the attention of the other commissioners or placed on file?


Jean-François Pouliot: Is that what my hon. friends find grave?


James Langstaff Bowman: I am asking the hon. gentleman that question in all sincerity.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask my hon. friend if he finds that grave; if he does not I will not answer his question.


James Langstaff Bowman: If the 'hon. gentleman will permit me, in answer to the question he asks may I say that what I considered grave about the matter was not that the representation was made by a priest; it might just as well 'have been made by a United Church clergyman or by any other minister of the gospel. The fact that it was made to the commissioner and not brought to the attention of the whole commission, and not placed on file so that all might have the advantage of the recommendation that had been made, was the point that was considered grave.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will answer that in a very simple way. Here are three commissioners. Are we forbidden to speak to one of them unless the other two are there also? When they meet together they sit behind closed doors and no one can approach them. If I have something to say to one of the commissioners must I call in the other two at the same time?
Mr. LaVERGNE : If my hon. friend will allow me, does he not think that commissioner should have informed his confreres as to the recommendation?


Jean-François Pouliot: First of all, the letter was on file, but either the letter was right or it was wrong.


James Langstaff Bowman: Pardon me; the letter was not on file, and Mr. Tremblay stated that he did not communicate to the other commissioners the fact that the recommendation had

been made. More than that, he said the letter formed the basis of the decision at which he arrived.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon. gentleman will not deny that there was a copy of that letter on file before the committee.


James Langstaff Bowman: Yes, subsequently it might have been placed on file.


Jean-François Pouliot: The letter was addressed either to the Postmaster General or to the commissioner; at any rate it was a private letter, but a copy was left on file for the information of anyone who wanted to see it. Was the letter good or was it wrong? If it was good it was all right to leave it there, and even if it was wrong you cannot prevent a man from writing a letter. It was not communicated by Commissioner Tremblay to anyone else; it was left on file so that anyone interested could read it.
Mr. LaVERGNE: It was not the priest who was wrong; it was the commissioner, who should have communicated that information to the other commissioners.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad my hon. friend interjected that statement, because he admits that when a recommendation is made by a parish priest it is not a matter of grave concern but is something that should be communicated to others.
Now I will continue with my argument, and what has been said does not lessen my admiration for the editorial writer of the Journal. I pity the Postmaster General very much; the Tories of the province of Quebec must give him a great deal of worry. We have proof of that in the statistics given out by the Postmaster General. I pity rather than blame him; when we see the long file of Tories who come to ask help in order to get jobs we realize that he is in rather an awkward position. It is not those who are elected that give the more trouble. Those who have been defeated are the worst, and I am sure they cause the Postmaster General more trouble than his colleagues in this house do. But how do they proceed? If we are to place more postmasters under the jurisdiction of the minister we must inquire what procedure is followed in connection with their appointments and dismissals. I asked the following question and the answer I received is given:
1. To how many postmasters, in each province, since August, 1930, the letters and forms shown at pages 6 and 11 inclusive, of the file 244, S.P. No. 257, of April 1, 1932, have been forwarded.
MAY 12, 1932	2S59
Civil Service-Report of Committee
2.	Number of postmasters, in each province, who forwarded their resignation, after having received these letters and forms.
3.	Number of postmasters who were dismissed, in each province, after having duly filled in and readdressed the said letters or forms to the Post Office Department.
Some letters were drafted, from September 27, 1930, to April 9, 1931, threatening them with dismissal if they did not resign or did not take affidavits to the effect that they had not taken part in politics. These forms have been tabled in a return. They were sent to 358 postmasters in Quebec. Sixteen postmasters resigned when they received them and 206 were dismissed after they had duly filled in and readdressed the forms.


An hon. MEMBER:: They were trying to catch up with the former Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: That was done in eighteen months as against five years.
Mr. POI7LIOT: The province of Quebec, according to these statistics, is the banner province. I asked a question as to how many postmasters in each province since 1930 these letters and forms had been sent. This is the information:
Province	Letters	sent
Nova Scotia	 85
Prince Edward Island	 7
New Brunswick	 90
Quebec	 358
Ontario	 19
Manitoba	 17
Saskatchewan	 35
Alberta	 11
British Columbia	 1
The numbers of postmasters who resigned were:
Nova Scotia	 4
Prince Edward Island	
New Brunswick	 8
Quebec	 16
Ontario	 2
Manitoba	 1
Saskatchewan	 1
Alberta	 1
British Columbia	
The postmasters dismissed were:
Nova Scotia	 38
Prince Edward Island	 5
New^ Brunswick	 46
Quebec	 206
Ontario	 5
Manitoba	 5
Saskatchewan	 9
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Again, Quebec is the banner province. I asked the follov'ing question and the answer I received appears after it:
1. How many postmasters had to undergo inquiries for political partisanship since August, 1930: (a) each month, and (b) in each province?
41761-180 ^
2. In how many cases: (a) each month since August 1, 1930, and (b) in each province, did the Postmaster General require a written complaint accompanied by an affidavit before granting an inquiry for political partisanship?
The answer was:
In view of the fact that it will take some time to prepare the answer, it is recommended that this question stand as an order for return.
The information, when brought down, was:
Prince Edw'ard Island	 7
Nova Scotia	 60
New Brunswick	 56
Quebec	 309
Ontario	 6
Manitoba		11
Saskatchewan	 19
Alberta	 4
British Columbia	
Total	 472
The next question I asked had reference to the cost of investigation in each of the departments. In the Department of Agriculture there were ten inquiries at a cost of $759.99; in the Department of Immigration and Colonization three inquiries at a cost of $90.66; in the Department of Indian Affairs, three inquiries at a total cost of $312.51; in the Department of Marine, there were 131 inquiries at a total cost of $8,090.74; in the Department of National Defence, three inquiries at a cost of $248.84; in the Department of Customs, thirty-three inquiries at a total cost of $3,536.60; in the Department of Pensions and National Health, eleven inquiries at a total cost of $1,191.99; in the Department of the Postmaster General, 474 inquiries at a total cost of $33,103.64; in the Department of Public Works, nine inquiries at a total cost of $976; and in the Department of Railways and Canals, the total cost was $677.48, no information being given as to the number of investigations held. Again, Quebec was the banner province.
Now, the question is, who held these investigations? I had a question on the order paper in reference to a man named Garon, a commissioner appointed to carry out investigations in the province of Quebec. This man was sworn in October last, but the fact is that he had held many inquiries before being sworn at all. Indeed, all the investigations of which I have complained had been conducted by him before he was sworn. A justice of the peace must take an oath before he can discharge his functions, and yet we find that this gentleman held investigations without being sworn. In view of this fact, I would urge upon the Postmaster General that the moneys paid out to this man in fees and so forth
2860	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
before he was sworn be refunded to the department. I do not blame the Postmaster General but those who brought pressure to bear upon him, those who wanted to disturb the social order regardless of the fact that most of the men whom they were throwing out of employment were not guilty of political partisanship. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that any postmaster, whether he be Liberal or Conservative, who is attending satisfactorily to his work in an effort to support his family, and who keeps quiet during elections, deserves to be left alone.
Mr. LaVERGNE: That is hard on the hon. member for Gloucester.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is not Postmaster General now.
Mr. LaVERGNE: He was.


Jean-François Pouliot: As a matter of fact, he has been victimized and that is why he understands and sympathizes with the miseries of others. The Postmaster General informed me that all dismissals in my county were made after certain investigations but not always after inquiries. But more than that, the postmasters in the country were affected not only by direct dismissal but by the closing of post offices, and in this regard Quebec is once again the banner province. In Nova Scotia 85 post offices were abolished; in Prince Edward Island 2; in New Brunswick 54; in Quebec 91; in Ontario 49; in Manitoba 19; in Saskatchewan 57; in Alberta 49; and in British Columbia 30; total, 436. I asked the following question:
How many postmasters, in each province, since August, 1930, lost their position owing to change of site of the post office, ordered by the Postmaster General?
The answer was:
Ontario	 3
Quebec	 23
Nova Scotia	 23
New Brunswick	 12
Prince Edward Island	Nil
Manitoba	 2
Saskatchewan	 4
Alberta	 5
British Columbia	 3
Total	 75
Then the following question:
How many new post offices were established in each province, since August, 1930?
The answer was:
Nova Scotia	 4
Prince Edward Island	Nil
New Bnmswick	 4
Quebec	 44
Ontario	 41
Manitoba	 11
Saskatchewan		33
Alberta	 57
British Columbia	 16
[Mr. Pouliot.l


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: Has the
hon. member a list of the postmasters dismissed from 1921 to 1926?


Jean-François Pouliot: Translation): I shall furnish it immediately after the house rises.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Why wait until the house rises.


Joseph-François Laflèche: I would
prefer that the hon. member read it now to the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: As my hon. friend from
Richmond-Wolfe has so much information in regard to everything, including former speakers, he should have that information himself, and it is only because he wants to be funny, only for a joke, that he asks that question. He has only to look at his own file to get the information. I asked this question:
In how many cases since August, 1930, has a postmaster charged with active political partisanship been replaced temporarily or permanently by a person making the charge or giving evidence against him?
The following was the answer:
In view of the fact that it will take some time to prepare the answer, it is recommended that this question stand as an order for return.
In complaining about a man in office and in an effort to get the job, people can swear anything. Matters are worse when oaths are apparently taken before those who have no authority to take them. Under these circumstances it is possible to lie. I know of a very unworthy gentleman who made a complaint against a ilawabiding citizen. Nothing was proven against the officeholder. A charge was laid which was not founded on facts and was contradicted, but the minister acted on the recommendation for dismissal. That sort of thing I cannot understand.
I do not complain because investigations are held to find out a man holding a government position has been guilty of political partisanship. I do complain, however, that judgments are rendered before witnesses are heard. In 99 out of 100 cases which I have read the members complain that-
Mr. LaVERGNE: That is a very serious statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is?
Mr. LaVERGNE: The statement the hon. member has just made.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have not said anything
yet.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	My hon. friend said
judgments are rendered, before evidence is taken.

Civil Service-Report oj Committee


Jean-François Pouliot: There are cases where commissioners have said, after investigation, "There is nothing against that man." Then they have sent reports to the Postmaster General accusing those postmasters of political partisanship. I could give names to my hon. friend, and when I have finished I shall give them to him.
Mr. LaVERGNE : That was a very serious statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely it is serious and
true. Very fortunately for him my hon. friend was not here at the beginning of the session; otherwise he would not be surprised at my statement. More serious things happened at the beginning of the session than have been happening lately. He would have seen things that would have astounded him, particularly as he was here in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden. He would have been very much surprised at the very serious things that happened this session.
I am not opposing investigations. When I was interrupted by my genial friend from Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), I was about to say that I was very much surprised the members of the committee have counted the decisions of dissident commissioners. They forgot that Mr. Justice Holmes, of the Supreme Court of United States, was a most distinguished judge, that his dissident judgments have been published in book form, and are admired by many people. The civil service commissioners may have different opinions, and of that we cannot complain. I do complain, however, about a commissioner who, after an investigation for political partisanship, makes a statement that there is nothing against a man, and then makes a report against him. I am very pleased to note my hon. friend from Montmagny catches the point, and I hope the Postmaster General will do the same. It is a most unfortunate thing when a man who has been appointed by the Postmaster General takes a very active part in a provincial election. I made a charge in the house, and the Postmaster General said there would be an investigation. When it will be conducted I do not know, but I want it. This man, a postmaster, during the last provincial election campaign, went in his automobile and bought some liquor for canvassing. On his return he transferred the liquor to other vehicles. I want an investigation before a sworn commissioner, not one of those chaps who is good only to sign accounts and to give most unfair reports about the poor people
with whom he comes in contact. They are worse than the Indians, because they have pity for nobody. I ask the Postmaster General to do something in this connection, or he may depend upon it that what I am now saying is only to give him a good taste, or in French, "lui donner bonne bouche," as compared with what I will have to say when his estimates are under discussion.
The people in my constituency have been treated most unfairly. I am strongly against the proposal to place all post offices with less than $3,000 revenue under the control of the Post Office Department. My opposition is not because I have no faith in the minister; the fact is that I think he is a most, able man, and I have great respect for him. My criticism is that he listens too much to the complaints of those people who should be beside the wailing wall in Jerusalem and not here in Canada lamenting and complaining about some of their fellow-citizens who are doing their best work for the country as postmasters and public servants.
We are asked to adopt a report putting more postmasterships under the sole control of the Post Office Department. For the sake of the minister it would be much better if they were left under the control of the Civil Service Commission. That commission can and does deal fairly. When the Liberal party was in power we did not receive all we wanted from the commission. At times I wrote to them, exercising only the right held by anybody in the country. For instance, they appointed as assistant customs collector in my constituency a man who in 1926 when Mr. Meighen visited Riviere du Loup had gone from house to house asking people to put flags in their windows and to do some special decorating. I did not complain about his appointment, because it was supposed to have been made under the merit system, and that man was judged as well qualified. If the Civil Service Commission is to be given a fair deal, first of all we must see to it that the merit system is really a merit system. A decision should not be made by a man who is not familiar with the applicant but by a man who is capable of giving a fair judgment.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal only
with one phase of this report. First may I congratulate the chairman and the committee upon having achieved unanimity, but 1 cannot congratulate them on certain features of the report, particularly the features to which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. 2862	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report of Committee
Garland) referred, and to which I am now going to direct my remarks. I refer to section 25 of the report, which is as follows:
25. From the evidence adduced and in view of the submissions of officials of the Post Office Department, your committee recommends that order in council P.C. 1053, dated June 29, 1922, as amended by order in council P.C. 17/1751, dated September 12, 1929, be further amended So as to provide for the exemption from the operation of the Civil Service Act of postmasters in revenue post offices where the revenue does not exceed $3,000 per annum.
That recommendation means that in all post offices where revenues are from $400 to
S3,000,	the incumbents of those offices who now hold their positions by virtue of the Civil Service Act will be subject to summary dismissal, and new appointments may be made without any of the formalities prescribed by the Civil Service Act. I propose to take the strongest exception to that procedure.
I do not agree with what has been said with regard to the present position of these men. The chairman of the committee, when I questioned him, intimated that they were not under the Civil Service Act. I have respectfully to take exception to that statement. The senior hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) also suggested that they were not under the Civil Service Act. In order to refresh my memory I have looked at the act again and I want to put on record the provisions and the classifications therein and to submit to the house that those men are under the Civil Service Act in every sense of the word and entitled just as fully to whatever privileges and benefits are intended by the act to men in salaried positions. The difference is that they are not under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, which is a different act altogether. I want to make that clear because I presume the chairman of the committee, having made the statement he did, has some authority for it and will wish my reasons for differing from him. My reasons are these: in the Civil Service Act, which is chapter 22 of the revised statutes of Canada, section 2 (a) defines "civil service" as follows:
"Civil Service" means the civil positions and employees in and under the several departments of the government of Canada, and in the offices of the Auditor General, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Governor General's Secretary, the Public Archives, the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, the Civil Service Commission, and all other civil positions under and persons in the civil employ of His Majesty, but not including the members of any commission or board appointed by the governor in council.
Paragraph (d) of section 2 defines "employee" as follows:
(Mr. Ralston.]
"Employee" means and includes officers, clerks, and employees in the civil service, but does not include deputy heads.
Let me point out to the house that the words "civil servants" never appear in that act; "civil servants" are not defined in it. "Civil servants" are defined in the Civil Service Superannuation Act for another purpose entirely. If hon. members read the Civil Service Act through, they will find the people referred to there are not referred to as civil servants, but the "service" is referred to and the people for whom positions are provided are referred to as "employees." Let me instance one or two sections. Section 13 reads:
The rate of compensation of an employee . . . shall beso and so. Section 14 also refers to the rate of compensation of an "employee," and in subsection 3 of this section the word "employee" is again used. Section 15 uses the term "temporary employee." When we look at the crux of the act which takes the jurisdiction away from the governor in council to make these appointments, it is not the term "civil servants" that is used, but in section 19 the words are:
Save as otherwise provided in this act or in any regulation made hereunder, neither the governor in council nor any minister, officer of the crown, board or commission, shall have power to appoint or promote any "employee" to a position in the civil service.
I submit on the face of the section itself, that ds so.


James Earl Lawson: The section which the hon. member has just read proves that they are not civil servants.


James Layton Ralston: I never said that they
were civil servants; I said that they were under the Civil Service Act. My hon. friend does not seem to appreciate the distinction. Civil servants are not mentioned in the act; they are mentioned in the Civil Service Superannuation Act, which applies only to a part of those in the civil service, but the whole service is included in the other act-the Civil Service Act-and they are there referred to by the comprehensive term "employees," and they are all entitled to the benefits of that act.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Under the Civil Service Superannuation Act there would be a definition.


James Layton Ralston: Under that act there is
a definition of "civil servants"; that is for the purpose of superannuation and has nothing to do with what we are talking about, namely, the right of appointment and dismissal which is dealt with under the Civil Service Act.

Civil Service-Report of Committee
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Does my hon. friend
not think the Civil Service Superannuation Act would establish what is a civil servant?


James Layton Ralston: That act does define a "civil servant," but I am not discussing the Civil Service Superannuation Act. I am admitting at the start that revenue postmasters are not entitled to superannuation, but superannuation is provided for in the Civil Service Superannuation Act and not in the Civil Service Act. What I am discussing is taking away the right to appointment or promotion, the preference in the case of returned soldiers and the procedure with regard to dismissal which, under the Civil Service Act, is well established; but if these men are taken out of the Civil Service Act, they are absolutely at the mercy of any friend of the government.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Unless they are only
employees.


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I cannot make the situation any plainer. People who are defined in the Civil Service Act are employees in the service; they are the ones for whom I am now pleading; they are the rural postmasters whom it is now proposed not to consider as employees in the service but to take out of the operation of the Civil Service Act. Let me point out what took place at the time the Civil Service Commission was appointed. If Mr. Underwood and Mr. Cooli-can are right that it was never intended the revenue postmasters should be under the Civil Service Act, then they would not be included in the classification which was made under that act, because surely parliament would never ratify a classification which included revenue postmasters under the Civil Service Act when it did not intend that they should be there at all.


James Earl Lawson: They did many more
remarkable things than that in that classification of the civil service of Canada.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend be
patient for a moment? I am talking about what parliament did.


James Earl Lawson: I am talking about what
parliament did too.


James Layton Ralston: With all due respect to
Mr. Coolican and Mr. Underwood, I say that parliament was the body to decide what was the status of those employees. In 1919 parliament passed an act, chapter 10, in which by section 42 they confirmed the classes of positions and the rates of compensation "in the classification of the civfi service of Canada, signed by the commission and dated the first day of October, 1919, and submitted to parliament." The words are that this classification and rates of compensation-
-are hereby ratified and confirmed, and the civil service shall, as far as practicable, be classified in accordance therewith.
I have under my hand a copy of the classification which was made in 1919 and confirmed by that act and although Mr. Underwood and Mr. Coolican say that parliament never intended that these rural postmasters should be under this act, I find on page 549 of the classification a provision for "Postmaster (grade 1 office)." Under that heading I find:
Compensation: annual: 50 per cent of the first $1,000 of revenue, 25 per cent of all revenue over $1,000 and up to $10,000; minimum salary $60 a year.
Those are revenue postmasters; they are in the classification which was approved by parliament. In the face of that, I am not concerned about what Mr. Coolican or Mr. Underwood have to say as to their opinion of what was intended by parliament. I take the intention of parliament from what appears in black and white in the act.


Peter John Veniot: And the minimum compensation was increased to $65 a year.


James Layton Ralston: There have been from
time to time changes in the percentage of revenue which is to be received by the postmasters, but those officials remain in the Civil Service Act classification to-day. They are not people quite outside the Civil Service Act to whom no consideration is to be given, as would be the case were Mr. Coolican and Mr. Underwood correct in their assumption regarding parliament's intention. Therefore there can be no question at all that these rural postmasters in post offices with revenue between $400 and $3,000 come under the Civil Service Act.
Then there is a provision that certain classes may be excluded from the Civil Service Act. It is in section 59 of the act as it stands today. Section 59 reads:
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-
Note this:
-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.
I submit that that is the only way the committee can accomplish the removal of these postmasters from the Civil Service Act; not by
2864	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
saying they were not intended to be under the act but by admitting that they are at present under the act and by having the commission invoke the section I have just read and exclude them, but only if the circumstances are shown which the section mentions. Away back in 1922 an order in council, P.C. 1053, was passed in which the Civil Service Commission did recommend exempting from the Civil Service Act appointments to positions where the salary was not in excess of $200 per annum. Note this, that the commission itself recommended that provision and the governor in council approved it. Other positions were recommended to be exempted at the same time; for instance, positions for which the compensation provided consists of fees pertaining to the office, and positions of an honorary character' to which no compensation is attached; the position of orderly in the office of the governor general's secretary; the position of Indian interpreter, Department of Indian Affairs, which it can be readily understood was not a position that could be advantageously dealt with under the Civil Service Act; the position of physician performing the duties of port physician under the Department of Health at various ports, which are specified in a long list in the order in council; positions in the following classes of skilled and unskilled labour and domestic service, such as blacksmith; and that is followed by two pages of other positions ending with culler, running all the way from sawmill foreman to laundress, upholsterer, electrician foreman, sign painter, and so one. That order in council exempted all these special classes of employees from the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
May I say in passing that that exemption of positions up to $200 salary did not begin in 1922. It was contained in an order in council, P.C. 1694, passed in 1919, very soon after the Civil Service Act was passed. This was embodied in order in council 1053 of 1922, to which I have referred, and that continued to be the rule until in 1929 a slight amendment was passed and postmastei's in offices where the revenue did not exceed $400 were excluded. That was really the same office as the one to which the $200 salary applied because the postmasters had been getting fifty per cent of the revenue and two hundred dollars' salary represented fifty per cent of a revenue of $400. The postmaster's percentage was raised to 70 per cent and the order in council passed in 1929 simply changed the orovision so that the text was a $400 revenue

instead of a $200 salary. In other words they continued exactly the same maximum revenue as before.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, before recess I had, I hope, convinced the house that rural postmasters in offices where the revenue is between $400 and $3,000 are members of the Civil Service of Canada and come under the Civil Sendee Act. I had made the distinction between employees of the civil service under the Civil Service Act and those who are designated by a different term, namely, civil servants, under the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
It may be asked, what advantage or benefit is there in being an appointee under the Civil Service Act, as these men are. I am not going into the matter in detail, but I would remind the committee that there are certain statutory provisions with regard to promotion contained in the Civil Service Act which apply to these men whom it is now proposed to-exclude from the benefit of that act. Provision for their compensation is made under the-Civil Service Act, and any increases in compensation are dealt with by the Civil Service-Commission. The duties which these men are performing, and the value of their services to the public, are all subject to appraisement by the machinery of the Civil Service Commission. Provision is made in the Civil Service Act for holidays-an express statutory provision of which these men also have the benefit. A very important provision is there, namely, that appointees to this service must be British subjects; that is contained in section 33. If these positions are taken out of the act these provisions do not apply. Further than that what are the provisions of the Civir Service Act, and what are the rules and regulations, which govern the tenure of office of these men who are in the service? As we know, the provision has not only been recognized by this house as stated long ago by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but it has been embodied in an order in council, and it has been restated' by the right hon. Prime Minister when on this side of the house and again since the present government took office, namely, that these postmasters hold their office and cannot be dismissed for partisanship unless there has-been a certificate by a member of parliament

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
that of his own knowledge they are guilty of partisanship, or there has been an investigation and an adverse decision given by the investigator. That is very important. That is the tenure under which these men hold office, and it has been acknowledged and recognized both by practice and by order in council. The proposal now is that these men shall be taken out of the Civil Service Act, that this practice and this order in council shall not apply, but simply by the action of the minister or the action of the governor in council, whether on recommendation or not-and from some things that have transpired in this house in the last week or two I do not know whether the government would even require a recommendation'-but in any case without a reason being given these men might be summarily dismissed from office without any charge, without any investigation, without any responsibility being taken by any one except by the minister concerned. I submit that that is not in the interests of the public service, and that men who are in those positions at this time-appointed thereto under the Civil Service Act which provides that their tenure of office should be much more permanent than that-have a right to complain if now this house approves of a scheme whereby their positions will be simply at the whim of tire government.
That is as far as dismissals are concerned Now, what about appointments? Supposing that all these men, or a large proportion of them, are dismissed. Under the Civil Service Act when one of these positions became vacant the Civil Service Commission would be requested by the department to advertise for applications, to examine and rate the applicants, and to certify to the minister that such and such a person is entitled to the position. In connection with that there is an express statutory provision that the commission in making the recommendation shall establish a special list on which shall be put the names of those applicants who were on active service, have suffered disability and have not been reestablished. These overseas men thus have a superpreference. It is further required that a list shall be made of applicants who were on active service with His Majesty's land or naval forces or with the forces of the allies, and also that in the same list shall be included the widows of those who died on active service. Those men and women are put on the special list and are entitled to the next preference after the applicants with a disability. What is the effect of these preferences? That if those men get the minimum number of marks required for qualification
they shall have the position in preference to a non ex-soldier who may have very much higher marks. There is another provision that, the age limit which applies to civilian applicants does not apply to ex-servicemen, and that so long as the commission certify the ex-soldier applicant is in physical condition to perform the duties of the office he shall have that office notwithstanding the fact that there is a prescribed age limit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if these positions were to be filled, and the present law were in force, that would mean ex-servicemen and widows would have that statutory preference, a preference that has been in force since 1919. There have been one or two occasions in this house when attempts have been made to reduce the preference. Only a year ago it was suggested that soldiers of the allies should not be given that preference. I appreciated that the preference was pretty wide in that respect, but I felt it was the entering wedge if any attempt were made to whittle away the preference which the Civil Service Act laid down and I opposed it.
What I have said so far is what would happen if any of these positions were vacant under present conditions where they are under the Civil Service Act. But the committee report proposes to exclude them from that act and to wipe out these advantages, and again to-night I protest against the proposal which is now being made that these preferences and other advantages under the Civil Service Act shall be done away with. I realize quite fully that under order in council 1053, which is referred to in the report of the committee, there is a provision that section 39-which was the old section of the Civil Service Act providing for the ex-soldier preference-shall apply; but having an order in council administered by a government is a very different thing from having an express statutory provision administered by an independent commission. Within the past three or four months I have had the experience of seeing how far one department of this government is prepared to go in disregarding the claims of ex-servicemen. I gave the details of the case the other night, and I will just outline it now. An ex-serviceman who had earned the military cross on the field, had been a resident of the county all his life and had given faithful service in his position, was summarily dismissed without any reason being given or any complaint being made, and a man appointed in his place who had been a resident in the county only five 3'ears and had no overseas service whatever. He was the doctor appointed to look after the Indians in

Civil Service-Report o/ Committee
a portion of my consituency. The expense of appointing the new man to attend the Indians would be double the expense of the ex-service man if he made only one call each year on each person entrusted to his care, the reason being the travelling fees of the new man who was not centrally located. As a matter of fact, we have not yet found out on whose instigation that change was made. The minister rose in his place and announced that he proposed to accept the recommendations of his colleagues or of those in whom he had confidence in making dismissals, even though they concerned ex-service men, without any reasons being given.
Under those circumstances I think I have a right, on behalf of the ex-service men, to look pretty critically on a proposal which places in the hands of the government the jobs of about 3,500 public servants, many of whom are ex-service men who, if this recommendation is accepted, might be dismissed summarily without regard for their preference and have their places filled by civilians, nominees of party friends. The old order in council applied to only a limited class of officials, that is, those in offices where the revenue was $400 or less, as well as certain artisans and labourers expressly mentioned in the order. This provision, however, will apply to about 3,500 office holders all over this dominion, in rural municipalities and villages where the remuneration may be from $200 to $1,300 per year. I submit that, with the pressure I know is exerted on my hem. friends opposite, it will be pretty difficult for them to resist the demands which will be made that they exercise their powers under this proposal.
I say therefore, Mr. Speaker, that because it. gives the government the chance to make summary dismissals and to disregard the returned soldiers' preference altogether, if they so desire, this recommendation should not be adopted. Even leaving out the ex-service men, and on the broader basis that officials should have assurance that they will be continued in office while they give good service, this great body of officials in these positions should not be subject to the will or the whim of any government or any minister, particularly in view of the fact that ever since 1919 we have adopted exactly the opposite principle. While I desire in every way possible to associate myself with the desire for economy, I do look askance at the suggestions now made that it is going to be more economical to appoint these men in the way suggested by thi3 report. As I have said, for the last thirteen years we have had the present provision, under 
which we seem to have done very well, and I have not heard any complaint about t'he expense. Ex-service men have been appointed to these jobs under the statutes of Canada, and it seems to me that this economy, which at most may mean doing away with the sending out of advertisements to those parts of the country where there are vacancies and relieving the staff of the Civil Service Commission of the necessity of looking over these papers and deciding who should be appointed, will amount to very little in comparison with the damage which will be done to the public service. I believe that the adoption of this recommendation will give a very serious setback to the merit system and all that it means in connection wth appointments to the public service.
There are other matters also in respect of which I am very loath to give my support, but I am not going to deal with them. I submit that this is an outstanding example of where the committee, with all due respect, have gone wrong and made a recommendation which this house should not accept. On behalf of the great body of public servants who will be affected, and particularly on behalf of the ex-service men, I protest against this recommendation.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If hon. members will
allow me, the motion is that the house concur in the report of the select committee on civil service matters. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) moved in amendment that the report be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to delete the first six lines of recommendation No. 25, from the word "from" to the word "annum." The hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson), who moved the original motion, has taken objection to the amendment, contending that it is not in order in that it is mandatory and instructs the committee to delete a portion of its report.
Without deciding the question of order, the difficulty can be quickly solved if the house will permit the hon. member for Bow River to withdraw the amendment now before the house and substitute the following:
That the motion be amended by the addition of the following words: "With the exception of the first paragraph of section 25."
The hon. member for Bow River asks leave to substitute this amendment. If this amendment is adopted the original motion will read:
That the second report of the special committee on the civil service and the Civil Service Act be concurred in, with the exception of the first paragraph of section 25.

Civil Service-Report of Committee
Shall leave be granted the hon. member to substitute the proposed amendment for the one now before the house?
And leave having been granted;


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: In rising to say a few words in connection with the report of this committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, I wish first to express to the chairman of the committee my appreciation, of his courtesy and fairness to myself particularly, as the one Labour member on the committee. I do this because the chairman and myself are perhaps quite far apart with regard to politics, economics and social questions and we mignt differ on other occasions in the house, so I wish to express my appreciation now.
In my opinion this is a very good report. As the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) has pointed out, in order to get a unanimous report of this kind there must be a great deal of give and take between the members of the committee, so it is not strange that when the report comes to the house there should be some parts of it to which hon. members miay object. But I submit that this report, presented by a committee representative of the three distinct groups in the house, is a much better report than could have been brought forward by any one of the three groups. In other words, I think it is a better report than could have been brought in by the four Conservative members of the committee; I think it is a better report than oould have been brought in by the two Liberal members of the committee, and I am almost convinced that it is as good a report as could have been brought in by the Labour member.
The principal objection appears to be to section 25, which excludes from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission postmasters where the revenue is under $3,000. It might be well to note that at one time all revenue postmasters came under the Civil Service Act, but the Civil Service Commission asked that those receiving under $400 should be excluded from the operations of the act. The recommendation of the committee on this occasion is brought forward largely because of the evidence given by officials of the Post Offjce Department. In my opinion the Post Office Department made these recommendations not because they had any great fault to find with the appointments made by the Civil Service Commission, but because of the delay and expense contingent upon appointments so made. Let me quote from the evidence of Mr. Underwood. From his evidence
I take it that there is no great abjection to the Civil Service Commission making these appointments, but it is felt that in view of the number of dismissals leading to a great many appointments, more expedition is desirable. If something were done to curtail dismissals there would be very little objection to the appointment of postmasters by the commission. Answering a question by myself, he gave the following information. I asked him:
Q. You do not hear so much about the appointment as about the dismissals?-A. There, you put your finger on the sore spot. If you could do something to assist in that matter you would be our everlasting friend.
Further on, I asked him this question:
Q. How are those appointments made now? -A. By the Postmaster General, whichever way he determines.
This refers to post offices under $100. He went on to say:
He may get information from whichever source he deems advisable. He may use the district superintendent, or he may not.
Q. And is that appointment quite satisfactory?-A. Perfectly satisfactory. We have never had any trouble in regard to that. We have less trouble in regard to those than any others. You touched the point this morning when you touched on dismissals. There is where the trouble comes, not in the appointments. We have no trouble with regard to appointments.
Further on, I asked him the following question:
Have you any suggestion to offer as to any improvement in that? Supposing that we assume that the appointment can be made better by the Postmaster General or by the department ?
His answer was:
Just as well, not better, just as well, but more economically.
As regards these appointments, it seems to me that the whole point is this, that they can be made more expeditiously and more economically by the department than by the commission. But in saying that I must add that in my opinion the department is largely to blame for the delays with the commission in making the appointment.
I do not wish to go into every part of the report, and I will only say this, that most of the shortcomings of the present Civil Service Commission are due to the way in which the commissioners themselves are appointed. You cannot have a politically-appointed commission without its being somewhat under the influence of those who appointed it, and if the present government, in appointing the new commission, wishes to have one that will

286S
Civil Service-Report of Committee
function in the best manner possible, it will have to take due care that no taint of political partisanship shall attach to the appointment. How that can be accomplished I do not know, but I am sure that if the government desires to have it done it can find a way. As I said before, the report is not perfect, but generally speaking I regard it as a very good report, although looking from this perspective at the amendment offered by the hon. member for Bow River, I will not say that it would not be an improvement on the committee's report.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: It is not my intention to delay the house discussing the report generally, because I shall have little or nothing to say except with regard to section 25. My remarks will be confined to that section, which is the subject of an amendment proposed by the 'hon. member for Bow River. It is to me a matter of regret that that recommendation has been embodied in the report. I cannot help feeling that were that recommendation to be adopted it would be a retrograde step.
Unquestionably there have been some things about the Civil Service Commission and about the way in which they have carried out their duties that are open to criticism and that have been the subject of common knowledge for years past. At the same time it does not seem to me to be the proper way of remedying that difficulty to take such action as is suggested in the report. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) has already pointed out, very completely and comprehensively, I think, the objections to that report, both as regards the men who already occupy positions which are involved and as regards the procedure that would be followed when those positions came to be filled again. While undoubtedly the method pursued in the past has occasioned some labour and extra work to some of the officials whose names have been mentioned in connection with the report, it does not seem to me that this is any good reason why that should be taken into consideration. Nor do I think that the distinction is well founded which the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson), who has moved the adoption of the report, has tried to draw. That distinction does not appeal to me at all. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth has discussed it from the legal aspect, but as a layman I look at it from the point of view of ordinary common sense, the way in which the average man in the country will look at :t. I do not think that the average man will
'Mr. Maclnnis.f
be disposed for a moment to draw that very fine distinction which the chairman of the committee has drawn in the matter.
I took occasion yesterday to ask the government, whom I thank for their courtesy, to bring down, in order that we might have it at this discussion, a statement of the number of postmasters in cases where the revenue would be iess than $3,000 and those where it would be in excess of that sum. The figures given me are these: number of post offices with revenue under $3,000, 11,021; number of post offices with revenue over $3,000, 1,404. That makes a total of 12,425. I am quite well aware that of the 11,000 mentioned as having revenue less than $3,000 a very large number are in the class of $400 and less. I regret I did not ask the Postmaster General to furnish the figures to show exactly the number of men who would be affected 'by this change.


Mr. ERNST:: Upwards of 7,000 are under $400.


John Livingstone Brown: I understand that only about
7.000	or 8,000 are under the $400 mark, so we have left between 3,000 and 4,000 who will be affected by the change. That is by no means an inconsiderable number. If in the future practices are followed which have been followed in the past by both political parties-and I am making no distinction at this moment-those
3.000	or 4,000 appointments will be within the gift of the defeated member in the constituency. Speaking personally, I cannot understand why members of parliament or defeated members of parliament wish to assume that responsibility. It seems to me they are taking upon themselves something which can be nothing but an increased burden. I think there are perhaps very good grounds for exempting from the operations of the act post offices with revenues under $400. On .many occasions my experience has been that I have had to try to find men to take the offices. On two or three occasions I put myself to a great deal of inconvenience and expense in order to advise the department concerning people who would accept.
I do not wish to continue the discussion at any great length, but I hope when the vote is taken oh the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that this house will state in no uncertain terms that it does not purpose taking a retrograde step. I know there are hon. members on both sides of the house who conscientiously believe that the proposed change would be for the benefit of the service and the country. There are some of us, however, who just as strongly hold the view that the proposed change would be a retrograde step, and for my part I shall vote-

Civil Service-Report of Committee
and I wish I could vote many times-in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Bow River.


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, as one of the members
of the civil service committee may I join with the other members of the committee -who have preceded me in expressing my appreciation of the harmonious manner in which its deliberations were conducted.
After listening to the discussion this afternoon it might seem that had it not been for clause 25, the report would have been accepted by the house without comment. My experience teaches me, however, that if clause 25 had not appeared in the report, hon. members would want to pick holes in some other part of it. The report having been unanimous, hon. members must realize that there was a certain amount of compromise amongst members of the committee. As my Liberal colleague has pointed out, undoubtedly had the report been drafted by the two Grits one might have expected a better report. Had we left it entirely to the member from British Columbia I do not think it would have been accepted at all. It was useless, therefore, even to anticipate a report coming either from my friend from Ottawa and myself or from the Labour member. However, we did agree on the report now before the house, and agreed because there was a give and take attitude. In view of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bow River I think members of the committee should be left free to give expression to their views regarding it. This afternoon I entered the house prepared to give my solid support to the report. If in its wisdom the house sees fit to amend it, I am prepared to submit to its better judgment.
Undoubtedly the outstanding features of the wdiole investigation centred around the personnel of the Civil Service Commission itself. I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), and I think if hon. members were to scan the evidence submitted before the committee they would find that probably there is only one ground upon which we might arrive at the conclusions that we did regarding the three commissioners. Probably Commissioners Tremblay and MacTavish in the exercise of their duties could be accused-at least the evidence proves to me-only of not exercising the discretionary and statutory powers vested in them. There is no other part of the whole evidence which would suggest to me any reason why the treatment meted out to them should have been suggested.
Apparently, as I have said, the whole objection to the report centres around section 25. I was expecting that the government would be in a position to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bow River. May I point out to the house, however, that no matter what is contained in the report, whether hon. members decide to do away with the present personnel of the commission or decide to have one, two or three commissioners, the act distinctly states that there shall be no more than three; otherwise the responsibility as to the number is left with the government.
Another feature of the report which has not been discussed is the recommendation that a select special committee of the house be appointed from year to year to make a yearly survey of the operations of the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Commission. Suppose we allowed clause 25 to go through, and in time it were found that it did not work as some members of the committee and some hon. members of the house believe it will, with the safeguard suggested in the report the condition could be remedied.
After a careful examination of the evidence submitted to the committee I think any person -who views the matter with an unbiased mind will admit that it had grounds on which to make its recommendation-and I am not excepting clause 25. I have been a member of this house since 1925, and as such have sat on many committees. In my experience I have met a good many commissioners, but at no time did I have any personal knowledge of or acquaintance with any of the three civil service commissioners. I met Commissioner Tremblay on one occasion before he became a member of the Civil Service Commission. Therefore I went into that committee unbiased against either the commission or the service. I can assure the house it was an eye-opener to me to sit in on that committee and to investigate the matters which came before us. It gave me an insight into the operation of the Civil Service Act that I do not think I could have acquired in any other way. I am still of opinion that, without the amendment, we could have tried out the recommendation contained in clause 25, because it was based on evidence of those who are unbiased and unprejudiced, officials of the department who are looking just as much as you or I to the efficiency of that department. One thing revealed to our committee was that probably only once in a thousand times was the deputy head of a department not satisfied with an appointment. This proves conclusively that the deputy head of each

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
department of government is always considered and consulted before an appointment is made. If you go a little further into the evidence you will find that one deputy head, appearing before the committee, pointed out definitely that on more than one occasion, when the eligible list was handed to him, he discarded the whole list and suggested to the commission that they compile another. On one occasion he discovered two eligible lists, and then sought to have the appointment made directly by the commission.


John Livingstone Brown: Were these postmasters?


John Vallance: No, other departments of government.


John Livingstone Brown: That is not the question involved.


John Vallance: What I am trying to show is that only once in a thousand times is an appointment made to any department of government that does not meet with the approval of the deputy head. The same thing will apply regarding the appointment of postmasters in offices having a revenue of 83,000 or under. While some people might be a little alarmed about the preference that is extended to returned men, I question if there is one member of parliament who, if the responsibility were given to him to appoint those postmasters, would not give the same consideration and preference to the returned man as we do at present in the case of those little positions that we are asked to fill, because there is no better way to fill them than through the member. There are 245 members of parliament, so that, assuming there is an equal number of positions in each constituency, we would each be responsible for about twelve such postmasterships. I say quite frankly that I am not looking for the responsibility of nominating my share. We are basing clause 25 merely on the evidence submitted before the committee. When I became a member of it, I stated that I would not support anything which was not borne out by the evidence adduced before it. We can find ample support even of clause 25 in the evidence submitted by those who, I think, are looking for greater efficiency within the Post Office Department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), who has just taken his seat, was good enough to suggest that the government might accept the amendment. Because of that observation I think it is desirable that I should state what I conceive the position to be.

In the month of March a committee of this house, consisting of seven members, was selected to deal with the matters with which we are now all familiar. A unanimous report was made by that committee. I far one feel that the house is to be congratulated upon the fact that seven of its members, professing political allegiance to three, or perhaps four parties, should have been able to arrive at a unanimous conclusion with respect to the matters submitted to them. If this were an ordinary matter in which a jury, having seen the witnesses and heard their testimony, had come back with a unanimous verdict, we would have accepted it without question, assuming there had' been no misapprehension as to what the law was as expressed to them iby the judge who charged them.
In this case I have followed the proceedings only casually; I know what transpired from day to day and I am fairly familiar with the evidence. That unanimous report induced me to believe that the House of Commons was a unit with respect to the matter, and the conclusions at which the committee had arrived were the deliberate conclusions which it was believed the evidence warranted the committee in finding. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat confirms that view, as also did the chairman of the committee (Mr. Lawson), who moved concurrence this afternoon. There is therefore a measure of non-partisanship about the proceedings of the committee. I was much struck by the statement of the hon. member who has just taken his seat that when he went into the committee room he was not even acquainted with some of the members of the commission. The whole approach seems to have been non-partisan. There do not appear to have been those manifestations of party feeling that characterize some committees, and there seems to have been a measure of high regard for established rules, procedure and practice in the conduct of the business of the committee. When I heard the report read, I was pleased, as, I fancy, were other members, to see that in these days of stress and strain seven members of our number had unanimously arrived at conclusions which were rather drastic in some respects. When I heard them I confess I was surprised that with regard to some of them the members of the committee were unanimous.
Under these circumstances, so far as the government are concerned, we assumed that the unanimous judgment of the .committee would be unanimously adapted by the house. Such appears -not to be the case. In view of that fact I rise merely to say it is my earnest wish that those who support the government,

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
will exercise their own personal judgment, regardless of their political affiliations, in voting on this matter. It would be wholly unfair to a committee that has laboured as hard as has this committee, if -the government were to apply, in the words of English parliamentary practice, the whip with respect to the matter. After listening to the speeches that I have heard and to the expressions of tender solicitude for others that so characterized the language of the bon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), I made up my mind that what I have suggested was only fair to those who had given so much time to this question, who have earnestly and, I believe, honestly laboured to bring about a unanimous report, and who, having succeeded in securing that unanimous report and having presented it to the house in that sense, mow because of circumstances over which neither the government nor they have any control, find themselves thrust into a debate which was not expected and which has no doubt embarrassed some of them. I am sure, had I been a member of the committee and been confronted with the situation which has arisen this afternoon, I should likewise have been embarrassed. Therefore I desire to suggest as strongly as I can that each member who sits to the right of the Speaker should exercise his ow.n unfettered and untrammelled judgment in voting either for concurrence im the report or for the amendment now before the house.
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister I felt this afternoon that the house was to be congratulated upon having for the second time this session received from a special committee a unanimous report. I confess that on coming into the house this afternoon I expected the proceedings would be similar to those witnessed yesterday, when the adoption, of the report of another special committee was moved by its chairman, who made a statement which I am sure appealed to all who heard it as broad, tolerant, and devoid of a partisan spirit. He was replied to in a similar vein by an hon. member on this side, who also was a member of the special committee. This afternoon, however, listening to the chairman of the committee whose report we are now considering, I confess that I became more and more surprised as he delved into pages of evidence with a view to extracting here and there what might appear to be a reflection upon some individual who was other than a member of his particular party. I hope I am not going too far when I say that such was the impression pretty generally conveyed, at least to those of us who sit on this side of the house;
and such debate as has arisen has taken place in consequence of that circumstance. It would be amazing if in reviewing a field as wide as that which has been reviewed by the special committee dealing with the administration of the whole civil service there were not found here and there evidences of limitation of discretion, judgment, and the like. I venture to say that if all of us were obliged to review our own acts of the past year there are many things that we should be pleased to eliminate and regard as more or less in the nature of shortcomings. Sometimes we become very critical when we are reviewing the acts of others, and perhaps we are not sufficiently critical in regard to matters that come a little nearer home. Certainly that attitude did affect the temper of the house this afternoon and led, I believe, to the discussion which has taken place.
I believe the report would have been accepted without question had the debate not been provoked in the fashion indicated. I think hon. members generally would have been prepared to allow at least a year to experiment, if I may use that word, with this clause which has provoked so much in the way of discussion, particularly as its operation was being safeguarded, as has been pointed out by members of the committee, by the proposed appointment of a select committee of the house with full power to make hereafter such recommendations as it might think best with respect to the operation of the clause. But now that the debate has taken place it is evident that there are definite reasons for questioning the wisdom of inserting that clause at the moment. I agree with the Prime Minister-I am always happy for a chance to agree with him, and perhaps happier still when he agrees with me, although that is very seldom-that in the circumstances it is only right that notwithstanding the report is unanimous, hon. members should exercise their own individual discretion and judgment in voting upon this amendment.
I have already said in speaking of civil service matters that what I saw of the operation of the Civil Service Act during the time I had to do with the administration of public affairs led me to believe that with regard to many of the minor positions it would be quite as much in the public interest that the member of the house, who is responsible to his own constituency, should have the nomination and the responsibility for appointr ment, with a body such as the Civil Service Commission always determining, before any appointment, that the individual nominated has the necessary qualifications. I thought
2872	COMMONS
Civil Service*-Report oj Committee
there was nothing particularly to be gained, from the point of view of merit, in giving to a body of gentlemen who had no knowledge whatever of the persons they were selecting, the power to choose individuals for positions in the outside service of very small remuneration. The remuneration limit which has been recommended in this case for purposes of exemption goes higher than I would have been prepared to go, but with regard to eliminating a number of the minor positions from the requirement of examinations I have long felt that it was in the public interest that the responsibility should be exercised rather by the member for the constituency than by a group of gentlemen who could not possibly know anything about the qualifications of the individuals, and who could not, in the very nature of things, through an examination, find out who was likely to be the most acceptable person to the community he was to serve. I say that just to indicate the sympathy I have with those who are prepared to support a motion to eliminate a certain number of positions from the operation of the Civil Service Act.
With regard to the broad principle of merit as a basis of entrance into the civil service and of qualification for remaining there, there is no doubt of any kind in my mind; I am wholeheartedly behind the merit system. On account of the limit that has been set in the particular recommendation with regard to postmasters, I shall support the amendment before the house, but I should like every member on this side of the house to feel wholly free to exercise his own judgment with regard to the vote which he may cast.


James Earl Lawson: May I crave the indulgence of the house for just two or three minutes in view of the observations of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King)?


Peter John Veniot: Is the hon. member closing the debate, Mr. Speaker?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: He has the right to speak to the amendment.


James Earl Lawson: I am speaking to the
amendment. Believe me, it was not with a desire on my part to engender any partisan spirit in the consideration of this committee's report that I mentioned to the house this afternoon one or two instances in connection with the evidence. My information was contrary to that of the right hon. leader of the opposition, as I was informed that an amendment would be moved with respect to clause 25 of the report, and I knew of no

better way than I took in which to bring forcibly to the attention of the hon. members of this house the impossibility, as I saw it, of appointing revenue postmasters on a merit system with the limited means which were at hand to perform that task. It was with that abject in view that I made those references. I extracted them in speaking to clause 25 of the report, and the result has proven that my information was correct and the impression of the right hon. leader of the opposition in error, because no sooner had I taken my seat than the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) was upon his feet moving the amendment.
Might I be permitted to mention just one other thing, because I feel it would be im- [DOT] proper for the hon. members of this house to be called on to vote with a mass of what I consider misinformation before them. I have great respect for the legal ability of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) but I am entirely at a loss to understand the basis on which he propounds the argument that revenue postmasters were civil servants in the ordinary sense.


James Layton Ralston: I have not said that, so my hon. friend need not set up that straw man to knock it down.


James Earl Lawson: If I gathered correctly the argument of my hon. friend, he was endeavouring to demonstrate to the members of this house that certain protections which revenue postmasters now have under the Civil Service Act were being removed from them by the adoption of this clause. Therefore, sir, I feel it incumbent upon me to point out to the house, first, that every civil servant is required to give his full time to the service under the statute. That is not so with respect to revenue postmasters.


James Layton Ralston: Might I interrupt just to call attention to the fact that I particularly differentiated between civil servants and those who have the protection of the Civil Service Act?


James Earl Lawson: All right. Then with respect to those who have the protection of the Civil Service Act I invite the attention of the house to the fact that no civil servant having the protection of the Civil Service Act can be dismissed except by order in council, but revenue postmasters are dismissed by the Postmaster General under the provisions of section 7, paragraph (b) of the Post Office Act, which is contained in the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.


Peter John Veniot: Read it.

Civil Service-Report of Committee


James Earl Lawson: I need not read paragraph (a), but section 7 (b) reads:
The Postmaster General may, subject to the provisions of this act,
(b) remove or suspend any postmaster or other officer or servant of the post office.
I think that is amply clear.


Mr. YENIOT:: Read a little more.


James Earl Lawson: That is all it says.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows that the practice has not only grown up but has been approved by order in council whereby that power is not exercised without investigation or without a certificate of a member of parliament to the effect that to his personal knowledge an officer has been guilty of partisanship.


James Earl Lawson: That is what makes the difference between a revenue postmaster and any civil servant entitled to the protection of the Civil Service Act. It was because revenue postmasters and certain others could be dismissed by the Postmaster General under that provision that the government of which my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth was a member passed order in council No. 1467 on the 22nd of July, 1922, whereby they provided the ways and means of the investigation which must be had before the Postmaster General exercises his right under that act.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Does the section quoted extend only to revenue postmasters, or does it include other officers and servants in the post office service?


James Earl Lawson: No. In my opinion no full-fledged civil servant within the terms of the Civil Service Act can be dismissed except by order in council.


James Layton Ralston: There is no such animal under the Civil Service Act.


Alfred Speakman: Perhaps the hon. gentleman did not catch the full import of my question. In the section is there a difference made between revenue postmasters and other servants and officials who are mentioned as being subject to dismissal under those terms?


James Earl Lawson: If my hon. friend is referring to the statute which I read, there is not.


James Layton Ralston: No.


James Earl Lawson: If my hon. friend is referring to the order in council which I mentioned, there is not.


Alfred Speakman: I am referring to the section of the act.


James Earl Lawson: So far as the section of the act is concerned, I do not find therein any specific distinction between revenue postmasters and others therein named who are in the postal department.


James Layton Ralston: Hear, hear.


Alfred Speakman: They are all under the same conditions, then, so far as that is concerned.


James Earl Lawson: Those who come within the provisions of the Post Office Act. But I would call to the attention of the hon. member for Red Deer that under a section of the Civil Service Act-the number of which I do not recall at the moment-certain employees of the Post Office Department are included under the act, and once they are so included they cannot be dismissed except by order in council.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have no desire to enter into a discussion on points of law with my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth. So far as your committee are concerned, we had come before us the Postmasters' Association, who asked that they be taken under the Civil Service Act so that they might have its benefit and might not be dismissed by the Postmaster General.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you have any
members of parliament come before you?


James Earl Lawson: We should have been very glad to hear from any hon. members.


An hon. MEMBER:: You did not ask anybody.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: May I ask the hon. chairman of the committee-I know he would like to give the information-if the representatives of the Postmasters' Association suggested to the committee that those receiving $3,000 a year and upwards be placed under the Civil Service Commission to the extent that they would be classified as to salaries?


James Earl Lawson: My recollection is that
they did not, but that they asked to be included for all other purposes. May I say that the Postmasters' Association alleged that they did not have the protection of the Civil Service Act; officials of the Post Office Department who are charged with its administration alleged that those revenue postmasters were not under the provisions of the Civil Service Act; and those members of your committee

2874	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report of Committee
who are lawyers came to the conclusion that such revenue postmasters were not under the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


Mr. HEENAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CAYLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I
was paired with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Goulet). Had I voted I would have voted for the report.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. JACOBS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Ryerson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RHEAUME:: I was paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Porteous). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question now is on
the main motion.

Civil Service-Report of Committee


James Layton Ralston: I should like to say one word on
the motion, because I want clear on the record the contention which I have endeavoured to make and which I am afraid I did not get across to my hon. friend the chairman of the committee. I point out-and I think I am correct-that all these postmasters with whom we are dealing, whom we propose to take from under the Civil Service Act, are under the Civil Service Act at this moment. I point out that the section of the Post Office Act, which gives the Postmaster General the right of removal, makes no distinction between revenue postmasters and any other kind of postmasters, and is no argument whatever in support of the contention that revenue postmasters are to be dealt with on a different basis and are not under the Civil Service Act.
I also pointed out that the Civil Service Act classification, authorized by parliament, contains a classification for revenue postmasters. I doubt very much if the postmasters have thought they were not under the Civil Service Act. They were appointed by the procedure laid down under the act, and they are under the act, according to the classification which was approved by parliament and which is in effect to-day. I think that the act they wanted to be brought under was another act altogether-the Civil Service Superannuation Act. I point out also that the present practice in connection with dismissals from these positions applies both to those who may be dealt with under the Post Office Act and to those who may be dealt with by order in council under the Civil Service Act, and, as I stated a few moments ago, that practice is that there must be an investigation and an adverse finding by a commissioner or a certificate by a member of parliament to the effect that to his personal knowledge there has been partisan work, which I think is the exact wording of the act. I point out also that if these positions are under the Civil Service Act-and there is no doubt about that under the classification-they are entitled to returned soldier preference and that the passing of this resolution takes away from returned soldiers the statutory preference they have hitherto enjoyed with regard to these 3,500 positions throughout this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: How?


James Layton Ralston: Because it no longer
applies; they will be excluded from the Civil Service Act by order in council, that is all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why not?


James Layton Ralston: Because they are taken
out from under the Civil Service Act; the very words of the recommendation are to that effect. Let me point out this further to my hon. friend; in a moment we will vote on the main motion, the first part of which is that these positions be taken out from under the Civil Service Act; that is to say, they are to be put under order in council P.C. 1053, which expressly excepts them from the Civil Service Act. The second part of the committee's recommendation is that postmasters in offices which have a revenue of more than $3,000 shall be "within the full operation of the Civil Service Act." I point out to my hon. friend that the postmasters who came down here asking for a concession in connection with offices having a revenue of $3,000 and over will not get very much if this is all they are to get, because already they are under the Civil Service Act. What they really want is to be under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and that matter is not dealt with in this report at all. My hon. friend does not seem to be able to make that distinction. Revenue postmasters to-day have every right under the Civil Service Act, but they have no rights under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The one thing denied' them is superannuation, and that is the one' thing these postmasters in offices where the revenue is over $3,000 want, and this committee report only leaves them where they were, namely under the Civil Service Act.
May I point out to my bon. friend that the difficulty between us has arisen entirely because he has failed to apprehend that there is a Civil Service Act which applies to each of these postmasters in offices with a revenue of $400 and up and there is a Civil Service Superannuation Act which applies to none of them but under which the post-masters in offices having a revenue of more than $3,000 would like to get.


Peter John Veniot: Before we vote on this motion I should like to get some further information from the chairman of the committee.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: May I point out to the hon. member that we are not in committee and that no hon. member has the right to interrogate another simply because he happened to be chairman of a committee.


Peter John Veniot: Very well; I can lay my
question before the house. Surely there is nothing to prevent my doing that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
the full right to address the house.

Civil Service-Report of Committee


Peter John Veniot: 
William Gordon Ernst: It means that they will get
a salary and will come under the act.


James Layton Ralston: The act does not provide for that.


Peter John Veniot: It means that they will get a straight salary, not based on revenue?


William Gordon Ernst: That is right; a class B office.


Peter John Veniot: Then they will be in a
better position than postmasters are in at present, until they come under class 2B of the Post Office Department classification. The postmasters referred to in this section are now under the Civil Service Act. Positions from $400 per annum, revenue and up to a salary figure which brings the position automatically under the straight salary system, come under post office classification 2B. Under 2B post offices can be placed under the straight salary only when they reach a certain revenue based upon population, etc.; that is the practice. And when they attain that revenue, based on population, they automatically come under the straight salary system. Once they come under classification 2B they at once become entitled, though they were still under the act before they reached that point, to all the benefits under the Civil Service Pension Act, which is an entirely different statute. The Civil Service Commission therefore fixes the salaries, and for the first year under class 2B the postmaster gets $2,040 a year, his salary being gradually increased year by year, as provided for under the civil service salary classification. No postmaster in the past, in offices with revenue from $400 and upwards, could be appointed to an office if there was a vacancy, unless the commission advertised it. The commission had to advertise it, and not the Post Office department. When the vacancy was advertised and applications were received, they were forwarded to the Civil Service Commission. The commission notified the Post Office Department

that such and such applications had been received and would then request the department to send an inspector or superintendent or other qualified official to interview the applicant and report back to the commission. The report came to the Post Office Department first, was reviewed there and then sent on to the Civil Service Commission. So that every appointment made to a post office with an annual revenue of $400 a year came directly under the Civil Service Act, with the exception that they did not come under it for the purpose of pension and other privileges. Therefore anyone who says that revenue postmasters are not under the act is mistaken. If they are not, why should this committee recommend that they be removed from the operation of the act? Yet that is what is recommended. They recommend that these postmasters be taken from under the operation of the act. They admit themselves, by the report, that such postmasters are under the act, and the reference made by the chairman of the committee to that section of the Post Office Act which gives power to the Postmaster General to remove or to suspend any postmaster or other officer or servant of the post office does not apply in the way the chairman has explained it to the house, because by an order in council which will be found here and which, under the Post Office Act, has equal force with and becomes part of the statute, it is declared how these postmasters, under the Civil Service Act, shall be governed. That order in council was passed in 1922. The Civil Service Act provides that any civil servant who participates in partisan politics shall be dismissed, and the interpretation placed on that was that all postmasters, notwithstanding what the revenue might be, were under the civil service. In 1922 or 1923, however, the Civil Service Commission recommended to the government that postmasters in rural offices with a revenue under $400 a year should be removed from the operation of the act.
Mr. LaVERGNE: How?


Peter John Veniot: By order in council.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Could an order in council amend the law of the country, if the facts were as the hon. gentleman has stated?


Peter John Veniot: No order in council can amend any law, but the statute provides that when the Civil Service Commission shall recommend to the governor general in council that such and such a classification shall be removed from the jurisdiction of the commission, then the order in council becomes effective. It is provided for under the statute.

Civil Service-Report oj Committee
Now, as to the reasons for dismissals, there seems to be a wrong impression among hon. members. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) gave some of the reasons, but he did not give them all. There is reason for dismissal upon inspection or examination by post office officials into the administration of the office by a postmaster. The Postmaster General has power to order an investigation on complaint made, and that investigation, under the regulations applying thereto, must be made by an official of the Post Office Department and not by an outside investigator.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: That voice is a little rough to-night; you had better grease it a little. The Postmaster General then has power to suspend or to dismiss, even in the highest salaried offices in the country. If this section of the report, to which I have referred, means that revenue postmasters in offices of over $3,000 are going to be placed under the straight salary system-and I understood that the officials of the department indicated that it was the intention of the Post Office department so to proceed-they will have to proceed by a change in the act. I wonder whether the commission has considered what that would mean. It makes this difference. If these men are placed under straight salary, on the basis of $3,000 revenue, then the government will have to employ whatever help or assistance they require. Where a revenue postmaster to-day is paid on a salary and commission basis, his salary being $100 and his commission being on receipts and so forth, he employs his own help; and because that help is not permanent, so far as he is concerned, he can get it more cheaply than the department can. On the straight salary he is placed in classification 2B, and the Civil Service Commission will have to fix the salary of the postmaster, who is on a salary and commission basis, and fix the salary of his assistant. The chairman of the committee stated that postmasters in rural districts or in low revenue offices were not obliged to be on permanent duty. In that my hon. friend is wrong; when they make that statement the whole committee is wrong. The hours of those postmasters are from 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night.


James Earl Lawson: The hours of the office.


Peter John Veniot: The office must be kept
open, and someone must be there.


James Earl Lawson: Not necessarily the postmaster.


Peter John Veniot: He is the responsible person.
I wonder if the janitor would be left in attendance. The postmaster must be there, or have a paid assistant in attendance. The impression left with the public that because these men are not permanently in attendance they should be thrown to the political wolves is quite wrong.
The committee was appointed to investigate the operation of the Civil Service Act, not only as it affected the Post Office Department, but its connection with every department of the government. Why has the committee singled out the Post Office Department for a change? If I believed that hon. members opposite were honest in their attempts in 1929 to show that I was so embittered that I was prepared to upset the whole Civil Service Commission, I might very well ask them today this question: How is it that because at that time I discussed and criticized the system of the Civil Sendee Commission-not the work of the men, but the system-that I was accused by hon. members opposite of wishing to destroy the commission? I recall my criticism in 1929 was based on some of the very reasons contained in the report now before us. At the time I said the system of classification was bad, that the Civil Service Commission did not have the qualifications to classify for promotions within departments, and that that duty should rest on the officials of the department, or those in charge of the branches in which the promotions were to be made. Hon. members of the committee now agree with my contention. Yet at that time I was declared to be one of the worst enemies of the Civil Service Commission and the merit system that Canada had known for a good many years. To-day I see before me the justification for the stand I took at that time, to-day I have sweet revenge.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, it is sweet revenge to see hon. members opposite swallowing everything they threw out against me a few years ago.
I am going to vote, Mr. Speaker, against the report, although I believe the members of the committee were honest, and that they did all they could with the material placed before them. I suggest, however, that they did not go far enough in getting material. They should have explained in their report and should explain to the house why they singled out the Post Office Department and let other departments go by the board. The power is given the Civil Service Commission-


Mr. PRICE:: When did you observe them?
2878	COMMONS
Civil Service-Report of Committee


Mr. YOCJNG:: When he was postmaster general.


Peter John Veniot: One thing is sure, if I did not observe what the hon. member refers to, there is one thing I did observe, namely a little decency in my conduct in the house.


Otto Baird Price: Oh.


Peter John Veniot: Now, sir-


Otto Baird Price: Do you observe your own record?


Peter John Veniot: I would not like to observe yours.


Otto Baird Price: You had better observe your expenditures and political activities in the province of New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, sit down.


Otto Baird Price: You had better observe yours. Oh, you are good.


Peter John Veniot: I beg the pardon of the house for listening to the interruption of the hon. member. Under the powers given the Civil Service Commission to recommend to the governor in council what positions shall be taken out of or placed under the jurisdiction of the commission, they recommended at the time they sent in their recommendations touching the Post Office Department that a certain number of positions in other departments be taken out. Why did the committee not consider those other departments? They may give the excuse that they could not do so on a revenue basis. Probably not, but it could have been done on a salary basis. Formerly postmasters were put on salaries of $200. On the basis of the revenue they brought in they were placed either beyond or within the control of the civil service commission. In 1926 parliament reduced the postage rate on letters from three to two cents. In view of the reduction in revenue and the hardships caused thereby, an order in council was passed whereby postmasters' commissions were lessened, and their rentals based on revenue lessened. In order to do justice to them the government passed an order in council by which the commission of rural postmasters would be based upon the revenue of the office prior to the introduction of the reduction in postage from three to two cents. That has stood ever since, and it is on that basis that they were paid their commissions until December last when that order in council was rescinded. Now the postmasters are paid simply and only upon the actual revenue received from year to year.

If the committee had gone into other departments and made similar recommendations in regard to them I might see some justification in their action. If I am to believe the report, and if I judge properly from the speeches made this afternoon, I would conclude they have made the change in the Post Office department because they were informed by the chief officials thereof that the work of the department would be lessened. Knowing these officials as I do, I can hardly credit that they would give that as a sufficient reason for placing those men outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, because it must be recognized that their work in the department will be far greater under this recommendation, if it is carried out, than it could have been with those men under the commission. I have faith in the Civil Service Act; I have faith in the merit system, and if in their investigation the committee found anything wrong, why did they not indicate what it was? Why did they not give the real reason that actuated them in making that report? The fact that some of the officials of the Civil Service Commission or of the Post Office Department may have gone astray, may have made mistakes in classification, may have allowed themselves to be influenced by political pull, is no reason why the civil service commissioners should be thrown out of office without the committee giving the public the real reason for which they were put out. During my term of office as Postmaster General, a period of four years-


An hon. MEMBER:: How many did the hon. member dismiss?


Peter John Veniot: In four years and a half I dismissed, for just cause, as I could under the law, 602 postmasters, only 162 of whom were dismissed for political reasons, while in the last eighteen months the present Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) dismissed 597, of whom 474 were dismissed for political reasons. Now the hon. gentleman has the answer.


Mr. COTNAM:: That is the hon. member's answer.


Peter John Veniot: These figures are correct. No hon. member can deny them. They are on the table of the house. If they are not correct, then the Postmaster General has made a false report to parliament.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Order.


Peter John Veniot: I am not out of order. Although the hon. gentleman is Deputy Speaker of the house, I want him to understand there are other members who know
MAY 12, 1932	as79
Civil Service-Report oj Committee
the rules as well as he does. I did not say that the Postmaster General made a false report; I said that if those figures were not correct, he made a false report, and under the rules of the house I am justified in using that term. The hon. gentleman should remember that he is not the only pebble on the beach.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I can see nothing solid in front of me.


Peter John Veniot: But the hon. member has not anything solid behind him. Every seat behind him is empty just because I believe hon. members opposite do not want the report submitted to the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: No wonder the seats are empty!


Peter John Veniot: Yes, hon members opposite are afraid to vote as they feel they should.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to hear some of the whispering that will go on after the house adjourns to-night. Then we would know the real situation. Now, I am through with my remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter John Veniot: Then I am not through with my remarks. I hear a voice saying "It is time you were." Well, if in the house I had denounced the patronage system as the hon. gentleman did in the years when I was Postmaster General, I would think twice before I would have voted for this recommendation.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the
remarks made by the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) a little while ago, I would not have considered it necessary to give the house a few of my opinions concerning the report that is now before us. Before I deal with the observations made by the former Postmaster General, may I be permitted to explain the situation that existed in Mundare, a little village in my constituency. In 1926 I came to Ottawa a young man, full of hope, faith and everything else that goes with youth, but I was very much disillusioned after my arrival. A young man, George Woytkiw, approached me in regard to the position of postmaster in Mundare, and for the information of hon. members present may I say that this young man received the largest petition in that district, getting 345 names as against 115 for the other applicant, Mr. Stewart, who was supported by the
defeated candidate. I think possibly the three greatest pests are mosquitos, grasshoppers and, to a member of parliament, defeated candidates-I am adding the latter because nothing gives a member of parliament so much trouble as does a defeated candidate. Mr. Stewart was appointed, there is no doubt in my mind, because of political influence that was exerted in his behalf. The former Postmaster General says that he is in favour of the merit system. As I have already stated, this young man, Woytkiw, received the largest petition; he was also the choice of the district superintendent, and in addition he was very highly recommended over all the other applicants by the chief examiner. In spite of all this merit the Post Office Department recommended the other candidate, namely, the one who received the fewest marks and who was not recommended as first choice by either the district superintendent or the chief examiner or the chairman of the commission.


Peter John Veniot: What was the revenue?


Michael Luchkovich: 
John Livingstone Brown: I would like to ask the
hon. member for West York to make it very clear just how the returned soldiers' preference will be protected now that it is proposed to .take from three to four thousand positions from under the operation of the Civil Service Act. What other act than the Civil Service Act is there making it obligatory to give returned soldiers any preference?


Eccles James Gott: A proper sentiment upon the
part of the sitting member.


John Livingstone Brown: It is true that circulars
sometimes go forward to members inviting them to remember that that clause is in the act, but I would like the hon. member for West York to point out very clearly what [Mr Luchkovich.l
protection the law gives to the returned soldier in the matter of a preference now that it is proposed to take these three or four thousand positions from the operation of the act.


James Earl Lawson: In reply-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member for
West York speaks he will close the debate.


James Earl Lawson: I was just going to reply,
Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: He had no right to ask
questions at this stage. If the hon, member for West York speaks he will close the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Earl Lawson: In answer to the hon.
member for Vegreville, I hope that the select committee of this house to sit each year will operate for the promotion of the merit system. In answer to the hon. member for Lisgar, I quoted this afternoon the provision of the order in council which preserves the returned soldiers' preference with respect to revenue post offices exempted where the revenue does not exceed S400 a year.
Main motion (Mr. Lawson) agreed to.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 91, to amend the Judges Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: This bill is merely to correct an omission which occurred in the revision of the statutes in 1927 whereby the operative part of section 28 of the former revised statutes was omitted. The amission was not discovered until a day or two ago.


James Layton Ralston: What is it about?


Hugh Guthrie: The retirement of county court judges.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WINDING-UP ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the first reading of Bill No. 81, to amend the Winding-up Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: The object of this bill is to bring the W'iniding-up Act into conformity with the recent insurance acts which have just been passed by both houses.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Joseph-François Laflèche: -
1.	In the last instance, who recommended Mr. Isaie Savard, to the position of inspector in charge of undervaluation investigations at Montreal?
2.	Is this position under the Civil Service Commission?
3.	If so, has Mr. Savard passed examinations ?
4.	Were public notices of this examination posted?
5.	Was Mr. Savard the only eligible candidate?
6.	Was this position created specially for Mr. Savard?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: -
1.	The Commissioner of Customs wtho biased his recommendation on Mr. Isaie Savard's excellent record and service as division chief of the customs excise preventive service at Montreal, his duties having included supervision of the undervaluation investigations.
2,	3, 4, and 5. Mr. Isaie Savard is still carrying on a portion of the same duties in the customs excise preventive service for which he was originally appointed, the undervaluation part of the preventive service work not having been transferred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
6. No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	How many immigrants disembarked at Quebec, on May 8, 1932?
2.	Who recommended their entry into this country ?
3.	To what nationality do they belong?
4.	How many immigrants of each nationality entered the country since January 1, 1932?


POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP INQUIRIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many inquiries on political partisanship were presided over by Alphonse Garon, advocate of Rimouski, previous to being sworn as commissioner?
2.	What total amount was paid to him for said inquiries by the government?


Mr. POULIOT:: 1. How many commissioners presided over inquiries in connection with political partisanship, heard witnesses and reported to the government previous to being sworn in, throughout Canada, since August 1, 1930?
2. (a) what are the names of the commissioners; (b) how many inquiries were held by each of them previous to being sworn in; (c) what total amount of fees and expenses was paid to each of them for the work done by them previous to being sworn in; (d) how many government employees were dismissed by each of said commissioners previous to being sworn in?


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did Mr. Alphonse Garon preside as commissioner over an inquiry in connection with Andre Beaulieu, postmaster of Raudot, county of Temiscouata, Quebec?
2.	If so; (a) on what date was said inquiry held; (b) how many witnesses were heard; (e) who swore them in; (d) on what date did said Alphonse Garon forward his report to the department; (e) what amount was paid by .the department to said Alphonse Garon as fees and expenses in connection with this inquiry?
3.	Was the above mentioned postmaster dismissed on the report of said Alphonse Garon ?
4.	Did said Alphonse Garon preside over this
inquiry as commissioner previous to being sworn as such ?	,
5.	If so:	(a) by virtue of what authority
were the witnesses sworn in; (b) did the department demand that Alphonse Garon return his fees and expenses and order a new inquiry?



INCOME WAR TAX ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee tomorrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Income War Tax Act to provide that the members of the judiciary, and the members of the military, naval and air forces of Canada and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, other than enlisted men, shall be liable to pay_ a special income tax of ten per cent upon their salaries received during the fiscal year 1932-33, in addition to any other tax payable under the act.
He said: His Excellency the Govemer General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 66, respecting the Department of Insurance.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved the third reading of Bill No. 72, respecting relief measures.
2882	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
as I mentioned on the second reading, this is the fourth measure which the present administration has introduced with respect to unemployment relief. The house having heard so frequently and emphatically the views of the official opposition on the features of the previous bills, which gave to the administration a blank cheque and also the power to legislate by order in council with respect to matters which in our opinion should be reserved to the House of Commons and the Senate, it would hardly be expected that we would acquiesce in this particular measure and readily give to it our support. However, those who were in the house yesterday must have been impressed with the statement made by the Minister of Labour that it was then the eleventh of the month, and that since the first day of May there had not been in existence any legislation -which would permit of the government entering into any agreements with the provinces in regard to this all-important matter of unemployment relief, and that that power would not be possessed by the administration until the legislation here proposed had passed this house and the Senate and had received royal assent. Other hon. members made reference to the extent to which there is actual suffering in the country at the moment on the part of large numbers through the absence of the means to satisfy their wants. Were the circumstances other than as described, certainly we of the opposition would move in amendment to this motion for the third reading, to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole house to reconsider certain of its aspects.
What we particularly deplore about the measure is the absence of evidence of any policy on the part of the government with respect to unemployment relief. Up to the present time there has been at least a profession on the part of the administration that it would endeavour to carry out its promises to provide work-not only to provide work, but to end unemployment through work that would be provided. But so far as this bill is concerned, having regard to what has been stated by the minister himself and to the provisions of the bill, it is perfectly clear that the government has thrown overboard completely whatever intention in the way of policy it may have had to provide work as a means of ending unemployment. The present measure substitutes, so far as the federal government is concerned, contributions to the provinces for the purpose of administering doles where such may be necessary to meet the demand of immediate relief.

Coming at the end of almost two years of office and being all that the administration can offer, especially after its members have had a free hand and the experience which comes with office in dealing with important questions, it is a lamentable confession of complete failure to cope with this all-important question and to offer to the country anything in the nature of a constructive policy. However, I suppose for those who are suffering, anything in the shape of assistance is better than nothing, and for that reason, having regard also to the lateness of the session, we do not propose in any way to delay the giving of such relief as the government may still intend to give through the provinces in accordance with what apparently is their only method, namely the method provided here. While, for the reasons mentioned, we are prepared to allow the bill to pass third reading without amendment, we desire, at the same time, to register as strongly as we can our protest against the measure in the form in which it is, renewing as it does the objectionable feature of the blank cheque, which deprives this House of Commons of the control which it should have over expenditures and consequent taxation, and the equally, if not more, objectionable feature of giving to the governor in council power to legislate, notwithstanding the existence of any law or statute, with respect to matters which we believe should be legislated upon only by the Commons and the Senate. With this protest, Mr. Speaker, and at the same time with the hope that by expediting the enactment to the extent which may thus be possible, we shall be serving a helpful end, we do not at this time propose to offer further opposition.
I have just this one further word to add. It is most regrettable that this measure, which deals with the most important subject which has come up this session, should have been left for the purposes of discussion, as has been the case with similar measures in previous years, until the closing weeks of the session. I said at the time the Unemployment Relief Continuance Act was introduced that the government should at that time, instead of introducing a temporary measure, have then brought down its legislation with respect to relief measures in order that there might be ample time for discussion. The fact that as matters now stand we are half a month beyond the period during which any relief for the new fiscal year can be given under legislation relative thereto is something for which the government itself is wholly responsible.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Supply-Imperial Economic Conference



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
To provide for expenses in connection with the Imperial economic conference, $250,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say there will be
an additional item in the supplementary estimates, so that another opportunity will be afforded for discussion.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Chairman, as I intimated the other day, I am particularly anxious to offer a few suggestions to the Prime Minister -if I may put it that way-as the Imperial economic conference is perhaps of greater interest and importance to the people of the part of Nova Scotia from which I come than any other matter that has came before the house this session. While what I shall put forward will be general in its nature and national in its application, I may, perhaps take as a starting point the interests of the apple growers and apple exporters of Nova Scotia..
The apple exporting industry of Canada is in many respects a typical exporting industry, depending to a very large extent upon the market of the United Kingdom. I have the figures here, but I will not weary the committee with details; I propose to state the main features of the situation. The dominion exports about one third of its total apple production to the United Kingdom market. During the last five years our production has averaged about 3,500,000 barrels, of which from 1,100,000 to 1,200,000 barrels have found a market in Great Britain.
Our competitors in the United Kingdom market are the British themselves, who raise quite a large quantity of fruit, and more particularly the apple growers of the United States. The situation in the United States differs from the situation in Canada in this respect, that they have an enormous production in that country. It is very difficult to get figures showing the exact production, but it is from 125,000,000 to 250,000,000 bushels per annum. This production is largely marketed in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry, but I cannot hear the hon. gentleman.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that while we in Canada export about one-third of our total production of apples to the United Kingdom-and the greater part of our exports go to the United Kingdom-the same is not true of the United States, our chief competitor in that market. They export twice as large a quantity of apples to the United
Kingdom as we do, but that is an insignificant proportion of their total production. I should like to make this feature of the apple exporting situation perfectly clear; while their production is huge, it varies greatly. The surplus they export varies greatly also, but that surplus is only a very small proportion of their total production, amounting to not more than seven per cent or eight per cent at the most. The result is that in a year of heavy production in the United States at times we find the British market almost ruined by these large American surpluses.
For these reasons it is important that the present preference, with which I shall deal in a moment, should be preserved if possible. The tariff preference in the British market at present, under the Import Duties Act which came into effect on March 1, 1932, is ten per cent. Before I go into that, in order to put the matter clearly perhaps I should read a summary of an extract from the report of the Imperial economic committee of 1926. Your attention is called specifically to the following points:
(1)	That in the United States there is the
home market offered by the population of 115,000.000 consuming more fruit per head than the population of the United Kingdom. The exported surplus averages some 7 per cent of the total crop.	.
(2)	That Canada on the other hand, with a population of only 9,000,000 must export at least 30 per cent of the total crop or more than four times as high a proportion as the United States. The export trade is vital to the Canadian apple grower and merely incidental to the American grower.
(3)	That the American apple market is protected by a customs tariff and that it has been particular to avoid glutted market conditions on the home market by throwing the bolk of the increase into the export trade. The arrival of these dumped surpluses and indeed the mere knowledge that they would be forthcoming from the other side of the Atlantic tends to wreck the markets. The effect is to wreck the prospects of the home and Canadian growers.
Along the same line I should like to quote from a book called Imperial Economic Unity, written by the late Sir Alfred Mond, Lord Melchett. At page 149 he says:
Both Australian and Canadian official reports state that in recent years the apple industry has declined and the acreage under cultivation has become slightly less, owing to difficulties experienced in disposing of their production. The principal contributory factor to this is the varying surplus production of the United States of America.
At page 150 he states:
The export trade of the American fruit grower is merely a matter of the disposal of surplus production, whereas in Canada and Australia a steady and assured export market is vital to the very existence of the industry.
2884	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
The Canadian Horticultural Council has been studying the problem, and the figures they give to the public indicate that the United Kingdom imports about 5,000,000 barrels of apples each year and that at present Canada is supplying not nearly half those requirements, but that there is capacity for development of production in Canada and in Australasia to the extent necessary to take care of the entire import requirements of the United Kingdom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not also true that you must have regard to climatic conditions and seasonal demands in order that other countries may also serve those seasonal demands having regard to the climatic conditions under which apples are produced?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I speak subject to correction, but my answer would be that between Canada, Australasia and South Africa the entire import requirements of the United Kingdom could be met.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The United States does not serve a complementary purpose at all, their apples go in during the same season that apples are imported from Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what I endeavoured to show, that other portions of the empire in addition to Canada are producing apples that could supply the English market at other seasons.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. I think the material factors in the situation are, first, a large and immensely valuable market for apples in the United Kingdom; second, the capacity of the British dominions to acquire and supply a large part of that market; third, the menace of the competition of huge and varying surpluses of United States apples in that market; fourth, the special importance of that market to the province of Nova Scotia, which is particularly adapted to the export of apples to Great Britain and from which come the great bulk of apples exported from Canada; fifth, the value of a preference on apples in that market, and sixth, the great and paramount importance of free entry into that market.
That brings me, Mr. Chairman, to some general considerations with regard' to the preferences that now exist. I may say that preferences in Great Britain have been built up over a long period of years. I do not want to go too far back into history, but of course there were the preferences under the Navigation Acts, which ceased when the Navigation

Acts were repealed in 1847, when free trade came in. Those preferences were not suited to present conditions, although the Canadian lumber trade between 1807 and 1847 was built up on 'the colonial preferences which existed for about two centuries before the advent of free trade in 1846. Between 1847 and 1897 there were no preferences between Great Britain and the dominion, but in 1897 Canada introduced a voluntary British preference. This country was followed by the other British dominions; in 1903 New Zealand extended voluntary preferences to Great Britain. In 1904 South Africa followed, in 1907 Australia followed, and then a great many other parts of the British Empire followed with these voluntary preferences. Perhaps the membere of the committee will be surprised to know the ramifications of the voluntary preferential system throughout the British Empire. These are some of the parts of the empire which extend preferences to Great Britain: the Irish Free State, whose preference came into effect in 1923; Northern Rhodesia; Southern Rhodesia; India, which gives a small preference on certain classes of iron and steel goods; Fiji; the Bahamas; Jamaica; St. Lucia; St. Vincent; Barbados; the Virgin Islands; Grenada; St. Christopher; Nevis; Antigua; Montserrat; Trinidad; Tobago; Dominica; British Honduras; British Guiana; Cyprus; Mauritius; Brunei; Gibraltar; British North Borneo; Bermuda; and Samoa. That widespread and farreaching system of voluntary preferences has grown up, not upon the basis of bargaining of quid pro quo at all; they are voluntary preferences. The first protective element introduced by Great Britain into her fiscal system after the abolition of protection, between 1846 and 1860, was introduced in 1915 with the McKenna duties. The only duties before that, in all that interval-that is, anything that could be called protective- were the wheat duties between 1902 and 1903, which were very small and soon repealed, and the tobacco duty in 1904.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A shilling a quarter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The tobacco duties were
reduced a year or two afterwards. In 1915, however, as a war measure, the McKenna duties came into effect. Those duties applied to musical instruments, clocks and watches, and cinematograph films, if I remember rightly. They were introduced, as I say, more as a war measure than a trade measure, first, to save space in ships taking raw materials to Britain, and secondly, to relieve the exchange situation as between Great Britain and the United States. No preferences were provided when the McKenna duties were first imposed,

Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
but in 1919 preferences were granted to the dominions and colonies by the Finance Act of that year, and then followed a rapid and very notable extension of preferential treatment to the dominions and colonies. As I have said, the preferences began in 1919. In 1920 the Importation of Dyestuffs Act provided for the prohibition of the importation of dyestuffs into Britain, but not from parts of the British Empire. In 1921 the Safeguarding of Industries Act was introduced, providing for the imposition of duties on key industry goods and on other goods after inquiry, but under that act no duties were imposed against British Empire goods. In 1923 the Irish Free State, which had come into existence, obtained the benefit of the preferences that were given to the other parts of the empire, and in that year also was held the Imperial economic conference to which my right hon. leader referred the other day, and preferences were arranged for at that conference on a large number of articles. Mr. Baldwin was, I think, Prime Minister of Great Britain at that time; at any rate, the Conservative party was in power there. Before these duties could be brought into effect Mr. Baldwin went to the people on a platform of protection and was defeated, and consequently when the new parliament met in 1924 its membership was opposed to protection and therefore the preferences arranged for at the Imperial economic conference of 1923 did not come into effect. I may mention, in reference to apples, that it was agreed at the conference of 1923 that there should be a preference on raw apples. It was proposed to levy a duty of five shillings a hundredweight on raw apples of foreign origin, and to continue to admit raw apples from the empire free of duty. Then in 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928 there were extensions every year of preferences to the dominions and other parts of the British Empire as new duties were imposed; and then, of course, this year, cairue the Import Duties Act which placed a duty of ten per cent upon nearly all goods entering the United Kingdom, the chief exceptions being wheat, in grain, meat, including bacon, raw cotton, raw wool, fish of British catch, newspapers and newsprint in rolls containing not less than -seventy per cent mechanical wood pulp, wood pulp itself, raw rubber, iron ore, tin ore and shipbuilding materials consigned direct to shipbuilding yards. The extent of these preferences that have gradually been granted by the United Kingdom to the dominions is shown by a book I have in my hand, and to which I have referred, by Lord Melchett, in which he gives the percentages of imported
dutiable goods upon which preference is given. These goods, from empire countries, are: tea, 84-8 per cent; cocoa, raw, 93-4 per cent; coffee, 50-9 per cent; sugar, raw and refined, 38 per cent; raisins, 27-7 per cent; motor cars, 20-9 per cent, and many others. This shows that quite a large proportion of the imports in important lines that went into the United Kingdom came from the British dominions and colonies under preferential tariffs.
The Import Duties Act provides that these preferences shall lapse on the 15th day of November as against the dominions but not as against the colonies. That, I think, is a significant fact. It is only against the dominions which have imposed, practically all of them, protective tariffs, and in some cases very high protective tariffs against the mother country; it is only as against these that the preferences shall lapse on November 15. It is of great importance to the part of Canada from which I come, and needless to say it is of great importance to Canada as a whole, that this government, at the forthcoming Imperial economic conference, should so conduct negotiations that there be an extension of these preferences past the 15th day of November.
The conclusions which I would draw from the facts I have put forward are, first, that without the introduction of bargaining at all as between the units of the empire, there has come into existence a gradually evolving system of preferences, which would probably have accomplished all and perhaps more than all that the Imperial economic conference will accomplish; secondly, that had it not been for the hostile tariffs of the dominions, imposed by legislation or by orders in council, the preferences under the Import Duties Act would probably have been unlimited as to duration, as they were in the case of the colonies, instead of being limited to a period expiring on November 15 next.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
knows that the period expiring on November 15 was fixed with the Imperial conference in view. That was declared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does not necessarily
follow-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he says
he did it for.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but the point is this.
My right hon. friend, at the Imperial conference of 1930, indicated that it was desirable, in his opinion, that we simply give preference for preference, that we grant pref-
2886	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
erences upon a bargaining basis. He took the view that this was the only businesslike way in which to do it. Great Britain has on every occasion on which she had imposed protective duties extended substantial preferences to the dominions. But very sensibly she took the view that if trade was to be upon a bargaining basis she would give the dominions bargaining. That is to say she would make her preferences lapse on November 15 so that she would have something to bargain with. That policy would never have been adopted had it not been for the interjection by the Prime Minister at the Imperial economic conference in 1930 of that new element in trade relations between the different parts of the British Empire.
In my constituency we knew that just as soon as Great Britain got to the place where she deemed it advisable in her interests to impose protective tariffs on apples we would go in on a preferred basis, and retain freedom of entrance into that market. However, the introduction by our Prime Minister of this new principle at the Imperial economic conference of 1930 upset the development of the whole system, so that when they brought in their duties on March 1, 1932, they put a time limit on, and now we are faced with the necessity of negotiation as to whether our apples and other goods will continue to enter that market free.
I should say it is of far more importance that we continue to get into the market than that we receive a preference, but with duties that debar us. Freedom of entrance may be more important than protection in the market. Freedom of entrance into that market on preferential terms would have come with the coming into effect of a protective system in Great Britain without bargaining at all, in the natural course of events as indicated by the facts I have given to the committee.
My submission is that the present government's policy in Imperial trade relations has been unfortunate, and that if we are to continue the progress that has been made a reversal of that policy is essential. Now, what are the principles that should guide the government at the conference? It seems to me at the forthcoming Imperial economic conference we should not, if we can help it, tie our hands so far as negotiations with foreign countries are concerned. We may depend upon it that the United Kingdom will not tie its hands in those relations. Great Britain has close trade relations with the Argentine republic, the Scandinavian countries and other countries which treat them better in their markets than we treat them in ours.

Not long ago Mr. Runciman made a speech in which he said:
We are bound and determined to make arrangements for our own dominions during this summer and autumn which will add to our volume of trade between us and them, but that does not preclude us from making friendly arrangements with foreign countries, friendly arrangements to which I look forward with great hope.
You can be sure we are sufficiently open-minded to prevent any policies standing in the way of the development of world trade.
The Dominion of Canada also is so constituted that it can deal advantageously with countries outside the British Empire. During recent years there has grown up what might be termed a state of tariff war between Canada and the United States. I do not think, however, many of us believe that condition will continue indefinitely. These two countries are so situated that a very large and profitable trade must be done between them. I submit it would be unwise at the Imperial conference for Canada so to tie her hands that she could not negotiate with countries such as the United States, a country with which she can do business under such peculiarly favourable conditions.
The same is true of Germany. Since I have sat in this house I have had representations year after year from people in my constituency asking that I do something or get the government to do something to improve trade relations with Germany. There we have very hostile tariffs against us. In some cases their tariffs against us are twice as high as they are against the United States. If it could be avoided it would be unwise for the Dominion of Canada at the coming conference to tie its hands as to negotiations with countries with which she can trade profitably. It must be remembered that the trend during the last twenty years has been in the direction of a greater percentage of trade with foreign countries. I have before me figures for the years 1911 and 1932. In 1911, 54.3 per cent of our exports were to other parts of the British Empire; in 1932, the figure was only 38 per cent. In 1911, 28.7 per cent of our imports were from other parts of the British Empire, whereas in 1932, the figure was only 25.5 per cent. In that connection there is a substantial reduction in both cases, but especially as to the percentage of exports. As to the United States, the percentage of our total trade has remained about the same. In 1911, 38 per cent of our exports were to the United States, and in 1932 there was an increased figure of 40.8 per cent. In 1911, 60.8 per cent of our imports were from the United

Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
States, and in 1932, the figure was exactly the same. In other words our trade with our neighbouring country, in percentage of total trade during the last twenty-one years has remained practically the same. When we come to other foreign countries, however, we see during that period a great increase in the percentage of trade. In 1911, 7.7 per cent of our exports were to other foreign countries; in 1932 the figure was 21.2 per cent. In 1911, 10.5 per cent of our imports were from other foreign countries, whereas in 1932 there has been an increase to 13.7 per cent. That is to say, the percentage of our exports to other foreign countries, countries other than the United States and parts of the British Empire, during the past twenty-one years has been multiplied by three. We would be unwise to fly in the face of that trend, especially when it it considered that in all probability a great many foreign countries will be negotiating with one another and with us for the reduction of tariffs during the next few years.
Another guiding principle that should prevail at the Imperial economic conference is that we should attempt to increase and expand, not merely deflect trade. I believe that is the most fundamental and the soundest criticism of the enormous duties which during the last year and a 'half we have placed against British products. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth placed on Hansard during his speech on the budget some rates to which I should like to make reference. When dumping duties and tariff rates were added together some of them went as high as 99 per cent ad valorem. Some of the rates were 94 per cent, 43 per cent, 99 per cent, 75 per cent, 46} per cent, 41 per cent, and so on. The erection of these very high tariffs against Great Britain has reduced the volume of trade. If the effects of such tariffs were merely to deflect trade, if it meant merely that buyers bought from Canadian instead of British sources, it would not be so unfortunate, but it means that not only do they change their sources of supply but they do not buy as much. The total volume of trade is cut down. If there is one thing upon which leading economists in the world of to-day agree-and I refer to men such as John Maynard Keynes

it is the importance of getting people to buy and sell in a larger way. If the world is to recover from the depression there must be an expansion of the volume of trade. Consequently any development at the Imperial economic conference which simply deflects without increasing trade will not be in the best interests either of this country or of the
world as a whole. A policy which means merely that the empire will erect around its borders a high tariff, leaving the high tariffs still existing between the various parts of the empire, will reduce rather than increase the total volume of trade and will not be in the best interests of Canada. I urge that consideration with the greatest confidence and earnestness upon the Prime Minister. The idea put forward at the Imperial conference of 1930 that every industry we can get going in this country we must protect by high tariffs against the other parts of the empire and then put around the empire itself another high tariff against the rest of the world, is not in line with what economists or, for that matter, business men or statesmen, are now urging. The advice that is being given in increasing volume is to adopt policies that will stimulate and increase the total volume of trade.
Finally I would say this: We should avoid the establishment of an Imperial economic unit or zollverein which will isolate us from the rest of the world and provoke other nations to form themselves into similar exclusive trading confederacies. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate that thought. Anyone who has been reading the articles in the magazines and the speeches that are being made will see the great danger of making of the British Empire a zollverein such as the German states constituted in the last century. In the Round Table of March, 1932, there was a very thoughtful article on Imperial preference, and the conclusion to which the writer of that article came, I adopt, because it seems to me very sensible. It reads:
Let us now sum up what seem to he the fundamentals of any system of Imperial trade regulation, including preference, which is to be of lasting value. It must take into account the fundamental economic policies of the participants, including the balance between their industry and agriculture, and their commercial relations with the rest of the -world. Once those essentials have been determined, it should imply a progress towards a lowering of tariffs and the breakdown of economic nationalism generally; it must expand rather than diminish the volume of world trade. While for the time being it may injure third parties it must not be directed against them, and must leave them an opportunity of participating in preferential advantages in exchange of equivalent undertakings. It must not be of such complication or duration as to tie the hands of any party unduly in its trading relations either within or outside the commonwealth. Above all, it must be based on the principle of mutual advantage and free consent.
It is fashionable at present to say that we should make suggestions as to what we should give at this conference rather than what we should seek to get. I can think of many
^888	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
things, but those possibilities, no doubt, are being explored by the government. Their task at this conference is not going to be an easy one, but if they keep in mind certain principles, those that are embodied in the conclusion of the article from the Round Table which I have read, I do not see any reason why they cannot make a success of the coming Imperial economic conference.


Eccles James Gott: I should like for a few
moments to draw to the attention of the government the importance of having the subject of tobacco on the agenda of the Imperial economic conference. I should like the opportunity of discussing the tobacco situation from grower to consumer, because I have in relation to this problem very definite ideas which, if carried into effect, would, I believe, put the industry on its feet.
First, I would raise the tariff on imported raw leaf and keep out 16,000,000 pounds of
raw leaf tobacco which comes in from the United States each year. Second, I would lower the excise duty on cigarettes and thus double not only the consumption but the output of Canadian cigarettes in Canada. Third, I would appoint a commission to exterminate the tobacco combine and establish a fair price for the growers. Fourth, I would endeavour to increase the British preference. I want to indicate the opportunities which the Canadian representatives at the Imperial conference will have of impressing upon the people of the United Kingdom the possibility of increasing our exportation of tobacco. Great Britain imports every year approximately 220,000,000 pounds of tobacco. I have under my hand figures which I should like to place on record, but the Speaker has ruled that in order to have this done, they must be read, hence they are as follows:


Imports of Unmanufactured Tobacco into the United Kingdom (Calendar years 1921 to 1930; also eleven months ended November 30, 1930 and 1931)
-	Total Imports	Importations from-	Greece	Nether- lands	Syria	United States	Other Foreign Countries	British India	Canada	Nyasaland Protec- torate	Rhodesia	Other British Countries	Total Foreign Countries	Total British CountriesCalendar Years-	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.1921	227,837,184	1,144,593	481,505	1,485,656	214,756,664	2,508,861	1,415,162	174,162	4,776,903	174,665	918,814	220,377,279	7,459,9051922	184,856,648	1,235,632	981,718	1,499,562	166,822,333	1,663,890	3,934,573	855,937	6,734,863	360,325	768,355	172,203,135	12,653,5131923	173,008,418	868,769	905,772	1,758,317	154,859,180	1,751,739	4,574,504	955,507	5,891,167	366,513	1,106,950	160,143,777	12,894,6411924	182,422,745	1,066,844	871,180	1,947,311	156,938,302	2,301,620	8,412,040	1,787,194	6,882,452	726,469	1,489,333	163,125,257	19,297,4881925	188,981,026	1,897,034	965,839	2,085,617	162,718,941	2,392,421	7,785,421	1,858,523	7,079,485	1,031,165	1,175,580	170,059,852	18,921,1741926	197,203,625	1,045,140	1,412,478	1,346,623	161,409,564	2,194,583	11,854,340	4,913,883	9,084,095	2,305,009	1,637,910	167,408,388	29,795,2371927.	222,265,323	693,287	708,078	362,086	177,441,802	2,107,791	8,432,864	5,812,909	13,781,373	11,088,470	1,836,305	181,313,584	40,951,7391928	217,785,216	576,095	619,883	93,355	171,838,580	1,572,818	10,338,822	6,029,388	12,181,826	12,270,989	2,263,460	174,700,731	43,084,4851929	240,026,107	926,300	580,353	54,530	205,376,067	1,557,930	9,180,662	5,024,604	10,671,895	5,185,675	1,468,091	208,495,180	31,530,9271930	237,027,857	461,191	772,056	400,308	197,764,709	2,291,263	13,040,807	4,040,625	12,810,101	4,314,367	1,132,430	201,689,527	35,338,33011 Months ended Nov.	30-	1930	205,205,612	Included in other foreign	167,383,010	3,726,654	12,671,125	3,673,288	12,552,724	3,444,587	1,754,224	171,109,664	34,095,948
1931		164,967,825				130,242,433	2,473,212	9,277,203	5,510,650	11,093,667	4,745,854	1,624,806	132,715,645	32,252,180
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
Unemployment Relief

We in 'Canada produced last year, 1931,
51,000,000 [DOT] pounds of tobacco. All colonial tobacco, including that of this country, has in the British market a preference of forty-nine cents per pound. The figures I have given can be reversed; instead of the United Kingdom importing 200,000,000 pounds of tobacco from the United States, we, the tobacco producers in Canada, can supply the British market with all the tobacco it needs and of just as good a grade as is grown in any part of the British Empire, in fact, of the world. How can we do this? In this way: if our representatives can induce those of the United Kingdom to permit our tobacco to enter the mother country free of duty and to impose the. regular duty against imports from foreign countries, we can supplant the 200,000,000 pounds of tobacco that is imported each year into the United Kingdom from the United States. I am sorry it is eleven o'clock. I should like to have gone a little further.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 13, 1932.