Right Hon.   S@: That the name of Mr. Sutherland be substituted for that of Mr. Peck on the Special Committee appointed to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance, and the re-establishment of returned soldiers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to section 74 of the Dominion Elections Act, as of date, 9th March, 1921. 

Mr. Speaker.
Volume 3 of the Auditor General's Report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920, parts T to Z.-Right Hon. Mr. Meighen for Hon. Sir Henry Drayton.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 23, respecting the Lake of the Woods Control Board.

Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Frank Alexander Staunton.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 25, respecting The Kettle Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 26, respecting The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.

Mr. Lang.
Bill No. 27, respecting The Quebec Central Railway Company.-Mr. Beland.
Bill No. 28, to incorporate The Slave River Railway Company.-Mr. Tweedie.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. POWER
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On reading yesterday's Hansard I note that my name has been given as one of those who are to sit on the committee on soldiers' re-establishment and pensions. I have already stated to the House-and I gave my reasons therefor at the time-that I had no intention of acting on that committee this year. I would therefore like the Prime Minister to withdraw my name.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: The name of the hon. member (Mr. Power) came, I think, from the other side-from the Whip or the Leader- in the ordinary course. Undoubtedly, if the hon. member desires not to act, some arrangement will be made to have another hon. member to take his place.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RALWAYS REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FRANK CAHILL (Pontiac) :: May
I ask the Government when we may expect a detailed report of the Canadian National Railways for the fiscal year 1919-20?


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Railways is
not in his seat. I will direct the matter to his attention and have it referred to on Monday.
On motion of Mr. Meighen, the House proceeded to the order: Notices of Motions.



POLITICAL PATRONAGE IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.

Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the best interests of Canada and its people would be
served, and the principles of responsible Government would be maintained by a system of political patronage wherei-n appointments to and promotions in both the Outside Civil Service and the Inside Civil Service would be brought under the specific consideration and recommendation of the members of Parliament, or the defeated candidates of the party in power; always having due regard for the stability of the service, the promotion of deserving officers, and the proper conduct of the business of the country ; and that the Civil Service Act be amended in conformity therewith ; and also to place the Civil Service Commission in an unequivocal position, consistent with its dignity and importance in a new sphere of action.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I suggest that it would be to the advantage of hon. members of the House if the hon. member could find it convenient to move just a little further down the Chamber, thus enabling a much larger number of members to hear him.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, T
regret that my physical condition is such that I must curtail my remarks to-day. Possibly it is just as well, as I understand that the House is unanimously in favour of that part of the resolution: which deals with the Outside Service^ Besides, the authority of these medical advisers is inexorable; I have to bow to their orders. I do not propose to take up in any very great detail the subject matter of this resolution. I may point out, however, that during the war-and if I tread on anyone's corns I hope I will be pardoned, for I am taking a view of the matter from a little distance-fads of all descriptions were foisted on the public. We had the food control; we had the fuel control; we had the Board of Commerce; we had the labour movement agitation; we had the Grain Growers' movement; we had the U.F.O. movement; we have had liquor movements of various kinds, both ways; we have had the railway movement. Last, but by no means least, we have had the fad of taking the Outside Service in with the Inside Service and tightening up the Inside Service so as to make it as close a corporation as ever existed. Then, there were a thousand and one other freaks of a people carried away from their usual stability of thought and action. It was useless to try to stop such movements. Some freak or faddist, under the guise of democracy, would proclaim his fad, and forthwith it would assume definite form and be fastened on the public in direct contradiction of every principle of responsible government. The strange part of all this is that we were making war on Germany because of her

autocracy, and yet every precaution pertaining to responsible government was directly and ruthlessly thrown to the winds in the carrying out of these activities. This applies not to Canada alone, but to Britain and to France as well.
As I have said, among other fads forced on the public by uplifters was the bringing of the Outside Service under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. In a nutshell, the rule adopted was that the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission would override the member of Parliament who was directly responsible to the people-although, for generations the member of Parliament had had the nomination of appointees in his riding- and would communicate with some local kindred faddist who was not responsible to the people-some personal friend possibly; some uplifter with no judgment in appointments of this kind. I could give various instances; I have a list of instances where the member of Parliament would know nothing about the matter until he found a man in office, and upon tracing it up he would find that the nomination had been made by some local uplifter or some gentleman who meant well possibly, but the member would have no say in the matter at all. I could give other instances in which the member's orders were overridden by the Civil Service Commission in connection with these appointments. It is not necesary that I should go into the details; others may do that. Instances by the score-indeed, by the hundred- are well known where the first the member of Parliament would know of an appointment would be to find the man in office, placed there by the manipulation of some clerk in the Civil Service Commission. Under the former rule, not only was the member of Parliament held responsible for the Outside Service; he was consulted also in respect to appointments in the Inside Service. This is not generally understood. I can well remember that, in Sir John Macdonald's time, members of Parliament were always consulted in regard to appointments, not only to the Outside Service, but to the Inside Service as well, and I think it is only proper that they should be. Most assuredly members of the Government should have full control. Under present conditions, I understand a deputy minister can tell a minister that he will not bow to his ruling; that he will not accede to his recommendations, but do as he has a mind

to; under this cast iron law that has been placed on the statute book. I can well remember, in Sir John Macdonald's time, one member having the patronage for his own riding not only made appointments in the Outside Service, but also through the minister concerned, made appointments of his fair share of the Inside Service. He was also very active in helping other members with their appointments in the Inside Service. On one occasion when he recommended an appointment for the Inside Service, he was quietly shown that he had far exceeded his number, and he was amazed to find that his recommendations in support of other member's nominations were all charged up to himself. I mention this merely to show that in those days the Inside Service, the best the country has ever had, was recognized by Sir John Macdonald as belonging to the member of Parliament through the minister immediately concerned. I want it distinctly understood that the minister immediately concerned and the member of Parliament should be responsible for appointments to the Outside Service, and if the member of Parliament does not make a proper recommendation, then the minister will be absolutely justified in declining to accept that member's nomination.
Objections have been raised to members of Parliament having anything to do with the Inside Service, and the chief objection comes from members for constituencies in and around Ottawa. In the old days, the two members for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp and Mr. Chabot) had a hard time of it, and I expect the action of the people in rushing to those members by hundreds for jobs was responsible for bringing on this change. Under this resolution, that will be quite unnecessary. I claim, as representing the riding of Victoria, that I am as much entitled as any of the members for Ottawa or the constituencies immediately adjoining, to make recommendations for appointments in the Inside Civil Service in this city, and that I am entitled to give the young gentlemen and ladies in my constituencies who wish- to make the Civil Service their vocation in life, an opportunity of doing so. Therefore, some system that would bring that condition of affairs about should be adopted. I am a firm believer in the powers of the House of Commons and of Parliament, and I would suggest the advisability of appointing a committee of this House to investigate the Civil Service Commission and

the Civil Service, as a whole, session after session, taking their time and forming a committee in conjunction with some officers of the Civil Service. At the present time, if a clerk has some disability placed on him or if he has some grievance, no opportunity whatever, short of an appeal through friends on the side-and that does not amount to anything-is given him of having his grievance redressed. There should therefore, be some responsible body, -mark you, I believe all these public bodies should be responsible to the people, I do not believe in close commissions at all-to whom such clerks and other members of the Civil Service who have grievances could apply, and to whom application could be made in case of persons improperly promoted in a department. I have a mass of correspondence in regard to this matter, but I will not use it. I will, however, mention the case of one clerk who had been working at a salary of $900 a year or so ago, and who is now receiving a salary of three or four thousand dollars and is controlling, without any special education or qualification, the appointments of men who ate infinitely his superior in education, tact and judgment. Under present conditions, all this sort of thing goes on and there is no redress. The cast-iron rule of the inside Civil Service stands in the way, and the matter cannot be adjusted. I understand that even some of the senior civil servants have had the temerity to tell members high up in the Cabinet that they decline to permit them to interfere in matters of that kind; that such matters belong to those civil servants entirely.
There are just two forms of human government-trust and mistrust. I do not want to be personal or to hark back, but I might just point this out in that regard. It may be remembered, that in 1915, and up to the first of March, 1916, I had the honour or raising 375,000 soldiers;-I had the honour of raising upwards of 450,000 altogether. When we started the system of groups, little bunches of soldiers, twenty-five here, fifty there, and so on throughout the country, some of my colleagues, very wise men, and many outside people, came to me and said: " But how are you going to control these soldiers?" I said: " In the name of Heaven, who controls them now? They know the way home at night; they know how to go to bed; they know how to conduct themselves properly as gentlemen, without the uniform, and when they don the uniform, with all the honour and
pride involved in that action, they are going to behave themselves like gentlemen." These people wanted special officers appointed to control these soldiers; but in the whole Dominion, there was not a solitary police court case worthy of being a police court case out of those 375,000 men during the six months in that year. I have never been afraid to trust the people or members of Parliament in their appointments. I have never known a bad appointment made in my constituency through either my recommendation or that of my opponent when he had the honour of representing the riding, during the time when members of Parliament under the old rule had the privilege of recommending appointments to the Outside Service. You must have something directly responsible to the people, and the member of Parliament is the only one man who can be held responsible. The uplifter, the clergyman, the private wire-puller, are not responsible to the people, and they cannot be reached as can members of Parliament.
The various forms of irresponsibility are autocracy such as the Kaiser's; those fads such as food controls; labour agitators; Grain Growers and U.F.O. organizations. I trust the gentlemen representing the U.F.O. and the Grain Growers will not take my remarks amiss; the point I want to make in connection with them is that they do not represent the principle of responsible Government; they have no settled policy of human government other than what is based on a negative quality. In other words, it is not trust; it is mistrust. I am making these remarks in all kindness. Other forms of irresponsibility are ultramontane and uplifting churches; Bolshevism and all kindred organizations, where the consent of the people as a whole does not control. Under responsible government, good results have always followed, whereas under Civil Service government results have always been bad. I have lists showing the inferior class of some of the appointments made under the Civil Service Commission, although the people do not hear about such appointments. I can give one instance in which three fellows who were appointed committed misdemeanors, and when they were about to be arrested, they skipped out. You never hear of the crooks appointed under this system. I remember in one case a member of Parliament protested against the appointment of a man, but certain clergymen interfered and the man, a noted scalawag, and reprobate, was ap-

pointed over the recommendation of the member and over the recommendations of men in the riding and elsewhere of other and better men. I could give dozens of instances of that kind. Under responsible, government you can get a high class of men. If you look back to the old days, you will see the best men, graduates of universities, getting positions, whereas now little boys and girls get them and the big men of the country cannot find positions in the Civil Service the same as they did under the old system of responsible government appointments. No govternment can be a compromise, nor a combination of responsible government and autocracy.
I will cut my remarks short because I know the House is familiar with this question. Permit me to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister for arranging to give me this opportunity of addressing a few words to the House to-day, and also for your kindness in giving me a place near the centre of the Chamber.


Mr. ALFRED ERNEST FRIPP (Ottawa) :: Mr. Speaker, I have seconded the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) in whole, though I am rather inclined to think that in part it ought not to apply to the Inside Service. I understand that the mover is satisfied with that position.
I speak upon this resolution because of some little experience that I think I have gained while having the honour of having a seat in this House representing this Capital city of the Dominion. In order to deal with this question properly, it seems to me, one must go back to the original Act, consequent upon which the Civil Service Commission was formed. As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that Act was passed about 1908, and its purpose, as exemplified by the clauses of the Act itself, was, shortly, to place the control of appointments to the Civil Service of Canada under this Commission, and to provide that all appointments should be made after examination. That was the real purpose of the appointment of this commission. Before that, as hon. gentlemen are well aware, both political parties made appointments to the Inside and Outside Service. I experienced a short period of that privilege, if one may so express himself, by suggesting the appointment of certain persons in the city of Ottawa, and I venture to say that the appointments I made were as good if not better than the appointments now being made by the Civil Service Commission. Subsequently, the Govern-[Slr Sam Hughes.]
ment of the day, prior to the last election, made it a plank in its platform that political patronage so far as the Outside Service was concerned should be abolished, and that the Outside Service should be placed under the control of the commission.	.
With regard to political patronage, I am free to admit that I was one of those who were strongly in favour of its abolition so far as both the Outside and Inside Service was concerned. I must confess, however, that I have to some extent changed my mind, and my reasons may be stated in this way. First, while we are all in favour of the abolition of politica patronage, our experience has been, 1 think, since the commission has been oper ating along these lines for the past three years, that the commission does not abol ish patronage. By handing over to these gentlemen who constitute the Civil Service Commission the making of appointments we have not abolished patronage or attained the object we had in view when we placed this serious responsibility upon their shoulders.
My second objection is that it has cost this country an unnecessarily large sum of money in order to put the Outside Service, particularly, under the control of the Civil Service Commission. My third objection is that it has caused throughout the country, and especially amongst the Civil Servants of Canada; a great deal of unrest, and necessarily the work of the Government has not been as expeditiously and as efficiently done as it otherwise would have been.
Dealing with the first point I make, that the appointment of the Civil Service Commission does not abolish patronage, I do not propose to labour that except to give one or two instances. Instead of a member of Parliament recommending a man for the position, we will say, of a letter carrier, or any other position in the Service, we have simply handed over to two or three gentlemen the power to select that man. Now, if the selection were based upon the man's having passed an examination with a higher percentage of marks than any of his competitors, and upon that only, one perhaps could not object very much, but the difficulties-there are two-are these: First that the examinations set is not an examination upon the duties the man will have to perform if appointed; and, secondly, that is not the only consideration which, in my experience, has entered into the minds of the

commissioners when they have made such appointments.
Take for example a large case which comes to my mind as I speak. Last year this Government undertook, with the authority of Parliament, to reorganize the Printing Bureau in the city of Ottawa. I have already expressed myself in this House in no uncertain way as to my views upon that question, but just let us see how patronage worked out there. The Civil Service Commission recommended to this Government that we should employ experts to classify the Civil Service of Canada. Well, we all know what that meant. It meant that these gentlemen, Messrs. Arthur Young and Company, came to Ottawa and gathered together the necessary material for this book, which is called "The Classification of the Civil Service of Canada," at an expenditure of very large sums of money. I find upon making inquiry that this country paid to Arthur Young and Company in the year 1918-19 $34,695, and in the year 1919-20 $95,270, and subsequently an additional $10,000 odd.


Samuel Hughes: Is there any more to pay?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: No, the $10,000 odd was the last sum to be paid.


Mr. H. S. BELAND:: What is the total?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: It is $139,666. I wonder if any hon. members have ever read this classification. I open it at any page. Here, on page 527, is the position of Parcel Postman. The definition of class reads:
To perform, under supervision, all work connected with the delivery of parcel post mail matter in the business and residence sections of a city; to deliver mail to nearby suburban offices; and to perform other related work as assigned.
Now surely it does not take an expert to tell us what the duties of a postman are. But this commission, instead of doing this work themselves as they ought to have done and might very well have done, employed these gentlemen and paid them a large sum of money. And one would have thought that having made a classification of the Civil Service, Arthur Young and Company would not possibly have considered their work complete without suggesting to the Government how the Civil Service could be reformed and, if necessary, reduced in numbers. But no; having made this classification these gentlemen stepped right out and another concern was brought in by the Civil Service Commission, Messrs. Griffen-hagen and Associates, who have been undertaking the reorganization of the service. Surely Arthur Young and Company were not paid simply to compile a book setting forth the duties of the various public servants of Canada, and stopping there. It was, and ought to have been made, a necessary part of their work to report at the same time as to how the Civil Service could be improved, a work that has been attempted by Griffenhagen and Associates, who, I understand, have been paid about $70,000 to date. I am glad to observe, from newspaper reports, that the Government have considered it advisable to dispense with the services of these gentlemen.
Allow me to revert to my illustration. A part of this work of Arthur Young and Company was the reorganization of the Printing Bureau in Ottawa, and upon the recommendation of a German-American named Wolfe, a member of this firm, 409 men were laid off from the Bureau without an opportunity of appeal, without the chance of being heard as to whether it was just or necessary that they should be laid off in view of old age or any other possible reason that they might advance. They were laid off merely on his say-so. Surely it was a most obnoxious form of patronage for this country to have conferred on a gentleman of this kind the power to decide as to who should be employed in and who should be dismissed from one of our large institutions. But that is not all. These very same gentlemen are charged now with the destruction of very valuable books, as appears from the resolution of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), as well as of some invaluable plates, which cannot be restored, used for the printing of certain public documents. Under the circumstances, I contend that the Civil Service Commission has not been the means of abolishing patronage; it simply appropriates this power to itself or delegates it to others, its nominees, to say who shall be appointed and who shall not.
Let us take another illustration. Suppose any one of these departments required an architect, or a solicitor, or a barrister. Do the Commission make the appointment? No; they simply ask Mr. John Brown, Mr. Smith, and some person else to pass upon the recommendations that have been placed before them; and that is merely handing patronage over to three irresponsible persons, who, for personal or religious reasons, or from any other motive you choose to suggest, may be influenced in their choice of the applicant to fill the position. Now, that is an

entire departure from the object for which the Civil Service Commission was originally established, namely, to hold competitive examinations, ascertain the results, and then report to the Government. Now they make these appointments, sometimes themselves, but very largely upon the say-so of other persons whom they consult of their own motion.
My second objection is that it has cost this country too much money to put the Outside Service under the control of the Civil Service Commission. The hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell), the ExPresident of the Privy Council, said in a speech last year that there were 5,000 persons employed in the Inside Service and 35,000 in the Outside, and I should like to bring to the attention of the Government just what it has cost this country to place the Outside Service under the control of the Commission. In 1908-9 the Civil Service Commission cost this country $12,531.45, and it had five permanent employees. In 1909-10 it cost the country about $11,000 and had eight permanent employees-of course, they needed just a small staff to prepare examination papers; indeed, they did not even prepare the examination papers; they merely collected the necessary details -for the purpose of holding the examinations. In 1910-11 the cost was about the same; in 1911-12, it was $14,000; in 1913-14, $35,000, with fifteen employees. In 1915-16 the cost had risen to $41,970, although there were fourteen employees'; but in 1917-18 there was a further increase in the cost, which was $43,925; while there were sixteen permanent employees and ten temporary employees. In 1918-19, including what was paid that year to Arthur Young and Company, it cost this country to classify the Civil Service and pay the salaries of the Commission, $149,399, and the permanent employees of the Commission numbered twenty-six, while there were forty-eight temporary employees. If you deduct the amount paid to Arthur Young and Company for that year, viz., $34,000, Torn the total, it will be seen that the Civil Service Commission in that year cost us practically $100,000, as compared with the cost a few years before, when the Outside Service was not under its control, of between $11,000 and $14,000 at the most. In 1919-20 the Commission and its employees, including the companies I have mentioned, cost the country $297,999.76. In that year their permanent employees had increased to forty-six and the temporary to one hundred and fifty-nine. Now, of 
that sum of $297,000 odd, $95,270 was paid to Arthur Young and Company; so that the Civil Service Commission itself cost us about $200,000 for that fiscal year. Why? because the appointments in the Outside Service must have entailed the large number of extra employees engaged. Now, Sir, I submit with all due respect to the Commission, that they have failed. I say, Sir, that they have failed to take care of the situation which this Parliament felt some years ago ought to be removed from the control of members of Parliament.
What has happened? Let us give a simple illustration. A postmaster is required in some county, say, in British Columbia. The stipend attaching to the position is, let us say, $50 or $100 a year. Now, that appointment has to be made at Ottawa. A certain amount of money must be spent advertising it in the local papers, and after considerable delay, the Civil Service Commission at Ottawa select the man. Surely that man could have been selected, and as good an appointment, if not better, made, by the member of Parliament in that locality, a man who is responsible to the people.


Samuel Hughes: Is not the postmaster now, as a matter of fact, selected on the recommendation of some one outside of the commission?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: know that there are two hundred odd of these employees leaving at the end of this month. Many of them are returned soldiers, most of them are married men. They have had four or five years experience as first-class clerks and they have made good. Why should not these men be transferred to other departments that need experienced clerks when the Civil Service Commission is advertising every day for clerks needed in different departments? It seems to be a rule of the Civil Service Commission that no man who has been a temporary employee can become permanent no matter how efficient he may be. I think that is a good illustration of the necessity of reconsidering the management of the Outside Service, and of seeing that the duties of the Civil Service Commission should be confined practically to the Inside Service in this city which is immediately under their observation and under their control. It is a mistake to add to the duties of the commission in Ottawa, which are already heavy and onerous for the Inside Service, the additional duty of having to appoint men all over the Dominion to the number, as estimated, of nearly thirty-five thousand.
Mr. JOHN L. CHABOT (Ottawa) : Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting with more than ordinary interest for the remarks of my esteemed colleague of the city of Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) on the question before the House. We have both had a somewhat similar experience in the course of our parliamentary career, and I think I am well within the judgment of this House when I declare that no other members have ever suffered from the pernicious effects of the patronage system to the same extent.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that during the first years I sat in this House as representative of the city of Ottawa I lost my practice and many of my friends. I gave up time, day and night, week-day and Sunday, month in and month out, in a vain endeavour to satisfy the army of applicants seeking Government jobs; and for every man or woman that apparently became my friend because I had succeeded in finding them a job, I made a score of enemies with unsuccessful competitors and their friends.
I think, if I remember rightly, it was Abraham Lincoln who on a certain occasion when asked his opinion about appointments to the Civil Service remarked, that if for one vacant position there were fifty applicants you made forty-nine enemies and in due course the appointed one became an ingrate. Well, my experience in the city

of Ottawa has to some extent proved the correctness of Lincoln's statement. Surely this reason alone would have justified any hon. gentleman having like experience in opposing to the limit of his voice and vote the movement to restore the patronage system.
I am compelled to declare that I am absolutely at variance with the views that have been expressed by my esteemed colleague (Mr. Fripp) ; and I may add that it was only on the distinct understanding that the patronage system was to be abolished that I consented to contest a seat in this House at the last general election. Patronage was abolished, and I may state, Sir, 4 p.m. that for the past three years life, so far as its public duties are concerned, has once more become worth living. I have been able to devote myself' to my practice out of session, and while this House has been in session, I have been free to give my time and what small ability I may have to matters of real national importance. Of course, last session and the session before I may have been apparently derelict in the performance of my parliamentary duties, but I wish to state that my absence was caused by illness, and while I am not asking for sympathy I am offering this as an explanation of my apparent neglect.


An Hon. MEMBER:: We are all happy to see you well.


Mr. CHABOT:: I must admit, Sir, that I am not able to understand how any member of Parliament can really desire to return to the old patronage system, at least if he has had any personal experience therewith. Moreover, may I remind the House that this has a far wider importance than its bearing on the personal fortunes of individual members? Its baneful effects are so well known and acknowledged throughout the country-and nowhere so emphatically as in this capital city-that it needs no assertion nor argument on my part. Every political pary has in succession claimed to have considered its abolition of so much importance that it has been made a prominent plank in every platform for many elections. Some of the greatest minds that have adorned these benches have expressed themselves in no uncertain terms in condemnation thereof. And, further, I am satisfied that in so expressing themselves they have given voice to their honest and well-matured conviction-but alas! until some three years ago partisan pressure was too severe and their good intentions perforce became abortive.

Parliament itself, Mr. Speaker, is responsible for the legislation now on the statute book and for the splendid reform which was inaugurated less than three years ago and which has since been on trial. Parliament did not take this step hastily. It knew what it was doing, and surely nothing very serious has occurred in the interim to modify, much less change, the principles or the view then so generally expressed and so definitely given effect to. Of course, it is outside the limit of human power to satisfy in their entirety the expectations or demands of the Civil Service of Canada or of any other country.
In the course of this debate the House has listened to considerable criticism of the Civil Service Commission, and many harsh things have been said and-may I add?-many ill-founded assertions have been made of its actions. But if the House will consider a moment I think hon. members will agree with me that Parliament imposed upon the Civil Service Commission an almost impossible task when it assigned to it the duties called for under the Act of 1918. At that time the staff of the Commission consisted of some fourteen or fifteen, housed in quarters and equipped with machinery adequate for the more or less routine and perfunctory work of which it at the time had charge. In the interim that staff has been increased to a strength of 225, every man and woman of which is working at high pressure and an appreciable percentage of whom find it necessary to put in many hours of overtime. I claim that that shows beyond the last doubt that the duties of the Commission have become more numerous and more important.
In the comparatively brief interval since that Act was passed machinery has been organized and a staff built up which has practically reorganized the service and put the entire machinery of Government on a new, modern and more efficient basis. Undoubtedly some mistakes have been made. Some temporary disturbance of work and some passing inconvenience to the departments must inevitably attend a reorganization so drastic, and indeed revolutionary, but in my opinion the result has been eminently satisfactory. What has been aimed at and what has been actually accomplished is being better understood and more thoroughly appreciated every day, not only in the service itself, but throughout the country, and I cannot imagine it would be possible to make a greater mistake than to stop the work of progress and reform which has been so well started and so assiduously developed.
The Civil Service itself-and I know whereof I speak when I make the statement-is opposed to any return of the patronage system, notwithstanding the remarks made by my worthy colleague that a great deal of unrest exists in the service itself. I should like to read to this House a letter which I received only to-day, and which I think shows that my hon. colleague has either been misinformed or is labouring-under a delusion. This, letter, which is dated the Uth instant, is addressed to me by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Civil Service Association of Ottawa and by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Civil Service Federation of Canada.
Dear Sir,-The undersigned, on behalf of the Civil Service Federation of Canada, representing the Outside Service from coast to coast, and the Civil Service Association, representing the Inside Service at Ottawa, respectfully but urgently beg to draw your attention to our views with regard to the question of patronage, which is at present before the House In the form of resolution.
We are emphatically opposed to patronage in any form. We regard the abolition of patronage as the most outstanding and beneficial reform in the history of the Canadian Civil Service, and we desire to express our gratitude to you for the enactment of the present Civil Service Act, which embodies the Merit System, and in doing so, we voice the undoubted sentiment of an overwhelming majority of the service.
It has been the experience of the service in the past that under the patronage system influence predominates and worth counts for little. We are convinced that under the Merit System, meritorious service will be rewarded and toadyism will disappear. It is true that during the present period of transition conditions are inevitably somewhat chaotic, and the advantages of the reform have not yet been realized. We feel sure, however, that if the Merit System is given a fair trial effective and satisfactory methods of administration will be evolved and carried out.
Tours respectfully,
L. H. Lamothe,
Secretary-Treasurer,
Civil Service Federation of Canada.
J. H. Ryan, Secretary-Treasurer,
Civil Service Association qf Ottawa.
Every thoughtful elector in the country is antagonistic to patronage as a manner of appointments to the public service. The system has'been condemned by every commission appointed by the various political parties that have held the reins of power in this country. I have already pointed out, that the leading public men of all political schools of thought have expressed themselves unmistakably in favour of the competitive system. In every progressive country in the world to-day this is the system which is followed in recruiting the public service, and I would therefore re-

gard any interference with the present methods that are being developed in our federal service as a retrograde step which can only result in disaster.
Feeling as I do, Mr. Speaker, that patronage as it existed some years ago was unsatisfactory, unbusinesslike, undemocratic, and in some cases unfair-and a last but not the least argument in support of my contention, that it has been one of the chief causes of the downfall of almost every Government since Confederation-I cannot support the resolution of my hon. and gallant friend, the member from Victoria.	[DOT]


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve-Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate the mover of this resolution, the genial member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) upon his being with us after a somewhat serious illness. I think I voice the sentiment of all hon. members when I express the wish that he may soon be completely restored to health.
I gave very close attention to the remarks of my hon. friend this afternoon, and I was pleased to note that he was applauded by hon. gentlemen on the other side when he gave expression to sentiments that were decidedly Liberal in their character. He said that no Government could be carried on if there was distrust of the people; that any such attitude on the part of a Government would result in chaos and anarchy; that the only way to govern a country was to trust the people. These, Sir, are eminently Liberal sentiments and Liberal principles, and I am glad to see that they are accepted with readiness by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House.
I sympathize, Mr. Speaker, with some hon. gentlemen who would like to restore patronage in the Civil Service in order to get a little more kudos with some of their electors. But after twenty-five years' experience in public life, I am still in favour of that great reform which was brought about by the Liberal Government through the establishment of the Civil Service Commission at Ottawa. I am in favour of the Civil Service Commission for the appointment of officers to the Inside Service, and I think that we should have in the large cities like Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Quebec, of course.


Mr. BUREAU:: Three Rivers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In all the large cities where there is a. branch of the Civil Service,

competitive examination should be held in order that these centres may be given the best possible service. There is no use in beating about the bush, Mr. Speaker; you can have an efficient Civil Service, both in-'side and outside, only by maintaining the system of competitive examination. I am not speaking of petty post offices, lighthouse keepers, charwomen, and so on; I am speaking of the regular Civil Service, inside and outside. As was stated this afternoon, the appointment of a country postmaster, for instance, might well be left to the recommendation of the elected representatives in the House of Commons. If the representative cannot safely be trusted with that responsibility he is not worthy of the mandate that he has received from the people. If he is given the responsibility, he will have to face the people if he does not recommend a man who is suitable, morally and otherwise, for the post to which he is recommended.
I have had some experience in the government of the country. I have presided over one of the large departments, and I know whereof I speak so far as patronage is concerned. Let me tell my hon. friends who have not been in the Government-but some of whom, judging by their radiant faces, will soon grace the Treasury benches -that life would not be worth living if the Civil Service Commission were abolished. As was stated a moment ago by my genial friend from Ottawa (Mr. Chabot), the life of a minister of the Crown would not be worth living if he could not give at least a few hours a day to the study of national affairs. I have worked under both systems -when there was no commission, and after a commission had been established. When there was no commission, a minister of the Crown almost had to be a hero in order to accomplish anything for the country. Why, Sir, his office was besieged from Monday until Saturday, and his house was stormed, by the army, the host, of office-seekers. He could not appoint them all, and naturally he was accused of nepotism, of thinking only of his family. I am glad to take this opportunity of declaring that although I have been charged by disgruntled office-seekers with having given offices to every member of my family, none would have accepted and none did accept a Government job while I was Postmaster General or Minister of Marine and Fisheries. But as I could not appoint an army of office-seekers, I was accused, of course, of giving fat jobs to every member of my

family-to every cousin, to every friend, and to every elector.
No country, Mr. Speaker, can hope to have sound, responsible government if the hands of its ministers are tied through the activities of office-seekers. That has been the experience of England and of the United States as well. It is not so many years-because the reform was accomplished only in the fifties-since nepotism reigned supreme in England. It is due to the exertions of men like Peel, Macaulay- who presided over one of the first Civil Service Commissions in England-Gladstone, and Beaconsfield, that there has been established and firmly rooted in England the best Civil Service in the world. Not very long ago I read a statement made by Lord Mor-ley in his memoirs with reference to Lord Minto and his vice-royalty in India. Commenting on the fidelity and loyalty to the Crown during so many years of from three hundred to four hundred millions of Indian subjects, he said:	It is largely due to
the excellent Indian Civil Service, which is a model and an example to the whole world. In England, you never hear of a member of the House or a minister of the Crown being pestered by office seekers. It is now part of the constitution which is not written, that the hands of a minister, the hands of a member of the House of Commons, are unshackled; he can speak his mind freely, and he is not bothered and stampeded by office-seekers. How has that condition of affairs been brought about? By the system of competitive examination, which has in England given the most perfect Civil Service that exists in Europe.
As regards the United States, I am not so old that I do not remember some of the presidential elections. I recall, when I was a boy, the elections of Grant, Garfield, Hayes and McKinley, and at every election, it was openly stated that "to the victor belonged the spoils." Whichever party came into office, the public servants of the United States would at one fell swoop be dismissed from office. It was a scandal to think that the great republic would treat her public servants in that fashion. That is no more the case, thanks to the commonsense of the American people. The leaders of both parties united, and there is to-day a permanent Civil Service Commission, to which belong the most influential men irrespective of parties, and that commission at times suggests reforms which are adopted by Congress. Sir, since 1883, the Civil Service in the United States has been declared permanent, and thus you
have at Washington a Civil Service which is second only to that of Great Britain.
In Canada, my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster), who is the senior member of this House, knows how the lives of ministers of the Crown and of members of the House of Commons have been made unhappy through this infernal patronage system. I remember- in the old days that members of the Civil Service from our various constituencies would come into the lobbies of the House of Commons and order ministers and members out of their seats and dictate to them what increase they should get, stating that if they refused, their families would vote against the minister or member; that the parish would vote against the minister or member, because some of our parishes are made up of one family, some of the families being as you know very numerous. In 1907, my then colleague, the Hon. Sydney Fisher, one of the best men this country has ever known, decided that we should put a stop to that system, and he introduced into this House a Bill instituting the Civil Service Commission. Two men were appointed, Prof. Shortt, and Mr. LaRochelle, K.C., of Montreal-two excellent men. Since that time, the commission has been increased, and I declare that I personally trust in the wisdom ability, and honesty of Hon. Mr. Roche, with whom I sat in this House, Mr. Jameson, ex-M.P., and Mr. LaRochelle, K.C. They are gentlemen who have had very wide experience. The system may not be perfect; we are simply beginning to introduce that system into Canada, and I quite understand that some people are somewhat perturbed by the loss of patronage. Let it be understood that henceforward patronage is abolished and, as the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot) said a moment ago, life will be worth living. Members of Parliament will be able to work for Canada, will have some time left to study our national problems. When this country is faced with a huge railway deficit, with an enormous war debt, we, the representatives of the people, can well afford to leave the administration of the Civil Service in the hands of the commission. Of course, I quite understand that there may be some abuses. I regret, for instance, the appointment of Arthur Young and company, and I deplore the appointment of Griffenhagen and Company. The country could have well improved- if there was anything to improve in the Civil Service-the business of that commission without calling upon strangers.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Foreigners.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, I am afraid to use the word "foreigner", or the word "stranger." I remember one day that Sir Wilfrid Laurier nearly created a revolution in this country because by a slip of the tongue he used the word "foreigner" when he should have used the word "stranger." The presence of those foreigners explains why, for instance, a man like Mr. Sydney Smith in the Post Office Department, a son of an ex-Postmaster General of Canada, one of the most faithful public servants this country has ever had, was replaced a few days ago by a German under an assumed name.
Some bon. MEMBERS: Name him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We shall hear more about this later on. For the moment, I wish to say this: I have no objection to give the public men of this country on both sides of the House the right to suggest the appointment of country postmasters, petty customs house officers and all other local office holders throughout the country; but as regards the Inside Service at Ottawa and in the large cities, I cling to the Civil Service Commission. Of course, the commission can stand some reform; but the principle of competitive examination is essentially sound and fair; it is essentially British, too.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Coats will be promoted.


Ernest Lapointe: To that letter I offered a modest answer reading-I will translate it-as follows:
Dear sir.-I acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 16th in which you state that the census commissioners will be appointed by the member supporting the Government in each electoral division. In reply I beg to call to your notice that in the division of Quebec East the member is not a supporter of the Government. Would you have the kindness to tell me under those circumstances who will be consulted with regard to the appointment of the Commissioner?
Believe me, Sir,
Yours very truly,
Ernest Lapointe.
To that letter Mr. Coats replied as follows:
Ottawa, December, 21, 1920.
Dear Sir,-In answer to your letter of the 18th instant, I have the honour to inform you that the appointment of the census commissioners is now in the handls of the Right Hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Yours very truly,
R. H. Coats, Dominion Statistician.
Then on January 25 I wrote to the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce the following letter, in French, which I will translate:
The Right Hon. Sir George Poster,
Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir George,
On December 21st last Mr. Coats, Dominion Statistician, after many communications wrote me that the appointment of the census commissioners is in the hands of the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Consequently I take the liberty of recommending to you for appointment as census commissioner for the division of Quebec East Mr. Arthur E. Simard, Notary, 52 rue St-Joseph, Quebec.
Mr. Simard has his office and his residence in the division of Quebec East, is an elector, is well-acquainted with the population, and is the best qualified man, to my knowledge, to fill this position.
Believe me, with consideration,
Yours very truly, -
Ernest Lapointe.
On January 27 I received the following reply from the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Dear Mr. Lapointe, v
I have your letter of January 25th forwarding the name of Mr. Arthur E. Simard, 52 rue St. Joseph, Quebec, for the position of census commissioner.
In answer I beg to say that the position of census commissioner for Quebec East has been filled by the appointment of Mr. Paul Samson, N.P., St. Roch de Quebec.
Yours very truly,
George E. Foster.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Too late.


Ernest Lapointe: Now, Sir, I bring to your attention the fact that this was on the 27th of January. I was surprised that the appointment had been made at that time. It has not yet been made public, or not until very recently at all events. I have nothing to say against Mr. Samson. He is a nice gentleman, well qualified, and a good Conservative. The only point of inferiority he would have as compared with the gentleman I recommended is that according to the new law of one man, one vote, he is not an elector of Quebec East.
I think Mr. Simard should have been appointed as he is an elector of the division.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: May I ask what was the politics of the gentleman whom my hon. friend recommended?


Ernest Lapointe: He is a Liberal, by all means. There are so many Liberals in that electoral district that it would have been difficult for the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce to select anybody else, so he had to go outside the division to get a man. I say, Sir, this is patronage with a vengeance, and it is no use for the Government to pretend that political patronage has been abolished when such cases as this occur.
But it is not only as regards the census commissioners that political patronage is exercised; it is exercised in connection with the most prominent positions under the Crown in Canada. Take the case of judges. How many advocates belonging to the Liberal party have been appointed during the two past years?-I mean so far as my own province is concerned. Let me say, at once, I have nothing to say against the appointments to the Bench that have been made in the province of Quebec, not even against those that have been made recently. I have not one word of criticism to offer so far as those gentlemen are concerned. But when you are aware of the fact that in the province of Quebec there are many more Liberals than there are Conservatives-and this is true not only as regards the Bar but in other professions and walks in life-is it any wonder that my right hon. friend the Minister of Justine (Mr. Doherty), cannot see his way clear to offer a judical position to any member of the Bar in that province who happens to be a Liberal? Do not be mistaken. I am not complaining because I have not been offered a position myself; I would not accept one if it were offered me. But, Mr. REVISED EDITION

Speaker, why pretend that there is no more patronage in the public service of Canada in the face of such facts? And there are other positions of prominence too in which patronage is evident. This Government has a reputation for the number of commissions it has created,-commissions of a very important character. How many Liberals-and I speak particularly in regard to the province with which I am best acquainted-have been appointed on these commissions? Well, Sir, when it was necessary to appoint a man jirom Quebec they always resorted to this very estimable gentleman, Sir Hormidas Laporte, who has been a prominent commissioner of the Government from the province of Quebec on all the boards which they have created, because he was a member of the Conservative party, and a supporter of the Government. Indeed, Sir, they have even tried to induce him to join the Government; but as this is a matter on which the electorates have something to say, they have not so far succeeded. Well, I say that patronage must be abolished; it ought to be abolished; and we should have honesty, frankness, and sincerity in regard to this as in regard to any other question. It is only camouflage to say that patronage does not exist in regard to many positions; and instead of having patronage, virtually if not nominally, as my hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) suggests, we should be sincere about the matter and really abolish patronage, giving to the best qualified men those positions that are vacant. And the Government should help the Civil Service Commission in that respect.
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) : This subject, which has been debated this afternoon, mostly on general principles, will no doubt come before the House in its details before this session is very many weeks older. Therefore, I am not going to go extensively into the matter now. But I wish to say a word or two in respect to what has been said by speakers that have already addressed the Chamber. In the first place, with reference to my old friend and colleague who moved the motion (Sir Sam Hughes), I do not need to say more than that, in common with all my fellow-members, I was glad to see the vigour which he still maintains, though under great disabilities; and we do not, I think, fail to keep in our memories to-day, under certain circumstances not so favourable to him as formerly in the matter of health, the greater vigour and energy which for many 
years he displayed in this Parliament when his health gave him an opportunity to do so. Though I do not agree with the tendency of his argument, nor the conclusion to which it would lead one, I accord him, as I do all my fellow-members, the perfect privilege of expressing his ideas fearlessly and frankly in the House. I shall do the same on this occasion, and perhaps on others, with reference to the subject which is now before us, for I consider it a very important one.
In the first place, I desire to correct a wrong impression which is prevalent throughout the Civil Service, throughout the city of Ottawa and, I think, probably in this Chamber, as to the work which has been performed by the Civil Service Commission, by the first employee of the Civil Service Commission, Arthur Young and Company, and by the employees, of the sub-committee of the Privy Council, Grif-fenhagen and Associates. First of all, let me ask hon. members, who are going to form their opinion with reference to the results of the work, that they take two things into consideration: First, the immensity of the work which was to be done; and, secondly, the perturbed and untoward circumstances under which this work was begun and has been carried on up to the present time by the Civil Service Commission and by their employees. I do not need to go into detail with reference to this. We all know that the years through which we have lived since 1913 have been troubled years in every respect, no less troubled in any respect than as regards the work of the Civil Service, in the way of actual performance of duty and also in connection with the reorganization and improvement of the service. Let me also ask, is it generically a thing upon which we must decide merit, that a man's name is Wolfe and not Jones? Is it the essence of a proposition that a man's name should not be GrifFenhagen but might very well be Brown? We may have our likes as to names, but at the same time, in a matter of service performed, is it the name or is it the service that counts? It is quality and character; there can be no two opinions about that. Now, my hon. friend opposite made a very strong assertion,-he is apt to make strong assertions; he sometimes makes very strong assertions without good ground. His assertion in this case amounted to this: That a foreigner by the name of Wolfe stole into the sheepfold in Ottawa, took hold of a venerable member of the Civil Service, chucked him out of the service neck and crop, and put in his place-a man with German ante-

cedents, it not a German name. What foundation has my hon. friend for making an assertion of that kind? He has not any.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will give proof to
the right hon. gentleman.


George Green Foster: In the first
place Arthur Young and Company had nothing to do with putting civil servants out of office, or putting people into office as civil servants; not one single iota of influence or right of action or power had they to exercise in that respect. Arthur Young and Company-regardless of whether it was a good thing to take that company or another-were employed by the Civil Service Commission to do what? To classify the positions in the Civil Service. The Civil Service Commission themselves made the placements and the re-placements, the retirements and the appointments, and Arthur Young and Company had nothing, good, bad or indifferent to do in connection therewith. The classification that they did was the classification of positions-ascertaining the qualifications for, and the scope of work of certain positions-and their experience enabled them to give valuable advice in that respect. They were asked to do it, paid to do it, they did it, and the positions were classified, in the main, according to their recommendations, modified by conferences between them and the Civil Service Commission. Once the positions were classified it became the duty, the sole duty, of the Civil Service Commission, by whatever tests they might use, to fill positions and to make retirements.
Now, Sir, if there is one piece of work that was ever performed on this Hill to the credit of the commission, and to the credit of the Government which helped or enabled to help it to be performed, it is the re-organization of the Bureau of Printing and Stationery. There will be a report placed before this House in a short time which will give the history of that re-organization. Let me say two or three words with reference thereto. An investigation was ordered by the Government of Canada and several years ago a committee of three, if I remember aright, was turned into that Printing Bureau and asked to make a report. The committee made a report and the members of the House know what that report was. On the groundwork of that report the Civil Service Commission engaged Arthur Young and Company not only to carry out the classification work but to organize that department-
51 i
which meant what? Which meant to find out, in the first place what were the physical relations in the department not simply of the units of one branch of the service, but of the units of all the branches of the service. For instance they found on three, four or five flats, one unit each segregated on its flat and trying to carry on its work by communications with the other units. It was obvious that if you could get all the parts of a unit together that had a common basis of work, if you could get them close together and acting in unison you would do the work much more economically, much more quickly, and much more effectively, than if you had one unit in one building and another unit in another building elsewhere in the city. That simply goes to show the form of work that organization takes.	.
Now the company went to work. It passed through the Bureau, it performed its duties, and the organization was completed by the Civil Service Commission who placed every officer that is under it and displaced every civil servant that went out from it, not the organizing company itself. The results are seen. What are they? Four hundred-odd employees are not now at work there who were employed before that organization. Are we honest in our desire for economy? Is it right to get up here and say that this Hill is packed with civil servants, and then to turn round and rend the organization that has carried out the suggestion that you made? Four hundred-odd employees less are now at work in the Printing Bureau than were employed before the organization was carried out. What else must be added? From $500,000 to $600,000 a year is saved in salaries. You might save salaries and you might not get the work done; but the other point is this- that more work, better work, more congenial and more uniform, and characterized by an esprit de corps, is now done in the Printing Bureau than ever before. There you have the results. The same committee, minus one man who has since died, that made the initial investigation and pointed out the need for re-organization in the Bureau, the other day made a thorough investigation of the re-organized Bureau. Its report will be presented to the House, and it carries out absolutely just what I have stated in two or three sentences. You cannot judge a re-organization until it is completed and until it has had just a little time to work on the

completed new basis. In this case it is seven or eight months since the re-organization went into full effect, and it has consequently settled down into the groove of actual and efficient work. That is the condition with reference to the Printing Bureau. What happened next? The Government saw how that work was done, they kept track of it every week it was going on; and when they saw not only that a great saving was effected, hut that better work was performed with amelioration of the former conditions-not only as regards hand work and machine work but with respect to the work generally and with the resultant esprit de corps that comes from the operation of a body united and congenial-when the Government saw that they said: There is still more work to be done on this Hill. The suggestion has been made " Just leave it with the deputies and it will be done." We have had deputies on this Hill ever since 1867. The deputies have had powers, large powers, ever since. Deputies have sat from generation to generation in these very places that I have been speaking of; they have sat in the branches we are now organizing; and yet these things have gone on and organization has not taken place. There are great difficulties in a minister re-organizing a large department that he has the headship of. He has not the time to do it, he has not the knowledge necessary to do it, he cannot do it. A deputy head is almost in the same position, although he has an opportunity of being very much better acquainted with all the units in his department and the men in those units, than the minister has. But there are the facts of the case. In some way or other you have to get a breath of new inspiration from outside; you have to get a little bit of the light of modern business introduced innto a department; you have to get some new enter-prize and some new initiative; to call the attention of a department to new business methods as they are so rapidly developing in the world of business to-day. The Government thought its duty was to extend re-organization. It immediately cast about to determine as to whom it should put in charge of that re-organization, and it engaged most of the men who had been in the employ of the Arthur Young Company, and who had worked in the former reorganization and classification, these men having taken over the mechanical organization work of Arthur Young and Com-
pany and transformed themselves into another company-which, by the way, is incorporated in Canada and has membership in Canada. Looking over the field, it came to the conclusion that these were the best men to undertake the reorganization of some of the departments on this Hill. "Why? They had become familiarized with the circumstances and conditions of the service, in the reorganization of the Printing Bureau, and. if you brought in a strange body of engineers they would have to acquire all this knowledge that these men already had. We thought that that was a qualification which we should take advantage of, and we did. We made a contract with Griffenhagen and As-
5 p.m. sociates under which they were to give us certain engineering work for a certain amount of pay. We appointed a sub-committee of the Privy Council to have charge of the contract and to work out with these men and with the officers of the departments, in a spirit of co-operation and amity, improvements in the other departments.


Mr. MURPHY:: Will my right hon.
friend allow me to ask a question?


George Green Foster: Certainly.


Charles Murphy: Were Griffenhagen and
Associates given any greater or different authority with regard to the replacing or displacing of officials than that which the Arthur Young Company had?


George Green Foster: I will come to that. So we made the contract, and the sub-committee of Council has been working that matter out with those men. I have had the misfortune-or good fortune, I am not saying which-of being the chairman of that sub-committee, and I know the work which it has entailed and the amount of care which that sub-committee has given to the work. The same reorganization is being put into effect in two of the departments on the Hill, the Post Office Department and the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue, and in the course of a little while, longer or shorter, a perfected reorganization will be had in both those departments, as it has been had in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.
What is the modus operandi? These gentlemen make their observations to find out the defects-where services are being duplicated, where unnecessary services are being performed; where modern methods of printing and machine work may take the place

of hand labour; and when they have completed their observations they make their reports and their recommendations as to what is to be done to overcome those weaknesses and effect improvements. The subcommittee of Council, with what time and ability it has, goes carefully over those reports. Then those men and the officers of the departments get together and with the sub-committee come to points of agreement.
I may say that in all the improvements which are being made in the two departments which are now under reorganization there has scarcely been a point upon which in the end Griffenhagen and Associates with their staff and with the deputy heads and other officers of the departments which are being reorganized have not come to a point of agreement, and the work has been carried on in co-operation. That does away with so much that has been said about sending a lot of men into a department, and without any co-operation with or knowledge of or implemented work from the department itself, letting them go hither and thither to do as they choose in these matters.
Now to answer my hon. friend's question. Griffenhagen and Associates to-day have no more power than Arthur Young and Company had before. When the sub-committee have considered Griffenhagen and Associates' reports, and have authorized the work to be taken in hand, then the officials of Griffenhagen and Associates and the officials of the department work together to carry it out.


Charles Murphy: My right hon. friend
uses the word "to-day." I do not know whether he wishes to limit Griffenhagen and Associates' authority as to time. If so, I should like to ask what authority they had before to-day?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend must not have the least suspicion that I am trying to dodge the question.


Charles Murphy: I have not.
SIR GEORGE FOSTER: I am going to give him a flat, square answer, I am giving the methods so as to see how the final results were reached. The office work of Griffenhagen and Associates is simply to find out and recommend as to methods of work; and when their recommendation is agreed to by the sub-committee then Griffenhagen and Associates' duty is just to find out what services can be amalgamated, what can be done away with and what can be put in as an improvement in their place. And Griffenhagen and Associates never took Sidney Smith by the coat-collar and threw him out of the department any more than they could take Mr. Fripp by the coat collar and throw him out of this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Green Foster: It was not their business, and they had nothing to do with it. If any changes are made they will be made by the Civil Service Commission, which alone can authorize retirements, transfers, appointments and promotions. Now, I hope I have answered that question fairly.


Mr. PROULX:: Will the right hon. gentleman permit me a question?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: Why was Mr. Smith put out of the department?


George Green Foster: I do not know that he has been put out. I do not know who will go out and who will not; that is for the Civil Service Commission. Neither the minister, nor the sub-committee, nor Griffenhagen and Associates have anything to say about that until the Civil Service Commission send in their report to the Council as to what shall be done in the way of retirements, appointments or otherwise. I am not going to pursue that question any further except to say that I am, and always have been, a protagonist of doing away with patronage, and my record in that respect is well known to this House. From the time I became a member I imbibed that idea, and I have always kept it and tried to forward it all that I possibly could.


Mr. FIELDING:: In the census appointments?


George Green Foster: I am coming to that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do not dodge that.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is a little " previous" about that. I am coming to that a little later on. But I am frank to say this, that in the multiplied work of Dominion administration over three or four thousand miles of territory, there is an area which can well be canvassed as to whether it shall be undertaken by the Civil Service Commission under their rules, or whether it shall be done in some other way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Green Foster: "Hear, hear." That is a loophole which was opened by my

hon. friend-a loophole which would be opened by every frank man on that side or on this side of the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


George Green Foster: When you come to the appointment of a petty officer up in the Yukon, such as a caretaker or something like that, it is debatable whether you shall tie up everything to three men here in Ottawa in order to have that appointment^ made according to its rules. Do not let us forget to be frank and straightforward with each other in that respect. Now, in so far as there may be betterments in administration, I am open to the adoption of those betterments, but I am absolutely against putting patronage back either here or in the Outside Service, except under very exceptional circumstances, and there may be those very exceptional circumstances. It is a good thing to take advantage of the experience of others, and I take the experience-to go no further-of Great Britain and of the United States, both of whom have evolved, through centuries, Civil Service systems which are very effective and of a very high order. We can come' to that same thing here in Canada. I do not want to go back to the old system of patronage. I felt my heart throb in response to sentiments expressed by the member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot), when he faintly adumbrated the joy and the pleasure of living in Ottawa as a public man in these days as compared with the times when patronage had full sway. My experience goes exactly on all-fours with his in that regard. Speaking from my own experience alone, under the system of patronage the member of Parliament is subjected to continual pulling and hauling, hectoring and domineering, all going to make up a process which goes on when the patronage gate is half open and the multitudes who would like to pass through have to be shaved down to the fractional number that can pass through-and the burden, compared with which the burden of Atlas was a holiday recreation-is borne by the member of Parliament.
Now, let me come just for a moment to the remarks of my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). When I came to consider the equipment necessary to the taking of the census, I approached the subject with a mind prepossessed in favour of having the Civil Service Commission take the matter in hand, but, like a good minister, I also had the exigencies of the service to take into account. I sat down with the Civil Service Commission; we can-

vassed the whole matter thoroughly, and then I asked the commission to make their will evident to council. They recommended that, so far as the census was concerned, being an emergent work distributed over the whole country and involving over 13,000 appointments, it would be impossible for them to undertake that work and do it in accordance with the exigencies of the situation. It is true that my hon. friend and all representatives in this House were asked by the Dominion statistician to furnish some information as to the boundaries of their constituencies and their relation to the boundaries of census commissioner districts. They gave that information, and it was utilized. When it came to the appointment of census commissioners and census enumerators, that under the law, is placed under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am responsible in the end for all these appointments, and as the quickest and most satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, I went back to the experience of all Governments from 1867 to the present time, and adopted the same policy. If I had had more time to think about it I might have thought out a scheme of my own, but I relied on the experience of the Fathers in that respect and trod in their footsteps. If my hon. friend had only written me a little earlier he might have received the answer that I would take into the very best consideration possible the representations that he had made. He was a little disappointed in that respect, but that must be attributed to the fact that he did not get an answer giving assurance of full and serious consideration. But, honest Indian, as they say, if the member for Quebec East had been in my position and I in his, would he have done very much differently?
I do not think I will labour the point any further. My main object, Mr. Speaker, was to clear up a slight misapprehension, which existed more widely than it should, as to the work which is being carried on in the reorganization of some departments.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask my right
hon. friend how he comes to say that there will be about twenty-four thousand appointments? Is the estimate based on the number of polling districts in the country?


George Green Foster: It comes about in this way: there are about 230 members in the House, some representing double constituencies, but most of them representing single constituencies. So that, at the least, you will have one census district for every member of Parliament in point of numbers. Some districts are so divided for economic or geographical purposes that you have to have more than one census commissioner for a district, but broadly speaking there will be about 230 commissioners. The enumeration has to take place within a very short time, and you have to have sufficient enumerators in each district to cover the ground in the period allotted. Altogether, the enumerators will number over 13,000 we do not know exactly how many there will be.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of interfering in the interesting quarrel between the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and his friend the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp). According to the representations made by my friend from Ottawa, there has been in this Civil Service business gross mismanagement, gross extravagance, gross waste of public money. That is a statement made not by any hon. member on this side, but by a supporter of the Government, one who is in close touch with governmental departments here in Ottawa. At all events, if he has not made correct statements in the matter, it cannot be because of any lack of opportunity to get the facts. I leave that, however, as a matter between the right hon. gentleman and his friend from Ottawa.
So far as the Government have honestly endeavoured to abolish patronage, my sympathies have been with them. I raise no objection to it from the point of view of those who desire to exercise patronage. But my complaint is that the Government have not abolished, patronage, although they have professed to do so. The Government of which I was a member introduced an effective Civil Service reform when they appointed a Civil Service Commission to deal with the Inside Service at Ottawa. I do not mean to say that the system then adopted was such a vast improvement in every department; even the old system of patronage, if you call it so, was capable, under wise administration, of giving to the people in general honest and faithful service. I shall speak for my own department, because it is the one of which I have the best knowledge. When I retired from that department, I believe I left, in the public service, a body of men, many of them appointed by me, many of them by my predecessors, as well qualified to administer the public service
as any men that could be obtained under any system of competitive examination. That is my conviction, and I know my successors in office have testified to the quality of the men they found there. Although I mention what is the case in my department,
I have no doubt that the same thing will apply to other departments as well. The principle, however, of examination _ is a good one; you have to have it; it is not perfect, but I do not know that anything better can be offered. I confess that within my opportunities and observation, I should like to have a man come into my office and sit down and talk to me, so as to let me have some knowledge of what he knows, what he is capable of doing, his capacity, his temperament, all that enters into the best qualities of a man. I should like to have that opportunity if I could. In the absence, however, of any better system, the system of examination seems to be the proper thing; at all events it gives you a test of a man's education and his qualifications from the educational point of view. Therefore, I agree with and support the principle of competitive examination as applied to the Inside Service at Ottawa. I believe that principle could properly have been extended, as the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) said this afternoon, to the large cities and towns, wherever you could adopt the principle of competitive examination. The Civil Service Commission was never intended to be a patronage distributing body; it was intended to conduct competitive examinations and to award prizes according to the marks achieved. That system could be followed out in the case of the Montreal customs house, the Montreal post office and such offices in St. John, Halifax, Toronto, Kingston and other of the larger cities. If the Government had gone that far, I think they would have made a further step in the right direction. They have gone a good deal further than that; and while I am not objecting to that, I do not think it is working out very well. When you undertake to appoint a petty officer of some sort-I am using the words of my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) when he spoke of a petty officer up in the Yukon-say a minor postmaster in one of the towns away down in the far-off districts of New Brunswick, how is the Civil Service Commission going to appoint that man? What knowledge can they get about him? There is no competitive examination. They put up a ticket stating that the office is vacant, and Tom, Dick and

Harry put in their applications. How can the Civil Service Commission adopt any system that will enable them properly to judge of those men's qualifications? They have to refer to somebody. What I suppose they will do to-day is to refer to the post office inspector of New Brunswick, and he will go down into that district and make inquiries of somebody in the neighbourhood. But he must be guarded; he must not, for his life, ask a member of Parliament, because the latter knows something about the matter. He has to ask somebody who knows nothing about it. The system is very much like the system of examining men for a jury. You crossexamine men as to their knowledge of the case, and by the time you are through, you almost reach the conclusion that only imbeciles are qualified to be on a jury at all. That is pushing the thing to the extreme. The absence of patronage does not worry me. When the Government went beyond where they could use the competitive examination, I think they went rather too far. Under the old system, if a vacancy occurred in a little post office in the constituency of one of my hon. friends opposite, he was notified and he selected some one on the advice of his friends and neigh-hours, and in nine cases out of ten the man whom he recommended was a decent, honest man. If he had not been so, he could not have been appointed. Under the new system, there is so much red tape that it takes months to fill a vacancy, and that in itself is an argument against the system. While I think the Government went further than necessary, I have no complaint to make except to point out that where there is no opportunity for competitive examination, I do not see how you can apply the system for which the Civil Service Commission was created. The point, however, which I desire to make to my hon. friends opposite is not that they have abolished patronage; my complaint is that they have not abolished patronage. The meanest kind of quality in mankind is hypocrisy, and it is just as mean in politics as it is in social life. Hon. gentlemen opposite made a great virtue of abolishing patronage; they put that plank in their platform; they talked about it throughout the country and in this House; they spoke about the glorious record of this Government in abolishing patronage. But what do we find? My right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) comes here to-day, and admits that in another month or two, in his own department 24,000 men are going to be
['Mr. FiBiding.]
appointed under the old patronage system. My right hon. friend has truly said that he has always denounced political patronage ; but if he has been constant in denouncing it and then he practises it, what are we to think of him? I have in my hand an extract from a speech of my right hon. friend, in which he is giving us a picture of the evils of patronage. Perhaps, his picture is a little coloured, but he not only pictures the evils of patronage, but speaks of the great harm that is going to come to those who practise it, and I want him to take that to heart. This is a speech made by my right hon. friend some years ago. It will be found in the Hansard of 1916, at page 907:
Si.r George Foster: Now, as to patronage, I have been thirty-four years in public life; I have been a pretty close student of political parties and political history in this country, and I have simply this to say-I give it as my individual opinion-I have long felt it and I feel it now-that in the whole course of my political life I cannot point to a single instance where political patronage ever raised the status of the bench, ever promoted the efficiency of the Civil Service, ever helped to economy in administration or enhanced the status of public administrators, no matter what functions they performed, ever helped a member of Parliament in reality, or ever strengthened a Government in reality.
I would draw my right hon. friend's attention to that. Even the present Government will not be strengthened in reality by his 24,000 appointments.
On the contrary it almost always causes the dry rot and disintegration that break up government after government and party after party,-
Think of that, 24,000 appointments made which will introduce dry rot which is going to break up the Government.
-and I wish now, in the white heat and light of this great contest and struggle and the selfsacrifice that we are called upon to make, that we might speak from the heart out, and make an agreement in this country between both parties, that hereafter patronage shall not be applied by political parties in the administration of our public services. Now, that is a frank admission. Some may say to me that I have no right to make it. I presume upon my grey beard and thirty-four years in public life, and I make that statement for what it is worth. I will Just append to that one single sentence, and it is this; that if there is any laxity in the public virtue of this country to-day, if there is any canker of public corruption, in ninety-nine eases out of a hundred you can trace it to the baleful effect of political party patronage.
Having reflected upon these pious utterances made not many months ago, the right hon. gentleman immediately, as he says himself, goes back to the old system and appoints 24,000 people under the system of patronage.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The old dry rot.


William Stevens Fielding: The old dry rot, the
old corruption, and my right hon. friend will see now, if he applies his own words to the situation, the end that is awaiting him. I had a little experience like that of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). I have referred to it already;
I may enlarge upon it now. A man in my constituency had heard somewhere that the members for the counties were going to nominate the census men, and wrote to me about it. I wrote him that I thought he was mistaken, but I would inquire. So I wrote to my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) intimating that I had had this question, and I would be glad to have an answer.
I said I could understand that possibly the Civil Service Commission was going to make the appointments, and if so, I had no objection to make, but if for any reason -and I anticipated they would find a reason-they were not going to have the Civil Service Commission do it, I said perhaps the suggestion of my correspondent was all right-that if patronage had been abolished the members representing the various counties, irrespective of politics, should make the nominations. I got the answer that my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) did. They were going back to the old game. They were going to take nominations only from the members supporting the Government.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. I admit there might have been a difficulty in the Civil Service Commission making these appointments in the way they make others. Considering how long it takes to appoint a country postmaster, I do not know how long it would take them to appoint 24,000 officers, so I will not quarrel with my right hon. friend for assuming they could not do the job. But if he wanted to be honest in the matter why did he not say:-This is a case in which I will ask every member of Parliament to make nominations, no matter what his politics. Then he could have fairly said he was trying to abolish patronage. No, he could not do that. He has gone back to the old game. He has boasted and tried to take credit for the abolition of patronage, but he has returned to it now. How can he expect that the Government will be respected in this matter by the community at large in the face of the acknowledgment he makes to-day that he is not going to allow any hon. member on this side of the
House to make any nomination? He is not going to abolish political patronage. He is going to use these 24,000 appointments in connection with the census as a corrupting agent, a canker, a dry rot, as he describes it here. He is going to use them in the old way. Yet he is going to stand before the people of this country and say: Oh, give us credit, for we abolished patronage.


Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: I am not quite sure whether I am lost in admiration of the indignation-
I wonder how real it is-of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) , or whether I am covered with confusion, confusion in some measure for myself, but in large measure for my right hon. friend to my left (Sir George Foster). Woe is my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for do we not all know that it is written, it is necessary that scandals should come, but woe to the man that bringeth them, even to the least among my children. It were better for him that he should have a millstone hanged about his neck and that he should be cast into the sea than that he should have given scandal to even the least among my children. And lo and behold, my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce hath given scandal to one who counts among the greatest, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. That hon. gentleman is overwhelmed with indignation. He sees the coming back of the dry rot and the corruption that is going to undermine all that is good in this world. Why? Because on one occasion, which he himself admits is an occasion when the Civil Service Commission could not properly have made the appointments in question, the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the performance of his duty undertook to make them. My hon. friend is scandalized because in the making of those appointments the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not think it necessary to consult the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's or the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) who, we notice, was very ready to nominate his political friend. I wonder how it would have worked out as political patronage if application had been made to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and the hon. member for Quebec East, and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's as the hon. member for Quebec East had already done, absolutely without regard to considerations of political patronage, had found it

absolutely impossible for him to nominate anybody save one of his most active political supporters for the position. I wonder how different the situation would have been then. I wonder whether his scathing language about hypocrisy does not find some landing place on the other side of the House.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us get down to com-monsense, I respect the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's too much to believe that he was serious-he actually admits he was not serious, see the smile on his face -in the expression of indignation for which he could hardly find words. Why, he had just admitted himself that if there was fault to find with this Government in its Civil Service legislation, it was that it had gone too far. He pointed out, and, speaking for myself, he pointed out with a good deal of force, that when you have got to the stage where the competitive examination system is applied to the making of classes of appointments where that system could not find its application, he was bound to question whether you were not carrying the principle too far. I am prepared to concede that it is open to question, and that there is room for consideration in that regard. He had just admitted that, and then he treated us to all this mock indignation over the fact that census commissioners were chosen by the minister. So far as there has been reference to those who were chosen, we have been told they were eminently fit people; the hon. member for Quebec East gave us testimony in that regard, and then my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's raises his hands in holp horror because there are going to 24,000 enumerators appointed, all eminently fit people, by the commissioners whom the Minister of Trade and Commerce selects, and he speaks of the dry rot and corruption coming back again. Let us be serious. Let us proceed to the question with which we are concerned.
In so far as the principle embodied in the Civil Service legislation is concerned, for my part it commended itself to my judgment when that legislation was adopted. It commends itself to my judgment still. I do think that there are evils attached to purely political patronage against which the law should provide some system of check, and that, as I understand it, was the principle which underlay the Civil Service legislation as we have it at the present time. The principle is absolutely sound, in my judgment, but it is well to remember that when you come to put principles into practical application, how-

ever good those principles may be you must at the same time have the application of sound common sense. There was once a very great artist who was asked what he mixed his colours with to produce such beautiful results, and his answer was: "With brains, Sir." Now, when you come to apply any principle you must exercise common sense. We have had three years of experience in the working of this particular Civil Service legislation, and I see in that experience no reason to depart from the principle that underlies it, although I think that in the carrying out of the Act certain things may have developed that make it proper for us all to consider whether in the practical application of the principle there is not room for improvement, and whether you would not, perhaps, obtain better results, from the point of view of efficiency in the public service as well as from the standpoint of economy-which, after all, is the objective' of those who are held responsible for the working of the system,-if certain of the provisions of the Act were modified. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lem-ieux) has indicated a line of consideration, and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) quite agrees, I understand, with the view implied therein, that is, as to whether the application of the principle indiscriminately to all classes of public servants is wise in the interests of the efficiency of the public service. Just to take one class that occurs to my mind at the moment. I am not expressing any final conclusion as to what ought to be done, but I think it is fair for us to put before the House things that present themselves to our minds as indicating a possible necessity for modification in the law as it stands. Let us take one class-a numerous one-those men who have to be employed in purely manual labour. Now, there is a case where certainly you cannot apply any system of competitive examination, and it seems to be a question that calls for serious consideration whether it might not be advisable to withdraw that class of people from the operation of the provisions of the present Civil Service Act. Reference has been made to rural postmasters. Possibly, it might be to the advantage of the public service that they should be withdrawn from the control of this Act; and in the very carrying out of the Act itself it would seem to me, while adhering to its principle, while seeing to it that proper precautions are taken against abuses of political patronage, that at all

events, we should consider the wisdom of making such provision for the exercise of direction on the part of those who are ultimately responsible to the public as would create some corresponding relation between that responsibility-which, under our system of government, both governments and members of Parliament cannot avoid-and some measure of opportunity for being heard in connection with those things for which they are held responsible.
We have heard a good deal this afternoon on the merits of this suggestion. None of us can have his eyes closed to the situation created by the Act, and it is not impossible that, in the first fervour of the desire for absolute reform, some things may have been overlooked that should have been taken cognizance of, and perhaps the pendulum was allowed to swing too far in one direction. These are things that call for consideration. They have been receiving the attention of the Government, and with the additional light which has been thrown on the subject this afternoon, it is the purpose of the Government further to consider the question as to what modification, if any, might in the public interest be made in the present law, and more particularly in the present system of its application. And in view of this declaration which I am now making, I understand -and this, I believe, was anticipated-that the hon. gentleman who made the motion, is prepared to withdraw it.


Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester) :: Before the hon. gentleman who has introduced the resolution either withdraws it or puts it to the decision of the House, I wish to offer a few remarks on the subject with which it deals. I cannot support the resolution because I contend that it is vicious in principle and unfounded in fact. The assertion that it is vicious in principle I base upon the remarks that have been made by previous speakers during this debate. There is no doubt that a Civil Service which is to offer the required standard of efficiency should be a service altogether outside of the evils of patronage. This has been recognized in every truly civilized country. It has been recognized for years in Great Britain. The system has been introduced in the United States recently, and, so far as Canada is concerned, this reform, as in the case of practically every other great reform in this country, was first talked of and then put upon our statute books by the Liberal party, under the leadership of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The reform of the Civil Service
in regard to patronage is, therefore, I say, a good one, and this legislation aiming at its abrogation is vicious in principle. I said that the resolution was not only vicious in principle, but that it was, as regards the present Government, unfounded in fact, and I will explain that contention. I see no reason why Government supporters on the other side of the House should complain that political patronage has been taken from their hands. Every day, every month, every year since 1911, and particularly since 1917, political patronage has been rampant. It has blossomed and has flourished under the present system. No appointment of any importance has been made in this country except through political patronage, and only appointments of no importance have been left to the Civil Service Commission. The reason for this is quite obvious. Why, even when a law is being introduced in this Parliament, we find patronage prevails. If it provides for appointments to important positions carrying with them fat salaries, in most cases a clause is inserted in the Act, and special provision is made in the estimates, providing that the appointment shall not be subject to the Civil Service Act.
I do not wish to detain the House very long, I merely desire to say this further: Not only on general lines has this Government preserved and maintained the system of patronage, but in the province of Quebec especially, patronage has always existed since 1911. And when I was listening to the hon. gentleman who spoke of the Department of Justice I was wondering if he really wanted to be serious or whether he was trying to be humorous. In the cities of Montreal and Quebec, in every city of importance in that province, not an* appointment is made in any branch of the service without the political leaders supporting the Government being consulted. We all know that. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has referred to judicial appointments. The judiciary in our province is highly respected, and that is because it deserves to be respected. I desire to say, however, that as far as the Minister of Justice is concerned, since he has had to choose the judges in our province his choice in the majority of cases has been most happy. I therefore do not wish to offer any criticism, but simply to call attention to one instance which shows that even when appointments to the very highest posts are made politics are not excluded.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Lucien Cannon: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. gentleman will not refer to that one instance. It is a well-established rule that nothing shall be said in debate which in any way reflects upon the judiciary. If it is desired to call in question any such matter there is a well-known rule of procedure to be followed.


Lucien Cannon: I do not wish to reflect upon any member of the Bench, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to call the attention of the House to the fact that not very long ago a gentleman highly respected, a gentleman recommended by all the members of the local bar and who was the batonnier of our province was not appointed to the Bench, and the reason given why he was not appointed, notwithstanding ,all his qualifications, was that he happened to be the partner of a Liberal minister in the provincial Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I say that when such a condition exists the Government supporters ought to-


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, in view of the statement which he has made, I presume I am responsible for the fact that the gentleman referred to was not appointed.


Lucien Cannon: I hope not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I presume I am responsible since, of course, I officially made the nomination of the gentleman who was appointed to the vacancy which otherwise the gentleman alluded to might have filled. Let me assure the hon. gentleman, that if he was informed that in the decision come to the fact that the gentleman to whom he refers was the partner of a Liberal member of the profession had anything to do with the decision arrived at at that time, he was entirely misinformed.


Lucien Cannon: As far as my right hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) is concerned, let me say that when he was out of the Chamber I stated that I wished to congratulate him upon the appointments he has made to the Bench in the province of Quebec, in most cases, since he has been Minister of Justice.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the last instance to be brought to your attention as to the exercise of patronage, not only in the province of Quebec but throughout the Dominion, is that of the appointment of census commissioners. I have before me the list of the census commissioners appointed in the several constituencies in the province of

Quebec. We may look this list over once, twice and three times, and nowhere will be found the name of one gentleman who might have been, or who might be, directly or indirectly connected with the Liberal party in any way whatsoever.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bleu.


Lucien Cannon: In our city of Quebec
every name on this list is the name of a true Bleu. With respect to the gentleman appointed in my constituency I do not wish to offer any criticism, he is an honest, respectable man and I am quite sure will perform his duties with satisfaction to the public. But the point is this: Why should the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when addressing the House in eloquent terms as he did this afternoon state the enormous sums of money which have been spent all over this country to bring about Civil * Service reform and the abolition of patronage, and yet when the right hon. gentleman himself as a minister, has to make appointments in Canada, as a truly reactionary Tory he goes back to the system that existed forty years ago and to every post appoints one of his own friends? Let the right hon. gentleman do so if he wishes, but if he is a supporter and partisan of patronage in civil appointments let him get up here and say so. Mr. Speaker, I go further. The list to which I refer-not drawn up by my right hon. friend I know, but by the two ministers representing our province, the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) and the Postmaster General-shows that in every constituency these two gentlemen have chosen former Tory members or former Tory candidates. It is their right to do so, but let them have the courage to get up in the House and admit the fact, and let this Government cease squandering hundreds of thousands of dollars on so-called Civil Service reform and cease pretending to the people of this country that they are trying to abolish patronage. On this question, as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has said, let us be honest and let us cease to be hypocrites. This is the stand taken by hon. gentlemen on this side and I think it is the stand supported by the majority of hon. gentlemen opposite. In 1911 there was promulgated something which has since been forgotten, I refer to the Halifax platform. That platform contained a plank declaring that patronage should be abolished. In 1917 this Government went to the country and one of the main planks in its platform was a similar

declaration. I say, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding all the promises and declarations made by the Tory party in Canada, notwithstanding the enormous sums of money expended by this Government to reform the Civil Service, notwithstanding the scandal of Griffenhagen and other American experts imported into Canada to do things that Canadian experts could have done and done much better-notwithstanding all this I say that the present Government stands to-day in favour of patronage. The Government shows it in all its acts and appointments. The money that has been spent is money uselessly spent, and the promises made will never be kept by the present administration.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) followed his customary practice of general fault finding, but I must say he did not indulge himself to his usual extent in those violent adjectives and political pyrotechnics with which he is prone to decorate his speeches in this House. The hon. gentleman was good enough to commend the right hon. Minister of Justice . (Mr. Doherty) for certain appointments to the bench in the province of Quebec. I am rather inclined to think that inasmuch as the hon. gentleman did not commend the minister for all the appointments made, the right hon. gentleman is perhaps to be congratulated more on the appointments which did not meet the approval of the hon. member for Dorchester than on those which did.
The hon. gentleman in the course of his remarks endorsed the word "hypocrisy" which was used by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and also repeated the advice of that hon. gentleman to the effect that henceforth we should be honest-politically honest. Well, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the thought comes rather late from these hon. gentlemen, especially from the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. However, the aspiration is a worthy one, and I trust that the hon. member will be spared for very many years to demonstrate his sincerity and to retrieve some of his past in this regard.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's referred to the Halifax programme and to a plank therein relating to patronage, and charged that this Government was guilty of hypocrisy or insincerity in not redeeming that plank. I do not know any hon. gentleman in this House who is running a greater risk than the hon. member if we are to define political insincerity as he defines it. A Liberal platform was issued in 1893, and if non-fulfilment of that platform for fifteen years warrants any person in charging with political insincerity those who failed to fulfil it, then I am afraid my hon. friend will occupy a very unfortunate position. And more recently we have the Liberal platform of 1919, which I think he indicated not so very long ago that he could not follow out in its entirety. But last year the hon. gentleman stated in this House:
I think myself that we find that we are all prone in framing platforms to put things perhaps a little more strongly than is wise, and we all And when we come to the responsibility of office that we may have to modify our views.
Well, the hon. gentleman could speak feelingly in that respect, for he has had a great deal to do with the framing of platforms, and, if I may say so, with disregarding them afterwards. Now, Sir, in regard to the appointment of census enumerators, it has been conceded by one or two gentlemen opposite-I think I am correct in saying by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, and the hon. member for Gaspe and Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux)-that the Civil Service Act has gone too far. I think those are pretty nearly the words used by both those hon. gentlemen. It seems to me that they are right. Time has demonstrated that the Civil Service Act has gone too far, and our position in regard to appointments to the Civil Service is absolutely illogical and ridiculous. In so far as making appointments for the taking of the census is concerned, surely the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's should be the last to complain. We had a census taken in 1911, when that hon. gentleman was a member of the Government, and I know I am right in saying that to all positions from the Atlantic and to the Pacific only their own political friends were appointed. There was no Civil Service Commission at that time to make those appointments; it never was thought of. In the county which I have the honour to represent the patronage was handed over to the defeated candidate. The appointments were made through that gentleman, and the work, I believe, was well done. It became quite apparent to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George

Foster) that the Civil Service Commission could not possibly make these census appointments. That has been agreed to by hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken, and who at the same time charged the Government with political patronage in this particular. Well, if the machinery provided by the Civil Service Act proved to be inadequate for the purpose, then it 'strikes me as a very natural thing for an old politician-statesman like the right ron. Minister of Trade and Commerce to fall back on a custom which has been in vogue in this country from time immemorial.
The hon. member for the two constituencies in the province of Quebec, the rural constituency of Gaspe and the industrial constituency of Maisonneuve, appears to be very much perturbed about the possibility of a return to patronage. He pictured in lurid language the horrors to which a member used to be subjected by patronage seekers, how he was worried and heckled and disturbed from morning till night. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can suggest to the hon. gentleman one way by which he, at least, could cut his worries in half should there be a return to the patronage system-by just resigning one of his two constituencies. I fancy every hon. member would think himself very fortunate if he could reduce all his political worries as easily as could the hon. gentleman. It is not my intention to discuss this resolution at any great length. I have spoken on this matter before, and I am perfectly consistent tonight when I express my opposition to the appointment to offices in this country being left in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. I am saying now something that I have said before in this House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You mean the Inside Service too?


John Wesley Edwards: Well, I am more concerned, naturally, about the Outside Service, but I would go beyond that and say I think a mistake was made in handing over the making of appointments for both the Inside and the Outside Services to a Civil Service Commission. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for any three men occupying offices in Ottawa, I care not how capable they are, to make appointments to positions in all parts of this great country, from the Atlantic to the Pacifie. They cannot do it; the thing is not only impracticable, but impossible. They must seek advice from some source or from some person, whether the appointment is in British Columbia or in Nova Scotia-and I mention the extreme West and the extreme 
East; in order to emphasize the impossibility of any three men in Ottawa carrying on that work. Under the present system these three gentlemen-and I say nothing whatever against them or their capabilities-are responsible for the selection of persons to fill positions in all parts of the country. But if a man is to be appointed in British Columbia or in Kingston, they cannot run out to British Columbia or to Kingston and investigate the matter personally; they must apply to some person in British Columbia or in Kingston on whom they can rely. The ridiculous and illogical feature of it is that they must not under any circumstances seek the advice of the member for the constituency, although the efficiency or inefficiency of the service depends upon whether or not the appointment is a good one-and the member for the constituency is the man who is held responsible for the proper carrying on of the work. The whole thing seems to me to be absolutely illogical.
I have no doubt that the intention was a good one when it was thought fit to make these appointments through a body of men here in Ottawa, but time and again we have had evidence of their inability to carry on. On some occasions they have advertised for applicants for a position and have literally been deluged with applications, whereupon they have delegated to men chosen by themselves the task of going over these hundreds of applications and weeding them out. Is that getting rid of patronage? It is merely the transfer of the work to some person who is responsible to no one.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) said that he would not have-the operations of the Civil' Service Commission apply to the appointment of country postmasters and incumbents of small offices of that kind. But the principle is the same whether it is applied to some country post office or some larger office; I cannot see how it is possible for a board of three men to look into the merits or demerits of cases as they come before them and make proper selections. I do not think it is right; I do not think it is in the interests of the country. Moreover, the present system is most undemocratic. There is no more democratic way in making appointments to these positions than through the recommendation of the member. Suppose a postmaster is to be appointed, we will say, in the county of Frontenac. Now, what happens? If I have any astuteness as a politician I certainly am going to ascertain what the

people in that particular locality want. I am merely their representative or mouthpiece; they are the ones who are making the appointment. I contend, therefore, that the appointment through the member, the member then being held responsible, is by far a more democratic method than the making of appointments through a Civil Service Commission.
Now, I am going to express my candid opinion as to what should be done. I would like to see the Government remove at least the Outside Service, from the control of the Civil Service Commission. I want to go further than that and state what my position is-and I am speaking only for myself. I would-call it patronage if you like *-place the responsibility on the member for the making of appointments in his constituency, regardless of what side of the House he sat on or what party he supported. In this respect my view will probably differ from that of many hon. gentlemen in this House. But it does seem to me that when the people of a constituency expresses their wish at the polls to have a certain man do their business for them, that man should be entrusted with the recommendations for that constituency, not the man whom the people said they did not want to do that business for them. I would be willing to support this resolution if it were amended along the lines I have suggested. I repeat that this is merely my own view in regard to the matter. At all events, if that course were taken, the charge of making use of this responsibility for political purposes would, necessarily, very largely disappear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would my hon. friend
not maintain the commission for the appointment in the Civil Service here at Ottawa of technical officers and so on?


John Wesley Edwards: That probably might
be done. I think also that the Civil Service Commission can serve a very useful purpose in setting examination papers and examining candidates for important positions. You can have that examination test if you like; I would raise no objection to that. But for my part, I do not see how a minister of the Crown gets along in running his department. He must have a deputy minister; he must have certain clerks who will devote their whole time to the study of the details of his department. Here is a body of three men in Ottawa who have the say as to who is going to handle this, that, or the other branch of that department. The minister is held responsible for the proper administration of his department, but he
has nothing to say as to whether this clerk can or cannot perform more effective work than another in a certain branch. The decision in that regard rests with three gentlemen who cannot possibly understand the situation as well as he does, and who must apply to someone else with more knowledge of the subject than they can possibly possess. So I charge against the system as it is now that it must result in inefficient administration of the detailed work of a department; that no person can judge better than the minister and his deputy as to the arrangement of the clerks and officials in his particular department, and to take that duty out of his hands and put it into the hands of a board of three men, is, it seems to me, illogical and not in the best interests of the conduct of his department.
That is all, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to say in regard to the matter. It is not that I have any desire as a member of this House to handle the patronage pertaining to my constituency. In fact, I am sure, representing as I do a rural constituency, I am only saying what applies to practically every other rural constituency, namely, that the patronage does not amount to a hill of beans so far as the member is concerned; but the responsibility is there just the same. I do not care if the appointment is merely that of a country postmaster; if you put in a person whom the people of that section do not want and who is really not a proper person to occupy that office, while, under present conditions, the member has nothing to say about the appointment of that man, the member will undoubtedly be held responsible if that man proves inefficient in his position.


Mr. I. E. PEDLOW (South Renfrew) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House on this resolution, let me at the outset associate myself with those who have preceded me in this discussion with kind thoughts and words of appreciation of the effort made by the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes). That gallant member has shown distinctly this afternoon the reason for the splendid work accomplished by him in the early stages of the war; he has shown the stuff of which he is made when, in his condition physically, he can come before this House and present a case in the manner in which he has presented it this afternoon. His effort deserves the congratulation of the House and the admiration of members on both sides.

Like the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), I cannot support the resolution in its entirety. I would though be in favour of some of the provisions of the resolution. Like the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), I decline to subscribe to a condition that permits the defeated candidate in a constituency to have charge of the appointments in that constituency. I agree absolutely with the hon. member that the elected member, the person selected by the people as the fit and proper person to represent them on the floor of this House, should also represent them in the constituency in matters of that kind. I regret though that I cannot follow my genial friend any further in his remarks, nor agree with them, particularly, as regards the reference he made to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), when he spoke of that hon. gentleman's insincerity during his term of office, which was from 1896 to 1911. When the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's took charge of the finances of this Dominion, and when the government of which he was a member took control of the affairs of this Dominion, in 1896, those who are interested in the political affairs of the country know well the condition that obtained in Canada then; that there was depression on every hand and that the country was in almost a state of rebellion. But, as has been stated on the floor of this House, again and again, and on many platforms throughout the country, notwithstanding the moderate reductions made in the tariff by the hon. member who then controlled the destinies of the finances of this country-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. gentleman will not forget that we are discussing the question of patronage as proposed in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Victoria. I think it would be unfortunate if the hon. gentleman went on to discuss the general administration of a former Government.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: In duty bound, I bow to the ruling of the Chair and I do so gracefully. I was merely replying to a point raised by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards)..


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The point raised by the hon. member for Frontenac had to do with the question of the consistency of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's on the question of patronage. It had nothing to

do with his administration .in other respects.
Mr. PEDLOW; I had just about reached that point, Sir, when you called me to order. The then Minister of Finance proved conclusively that he had, during his term of office, saved the citizens of this country a sum of no less than $300,000,000 in customs duties. In this respect I claim that the then Minister of Finance was absolutely sincere in following the Liberal platform of 1893, and in this regard I think the hon. member for Frontenac was hardly fair to the hon. 'member for Shelburne and Queen's.
To return to the question that is immediately under discussion, the resolution moved by the hon. member for Victoria, and some of the remarks that have followed in regard to that subject, I claim that the defeated candidate has no right to have control of the patronage, if you like to call it that, in any constituency. The sitting member, as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has so well expressed the matter, the elected member for any constituency, regardless to which party he belongs, has and should have the right to represent his constituents both in this House and in the constituency.
Let me look for a moment at the condition of the Civil Service of this country. What do those of us who have had the privilege of going around the various departments find? Do we find peace and contentment? I am sorry to say that, in my judgment, the very opposite prevails. There is on every hand discontent, dissatisfaction and unrest, and the classification that has recently been made by the firm that was imported from the country to the south of us to do the work is, to a large extent, responsible for that condition. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) this afternoon made reference to the magnificent work accomplished by that concern, Arthur Young and Company and also Griffenhagen and Company, more particularly in the Printing Bureau. He claimed a great improvement in the efficiency and output of that department and so on. But since coming to Ottawa three weeks ago, I have been informed that the output of that department has been greatly reduced since those dismissals have taken place, and I understand that a large quantity of the printing that was formerly done by the Printing Bureau is now done by offices throughout the city of Ottawa outside of the Government service, that work being paid for by the Govern-

ment, so that the large amount of saving that is claimed by the Government through the dismissal of those 400 employees is to a large extent, a myth.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce intimated that part of the work accomplished by Young and Company was classification of positions and outline of requirements of the various departments. I found, on looking through the volume on classification of last session that one of the qualifications that was required was rather interesting and I will read it to the House. "Employees for the Senate cloak room." These employees were, amongst other things, required to be capable of rendering first aid. I have often wondered why this provision.
I agree most heartily with the conclusions arrived at by the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), that the Civil Service Commission is doing a good work in this country. If this commission is developed along proper business lines and receives the assistance of those in the service, the heads of the departments, and if the Government will only place on the deputy ministers and the heads of each department, the responsibility that should be placed on them and pay them in proportion, not necessarily to length of service, but to the results produced by them, then and then only will this Government receive efficient service at the hands of the various departments of the Government.
The Minister of Justice claims that the underlying principle of the Civil Service legislation is good, but that there is room for improvement. I agree with him. I should like to know what institution of human origin is perfect. Even in their old age they go on improving from day to day, from week to week, and year to year. Notwithstanding the many shortcomings that have been observed in the operation of the Civil Service Commission in Ottawa, I have no hesitation in saying that it has already accomplished much, and I believe that if the commission receive the assistance and support they deserve at the hands of the Government and of Parliament they will accomplish much in the years to come, will accomplish much in the years to come.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) stated that the Civil Service is undoubtedly sound and British to the core. I know something of the Civil Service in the Old Land, and the underlying principles that obtain there. Those principles are that appointments to the service shall be
upon competitive examination, and that promotions shall be based on length of service and ability. That is why the Civil Service of Great Britain is the admiration of governments the world over. I think that the system of competitive examination is the proper method of making appointments, to the Inside Service at least. There is a good deal in what has been claimed by my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) with regard to the Outside Service. These latter appointments, I have no hesitation in saying, should be left to a large extent in the hands of the elected member. I do not make this statement because I desire to obtain work of that kind, for I know it is irksome and will not be a pleasant duty for any hon. member to perform. I am sure he will find that instead of it being a political advantage, it will be a disadvantage. However, he is the man best able to perform work of that kind.
We have heard very much this afternoon on the subject of patronage. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) is apparently adverse to patronage except in exceptional circumstances. Apparently he thinks that circumstances alter cases, and the exigencies of the situation appeal to him whenever that is necessary.
The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) entertained the House this afternoon with some correspondence they had had with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I have also had occasion to deal with this question of the appointment of census commissioners and enumerators. The impression seems to have been very general throughout the constituency of South Renfrew, largely, no doubt, due to the claim made by my opponent and his associates in the election of 1917, that patronage would be done away with if the Union Government were elected, that patronage actually had been abolished, and as a result I have been almost deluged with requests from individuals in every part of my riding for my influence in securing them an appointment as enumerator. I am not at all surprised they were of the opinion that I could assist them. Like my hon. friend from Quebec East, I also received a communication on Oct. 30th regarding the census of 1921. I shall not read the entire communication, but it sets forth what was stated by my hon. friend from Quebec



East this afternoon, enclosed a schedule of polling subdivisions, and asked me for a considerable amount of information. Feeling this was an olive branch thrown out along the line of the claims made by the Union Government in 1917, and since, I thought as the representative of the riding I would be quite justified in sending in the information asked for, which entailed a considerable amount of work, I wrote:
If you think I can be of any further assistance to you in this regard kindly write me again, and be sure and return the enclosed proclamation.
I had forwarded a proclamation giving information as to the different polling subdivisions. I went on:
Do you wish me to name some fit and proper person for the position of chief enumerator for the district of South Renfrew, or is it the Intention of the Government to have the appointees named by the Government candidate in the last election? It occurs to me that possibly now that the "patronage system" has been done away with, the duly elected representative in each riding will be consulted in matters of this kind.
I did not receive a reply to that part of my letter at that time, but some time later I received a letter from a friend in Toronto, a gentleman I have known for a great many years, and who has been employed on the teaching staff of one of the collegiate institutes there. He wrote in part as follows:
We male teachers were talking at the collegiate about the taking of the census next year.
Two or three years ago we helped in the registration and did our work for nothing. We think we should not be overlooked now. We, in the city here, are free early in the month of June and none can do the work better. Let patronage under our friend Meighen die, and give the appointments to teachers rather than to politicians.
I quoted that extract in a letter I wrote on November 15, to Mr. Coates as follows:
I have just received a letter to-day from a Toronto friend who is a teacher in one of the Collegiate Institutes in the city of Toronto, and I am taking the liberty of quoting the following extract from him.
That is, the quotation I have just read.
Now, I have no idea as to what arrangements your department proposes in regard to this matter, but it does strike we that the proposition made by my correspondent is a most excellent one, and deserves your earnest consideration. Men of this class are, undoubtedly, the best fitted for work of this kind, and there is no doubt about it, but that those selected for this work should be selected, regardless of politics. Patronage, which is supposed to have been buried since 1917, certainly should find no place in this work, and I sincerely trust your department will consider the subject along the lines suggested in the above quotation. By the way,
[Mr. Pedlow.j
your letter to me on November 2nd instant, in answer to mine of Nevember 1st, did not give a reply to the last paragraph, of that communication, and I have been wondering since if it was an oversight on your part.
I refer there to the paragraph I read a moment ago. Some days later I received the following communication from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, signed by R. H. Coates, Dominion Statistician:
Dear Mr. Pedlow, I have yours of 'November 15, and agree that the school teachers would make excellent enumerators. A difficulty in the way is the fact that the census will be taken on June 1, 1921, and we shall complete the work in the field within the next following three weeks, during which time, of course, the schools are still open. Our census, as you know, is a rather elaborate inquiry. The matter of the appointment of enumerators will not arise until about March next, when your suggestion will be fully considered. The census commissioners and enumerators will be appointed, as in previous censuses, namely, on the nomination of the Government. It is the intention to place the appointment of enumerators more directly under the commissioners and to hold the latter somewhat more responsible for them than in previous censuses. We took the matter up in detail with the Civil Service Commission, at whose suggestion the appointment of the field staff was left at the discretion of the department. The staff to be appointed for the work of compilation will, however, be named by the Civil Service Commission. I regret the delay in answering your previous inquiry in this matter, which is due to my absence from the city of Ottawa.
Now, I reported to my friend in Toronto, from whom I received a reply, and I shall quote the following short extract:
Toronto, December 11.-I have been informed just lately by Mr. Mowat that I shall have to see certain members of the Ward Conservative Association if I wish an appointment. So you see the ward heeler still has the pull and the teachers will simply stand aside and watch the other fellow perhaps less competent do the trick.
As I have already stated, I have received, in consequence of the. impression left in my riding, hundreds of communications asking me to appoint different persons in different sections of the riding as enumerators. But in every case I have replied that it was not within my province to do work of that kind, another gentleman in the riding, whose name I shall refer to later on apparently having been considered by the Government the fit and proper person to attend to this matter on behalf of the constituency. In this instance, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who has always supported the. abolition of patronage, is apparently in the position of the Apostle Paul who says: " For the good that I would, I do not; and the evil which I would not that I do"; and " when I

would do good, evil is present with me." He also reminds one of Lot's wife, who, when leaving the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Looked back on the pleasures of sin and was turned into a pillar of salt. Although the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his associates in the Government profess to have turned their backs on the evils of party patronage, in their heart of hearts, they still long for it. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot) said that he hated the present system, which he described as unbusinesslike, unsatisfactory, and unfair, and I agree with all that he has said. Why this hypocrisy, this insincerity, and all this humbug? The word " humbug " has been used rather frequently to-day, and I do not know a more appropriate word in this connection. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and his staff of 24,000 census employees bring to my mind the utterance of a celebrated citizen of this world who exclaimed: "Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would hot." But there is this difference in the present instance, that the Government members and the Government defeated candidates all over the country have done the gathering in of these 24,000 of the faithful to perform the compilation of the census returns. Mr. Speaker, "there is not so great faith," no, not in all Canada, as this method of doing away with party patronage serves to illustrate.


Mr. STEVENS:: I should like to ask
what my hon. friend has been quoting from?


An hon. MEMBER:: The Bible.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am afraid the hon.
member who asks this question is more conversant with overages in the wheat business and-


An hon. MEMBER:: And Chinese immigration.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Overages and Chinese
immigration-


Rodolphe Lemieux: And dry docks.
Mr. PEDLOW-and apples and cabinet positions-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!
Mr. PEDLO.W:-than he is with the source from which I have been quoting.-the
52i
Book of Books. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask this question in all seriousness: Is the Government really sincere in its protestations?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Let us see what happened in 1917 during the election. I am sure that other constituencies, like mine, were invaded by a flow of oratory and eloquence from one end to the other. The principal claim advanced for the support of the electorate was based on the issue of winning the war, and the Unionist party brought the gallant colonel, who was my opponent, all the way from France to win the war in South Renfrew. Among other things it was contended that there would be no more political parties in the future, that henceforward members would all belong to one party, that there was going to be a love feast down here at Ottawa after the election, and that there would not be any more patronage. As I have already stated that is one of the reasons why I, for one, have been besieged with requests for the nomination of parties to do the work of . taking the census in the south riding of Renfrew. Before proceeding further with this branch of the subject I would like to draw attention to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on Saturday, August 14, 1920. In that article I find the following :
Mr. Mackenzie King in his speech at Paisley asked what constructive legislation Union Government had passed.
The Journal says:
That is an easy question. No Canadian Government ever passed so much advanced legislation. Here are four examples: The abolition of patronageand so on.
I would like to show the House further what, according to my experience, actually happened in connection with the abolition of patronage, and I am going to quote from some correspondence that I had with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) in his concluding remarks wondered what the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) would do if they had been requested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to name a fit and proper person to oversee the taking of the census in their respective constituencies. No SHch request was made to them, I understand, by the minister. Had the member for Quebec East been asked to make such an appoint-

ment he would doubtless have replied that it would be impossible for him to find anybody in his constituency but a Liberal to appoint to such a position; and I am sure the member for Shelburne and Queen's could have made a suitable appointment from his constituency. But I have here a letter from the Minister of Trade and Commerce asking me to nominate a person for the position of returning officer in the forthcoming referendum in South Renfrew. The letter which is dated July 15,1920, is as follows:
Dear Sir:- It is necessary to have an appointment made of a returning officer for the prohibition referendum which is soon to be held in the Province of Ontario. It has been usual,
I think, to appoint the Sheriff or Registrar of the County and, failing these, a good and capable man.
Dr. Reid has had matter more in charge but has just left for British Columbia. He has sent me in a list of persons recommended and I find that your riding is vacant. I therefore take it that you have not recommended anyone. Would you kindly attend to this matter at once as the Secretary of State is anxious to get the names in hand. It will prevent further correspondence and much trouble will be saved 4 if you will send in the full name of the man you recommend, his occupation, address, and the locality or building in which he will sum up the votes.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) G. E. Foster.


Mr. DUFF:: Who is the letter addressed to?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: It is addressed to "I. E. Pedlow, Esq., M.P., Renfrew, Ont." I took it for granted-


William Duff: That there was something doing.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: -that the Government were really sincere up to that time. On July 17th, I replied to the right hon. gentleman as follows:
Dear Sir,-Your favor of the 15th, Inst, is the first intimation I have had that I was expected to name a suitable person for the position of returning officer for the prohibition referendum for the South Riding of the county of Renfrew.
I have, however, very great pleasure In recommending Albert Edwin Bradwin, Editor and Proprietor, "The Watchman" newspaper, Arnprior, Ont., as a suitable person for this appointment. The votes will be summed up in the Town Hall Arnprior.
The sheriff or registrar of the county, resides in the North Riding of the County of Renfrew, consequently, I do not consider either of these officials eligible for the position, and this Is the reason why I am submitting the above named gentleman, who, I feel confident, will fill the position satisfactorily.
Yours very truly,


Frank S. Cahill: Was he appointed?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The balance of the correspondence will show what happened if my hon. friend will possess his soul in patience. Nine days later I was informed that the communication of July 15th, was sent me in error, and that it should have been sent to Lieutenant Colonel Martin, who was the defeated candidate in South Renfrew in the 1917 election.


William Duff: How did you find that out?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have a communication here which explains that, but it is marked "Personal and Private." If I had the permission of the writer to do so I would certainly like to place the letter on Hansard.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: I fear you will
not get the permission.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: On the day I received
this communication I called up the secretary of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was in charge of the office during the Minister's absence, and explained to him the unfortunate position in which I had been placed at the time, because I had informed Mr. Bradwin that I had recommended him for the appointment, and he in turn had told his friends of it and it had become public property. Therefore I asked that the nomination which I had made should be confirmed. The secretary of the Minister of Trade and Commerce assured me that he would look into the matter and see if the nomination I had made could be confirmed. He promised to write me, but from that day to this I have not heard anything further from him in regard to the subject. I then called the Prime Minister up on the phone. He too undertook to make inquiries into the matter and see 9 p.m. if it were not possible to have the gentleman nominated by me appointed to the position. He likewise was to have written me but did not do so. I therefore wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
Renfrew, Ont., August, 3, 1920.
Dear Mr. Meighen,-Following our phone conversation of 27th inst. regarding the appointment of returning officer in South Renfrew, for the Prohibition Referendum; I have been expecting a communication from you as a result of the investigation you promised me you would make at that time, and considering that such has not been received up to the present date, I am taking the liberty of writing to remind you of your promise, and I sincerely trust, if not asking too much, you will take time to let me know the result of your investigation under that subject.	.
Yours truly,

In reply I received the following:
Ottawa, Ont., August 5, 1920.
Dear Mr. Pedlow,-I duly received your letter of 3rd, August. I looked into the matter about which you telephoned me and found that Mr. Payne, Sir George Foster's Secretary, had written you already a full explanation and that really there were no facts, so far as I know, uncommunicated to you.
I am sure you understand there was no desire on anyone's part to make difficulty for you of any kind. Under the circumstances, I do not think you have just ground of complaint that your recommendation was not accepted.
Tours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Akthur Meighen.
I replied to that as follows:
Renfrew, Ont., August 6th, 1920.
Dear Mr. Meighen,-It is not my desire to prolong this correspondence unnecessarily, but in acknowledging your esteemed favour of August 5th, in answer to mine of the 3rd, I desire you to understand that the information given you, "that Mr. Payne, Sir George Poster's secretary, had written me already a full explanation" of the subject under consideration is not correct.
On receiving Mr. Payne's letter of July 26 I phoned him, protesting against the change indicated, and he promised then to write me that evening fully on the subject, with particular reference as to whehter the appointment of John Brennan, of Arnprior, had been finally confirmed or not.
John Brennan, I understand, was named by the defeated candidate in South Renfrew in 1917.
Not hearing from him as promised, I called him up again at ten o'clock a.m. on Thursday, July 29th, and was told by whoever answered the phone that he had gone away on his holidays. I have heard nothing further from him since that date, so the information given to you in this instance is certainly not in accordance with the facts, and although it is only a trifling matter, still, I know you have been misinformed, and should know It.
I also wrote to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) on August 3rd, 1920, as follows:
Dear Sir,-On Tuesday, July 27th, I received a communication from your office in reply to my letter of July 17th, in which I named Albert Edwin Bradwin, of Arnprior, as a fit and proper person for the position of returning officer for the prohibition referendum for South Renfrew, and immediately on receipt of that communication in your absence I took up the subject matter with your private secretary, and he promised during the course of our phone conversation to make investigation regarding this appointment along the line of my suggestions and write me without fail that evening. So far I have not received the promised communication. I am therefore taking the matter up with you.
For your information I will recall briefly the position in which this matter is at the present time. On July 16th I received from your office a communication asking me to name a suitable person for the position of Returning Officer in South Renfrew for the prohibition referendum, and I replied to that request the following day, July 17th, naming a gentleman that I know would be entirely satisfactory to all parties concerned in this riding, and one entirely capable of filling the position satisfactorily. On July 27th I was informed that the letter of July 16th asking me to name a fit and proper person for the work was intended for Lt.-Col. Martin.
In view of this situation you can easily understand the unpleasant position I am placed in at the moment, for my choice has already been announced, and for that selection to be ignored, for reasons that are obvious, is neither fair to me, nor is it, I submit, good politics from the Government party point of view. I accepted the intimation in good faith and made the nomination in the same spirit, and for me to be told now practically that the elected candidate of this riding is not capable of making a selection of this kind is not an evidence of the claims made by the Government during the past three years, namely, that party patronage was completely done away with.
Lt.-Col. Martin, in my judgment, has no more right to name the officer for the above position than any man on the street. The fact that he is the defeated candidate in the election of 1917 should not, in view of the protestations of the Union Government then and since, entitle him to any say in a matter of this kind, and I sincerely trust you will not allow the nomination made by me in this instance to be overruled by the exigencies of party politics.
Eleven days later I received this communication from the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, dated August 14, 1920:
Dear Mr. Pedlow,-
Yours of August 3rd was handed to me by my secretary, on my return to Ottawa.
I should have considered it sooner but for a rather pressing engagement I have had with an old enemy, Mr. Lumbago, to wit, I thought one enemy enough at a time, and now come to you, more friendly and, I hope, by no means so relentless as the other.
The double notification was due to a mistake of my secretary in mailing the letter to you instead of to Lt-Col. Martin, as has been explained by him. In asking Lt.-Col. Martin, who had been a candidate for the riding and is a returned soldier, for the name of a suitable person to act as returning officer, the custom which has prevailed hitherto under all governments was followed. It is difficult, as you know, at once to get rid of old customs, even if they may be susceptible <?f improvement, though great progress has been made by the present Government in that direction.
I trust that no very great inconvenience will arise from the little misunderstanding that has taken place. Meanwhile you will have noticed that the referendum has been postponed. Anyway, I do not suppose that your nominee has, taken any responsible steps consequent upon>
the sending in of his name. It is also to be remembered that though a nomination was asked for there was no implication that the name sent in would result in a final appointment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have occupied a considerable time in reading this extensive correspondence, but I think it is only right that it should be placed on Hansard, for it

is quite in keeping with the spirit that has prevailed in the discussion this afternoon on the resolution now before the House. This brings me to these conclusions. Why not quit this pretending and this humbug? Why not put into practice the spirit of the claims and protestations made by the Government on this subject? Why not give heed to the demands of the people who themselves are most interested,-the civil servants? Why not listen to the appeal of all right thinking people everywhere? Why not follow the example of the Mother of Parliaments as well as the example of the Government of the great Republic to the south of us and decide for all time to do away with this evil thing, this custom that is so unbusinesslike and so unfair?


Mr. J. F. REID (Mackenzie) :: vice; no man will want to work for the Government if he knows that the merit system is not in force. It will be needless for him to take a position in the Civil Service and try to rise to any higher position, because it will be political pull and not the merit of the man that will govern the conditions of his employment.
Reference has been made to the Old Country system of Civil Service. I have lived in the Old Country, and I know a little about how smoothly the Civil Service runs there. The Civil Service there knows not of a change of government. Everything goes along smoothly just the same as if no change of government had taken place. But what were the conditions in Canada a few years ago, for instance, away back in the early eighties? I have seen Tories discharged to make room for Grits and Grits discharged to make room for Tories in Civil Service offices out in the West. Such a condition should not prevail, and it certainly will prevail if we go back to the old patronage system, but I again express the hope that this Government will see to it that we do not go back.
As regards the present system, I must say, in my constituency I have no fault to find with the appointments. I was asked in certain cases if certain men were qualified, and if I considered they were, I certainly said so. It is true, I did not have the honour of recommending the census commissioner, but the appointment that has been made is, in my opinion, quite satisfactory. I again express the hope that if this resolution comes to a vote it will be voted down. I trust this Government will see to it that it is their duty to continue in force the Civil Service system that we have now.


Brig.   G@: Mr. Speaker, this question is one
which involves efficiency in public business and the public good, and from that point of view, I cannot support the resolution now before the House, although I am bound to say that I do not entirely agree with certain aspects of the present situation. As regards the Outside Service, I feel the same difficulty that other hon. gentlemen have found in understanding how it is possible for the Civil Service Commission to make a proper selection at great distances from Ottawa and if, as a matter of fact, they consult with the local personages, then I think it is due to the members of the House and the public generally that we should know who those personages are

and their standing in the community. As regards the Inside Civil Service, I think good work is being done. By far the largest part of the Civil Service is agreed that the system prevailing under the Commission is infinitely better than the patronage system. If they think well of the present system-and they do-then we should hope for better things and give to the commission a reasonable opportunity to carry on and work out their problems to a successful conclusion.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), who spoke in this House to-day and who took the view that patronage has not been in fact abolished, but that the patronage formerly exercised by members has been passed on to others who now exercise the same patronage. I cannot agree with that for this reason. I define patronage, as we understand it in this connection, as the power of app .nt-ment exercised by political personages with a view to political results. People cannot be born into the Civil Service; some persons must make appointments. If those persons, not being political personages, having no political results in view, and being honest and efficient themselves, proceed in a proper manner in making those appointments, nothing better can be done, and that particular method is away ahead of the system which formerly prevailed.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. In the old days, under the old system of patronage, upon a change of Government taking place, appointments were confined to the dominant party. Members of the Civil Service previously appointed kept quiet, attended to their work, did their best; members recently appointed were at liberty to go to their member of Parliament or to the defeated candidate with their grievances and, generally speaking, the Civil Service was satisfied with its job and loyal to the Government, and loyal to the State. Under the commission system of Government a new feature has been introduced, I regret to say, by a small number of civil servants. As I said a moment ago, for the most part, civil servants are perfectly satisfied with what is attempted to be done and they hope for better things in the future; but a small body of civil servants are dissatisfied, and they have introduced a new feature into the Civil Service of this country.
That feature is this: They have introduced the sentiment which is said to exist as between capital and labour. They have introduced that idea which is fathered by

the I.W.W. and the O.B.U., that there exists a continual state of warfare between employer and employee, which can only be cured by constant agitation and perhaps, ultimately, by direct action. That particular body is confined to Ottawa and is known as Local Union No. 66. The members of this House have received its publications, and are in a position to form their own conclusions as to what sort of men these are. Now we do not want that spirit in the Civil Service of Canada. We want a service that will be loyal to the state, a service that will be the backbone of our state. We do not want our Civil Service to acquire the attitude I have mentioned, which is deplored everywhere, and is particularly to be deplored between the state and its employees. I have just this to say in conclusion. I would like to see the Government take power to itself at an early date to put itself in a position to dismiss the whole lot of that Union, and to fill their places from the ranks of returned men, of whom there are thousands in this country fitted for this particular kind of employment, and extremely anxious to get it.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: I have but few remarks to make, Mr. Speaker, and were it not for my desire to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) who has introduced this resolution, I should perhaps, not take part in this debate at all. I wish to congratulate him upon having brought this matter up, although I am not in a position to vote for his resolution as drawn. I am sure that we are all sorry to observe some impairment of the old-time physical strength of the good man he has always shown himself to be, but we still appreciate his many fine qualities of heart and mind, and hope that his vigour will be restored, and that he will be spared for many years to this Parliament and to his thousands of friends in this country. I cannot vote for the resolution as drawn because it affects both the Inside and the Outside Service, and there is not the least question that it is only through such a body as the Civil Service Commission that we shall be able to command ultimately in this country a Civil Service that will have the respect of the people of Canada, and will give that efficient service which the people have a right to expect. I do not mean to depreciate in any way what the Civil Service Commission have already done, for I believe that when they were appointed they found appointees in the
service of both political patties. I believe the Commission are doing their best, and the only serious criticism that can be made of them is their bringing in foreigners to reclassify the Civil Service instead of having the work done by Canadians. Both the Civil Service Commission and the Government have accepted the responsibility for engaging these men. I think it is to be regretted, particularly at a time when the members of the Government one after another have been telling this Parliament that we have reached the status of a great independent nation, able to take part in world affairs, that in a matter of purely domestic concern and of no great significance they have themselves gone outside of Canada to find men able to make a classification of the Civil Service of a country with a population of eight millions. I believe that the Civil Service Commission is necessary in connection with the Inside Service, because candidates for appointments can best have their education and efficiency tested by examinations. Even after they have passed an examination and a certificate has been issued as to their qualifications, the new appointees have to serve under a deputy or branch chief who, if he finds they are not qualified in other ways, that they lack tact, for instance, judgment or integrity, may have them censured or transferred to an inferior position in some other department. I do not consider the Outside Service is in the same position. For many positions in the Outside Service a slight education may be sufficient. What is required in that service more particularly is tact and judgment, integrity, and devotion to duty. While I do not wish to attach any blame to the members of the Civil Service Commission I must say that during the last year or two they have made appointments for which had I been responsible, I would not have dared to put my foot in my constituency again. It is only recently we have been witnesses to cases of neglect of duty and defalcations which have shocked society. Men appointed by the commission a few months ago have had to be dismissed and replaced by new appointees, under exactly the same conditions, and with no more knowledge of the tact, devotion to duty, and integrity required than those who preceded them.
My hon. friend the ex-Postmaster-General (Mr. Lemieux) emphasized this afternoon that we the representatives of the people should be given all possible time and opportunity for the study of great nation-

al questions. I thoroughly agree with him. I have rejoiced on many occasions during the last few years since I have been on this side of the House, that I have lost the opportunity of exercising patronage in my county. I have had more leisure than heretofore. When I was able to exercise patronage my house was invaded at 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning and up till 11 o'clock at night; and when I travelled through my county I would be stopped for half a day to listen to the complaints of those in the service or the aspirations of those desiring to get in. It has been a different life for me during the last few years. To show what little effect patronage has on winning elections I may say that when I had the responsibility of making appointments for my county I was always returned by majorities running from 1,000 to 1,500, but when my opponents enjoyed the exercise of patronage, as was their right until the last election, they were reduced to the impossibility of keeping a candidate in the field and I was elected bv acclamation.
It is only by raising the standard of the Outside Service, as well as of the Inside, so that it may command the respect of the people of Canada that we shall discharge our duty fully by the electorate. In the light of my experience of public affairs in this country, and particularly in my own county, I am forced to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of the public service of Canada that all appointments, to the Outside Service at least, should again be made on the recommendation of the members elected to Parliament by the people. I do not, in this statement, anticipate any personal advantage; I advocate the reversion to the control of members of Parliament of appointments to the Outside Service purely and simply because I believe that it is the only judicious method that can be followed. Members of the Civil Service Commission, sitting in their offices in Ottawa, cannot possibly have the personal and local knowledge of applicants and conditions in any county which the member representing that county would possess.
Take the position of Collector of Customs, which involves the handling of large funds that might possibly hold out a serious temptation to any young man. The member in the constituency where a vacancy for such a position occurred, would be in a position to recommend the appointment of a thoroughly competent, responsible, and trustworthy man. He is personally acquainted with numerous men

fitted in every way for such a post, and I see no reason why his recommendation should not be accepted. The same thing applies to such a position as that of Fisheries Officer. I think we should adopt the method followed for many years in France, where the member for an electoral division is charged with the responsibility of making such appointments as shall be in the interest of the whole constituency irrespective of political considerations. In this Parliament we have now three or four different classes of citizens represented. Besides Liberals and Conservatives, we have representatives of Labour and Agriculture, and what I contend, Mr. Speaker, is that every member of Parliament should have the responsibility-because it is, or ought to be essentially, a matter of responsibility and not of privilege-of recommending appointments. It does not matter whether a man belongs to one party or another, whether he is a supporter of the Government in power or a member of the Opposition. The fact that he has been returned to Parliament by a majority of his constituents is evidence that he enjoys their confidence and is entitled to express their views; and this is one of the most important matters on which they could express any desire. I have no very great desire to return to the old conditions, and certainly I have no desire to do so because of any personal considerations. But when the time comes, I shall be quite willing to shoulder my share of responsibility in the recommending of appointments, as I did for years in the past.
The Government of to-day claims to have abolished patronage; but in view of events which have been referred to in this debate, I do not think the people place any credence in this profession, for, since coming into power, the Government have thrown out practically every Liberal officer in the country and have brought in all their own friends. Customs officers, postmasters, and other officials, appointed under the Liberal regime, have been cast aside and their places filled by candidates approved of by the party authorities. While there may be a show of genuineness about the appointments made by the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the supporters of the Government can allay the suspicion of the people in regard to what must strike them as a most remarkable accident, that appointees selected by the commission have so frequently been Conservatives. In my county I have recommended hundreds of men whom I know personally-for I have

been travelling throughout that county for the last thirty years and more, and know every child that has been born there during that period, having followed the career of every one with paternal interest-and I am still to see one recommendation I have made accepted. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of members of Parliament to make appointments, and their sense of responsibility to the people will influence them in making proper appointments; for they know that if their judgment is faulty, they will suffer in consequence. I agree with the remarks that have been made by many of the speakers who have preceded me, and I trust that the suggestion I have offered will appeal to the Government.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton East) :: While I do not propose to vote for the resolution before the House, I believe that if the abuses under the present system were tabulated they would lead one to the conclusion that they form the general rule and not the exception in the administration of affairs by the Civil Service Commission as it is constituted to-day. It appears to me that, in effect, patronage has been taken from the hands of the individual member and placed in the hands of deputy ministers, post office inspectors, post masters, and various menial employees of the Dominion Government. It is unfortunate that all members are not prepared to lay their complaints before the House and establish the fact that this substitution in the bestowal of patronage has really been made. The crux of the Civil Service Act lies in section 45. If-there is any merit at all in the Act, it is to be found particularly in that section. Promotion, and promotion upon merit, is the basis of the Civil Service Act. Otherwise members might as well go back to the old system, and appoint those whom they thought best regardless of whether or not there might be a better person in the field. Section 45 of the Act says: Promotions
(1)	Promotion is a change from one class to another class with a higher maximum compensation, and vacancies shall be filled, as far as is consistent with the best interests of the civil service, by promotion.
(2)	Promotion shall be made for merit by the Commission upon such examination as the Commission may by regulation prescribe. The Commission may by such regulation restrict the competition at such examinations to employees or to employees of a certain class or classes of a specified seniority, and may prescribe what marks may be obtained by such employees for efficiency and seniority. Such marks shall not, however, exceed one-half of the total marks that can be obtained at the examination.
Now, Sir, I have a case in point which I brought to the attention of the House last session and which in set out at page 4,518 and following pages of Hansard. I thought when I brought this matter before the House last session, that the undertaking given to me by the Minister in charge of this Act would have led the Civil Service Commission to remedy the injury which had been done us in the province of Alberta in this particular instance, but we are yet waiting any redress. In that particular case three men made application for the position of assistant Postmaster in the city of Edmonton. The three men were Clendenning, Thompson and Cryderman. Notwithstanding the fact that these three men had made application in writing to the Civil Service Commission, notwithstanding the fact that they were supposed to pass an examination and to receive marks in competition with each other, the Superintendent, Mr. Ross, the Deputy Postmaster General, and the members of the Civil Service Commission arranged it among themselves so that a man by the name of Rutledge, of Winnipeg, would be transferred to the position of Assistant Postmaster in Edmonton and the men in that city had the satisfaction merely of receiving a letter from the Civil Service Commission that the appointment had been made. Now there is a distinct breach of the Civil Service Act in that instance, and that is not the only case which I have tabulated, but as to which I shall not bother the House. If this was done over the Dominion of Canada, as I have reason to believe that it is to a fair extent, then the usefulness of the Civil Service Commission has ceased.
On the left of the Speaker a number of jocular references have been made to the appointment of the census commissioners. Well, perhaps that is not entirely as it should have been; but the complaint that they make in that respect is the complaint that I make in another respect. Where inspectors of post offices, for instance, who belong to the political persuasion to which my hon. friends opposite adhere, go about the country and appoint, whether things are equal or not, men of their political persuasion, then I say that they are also violating the principles of the Civil Service Act in that they are exercising a patronage that they ought not to exercise because they are really taking it out of my own hands to make our own appointments and making appointments of people of their own political persuasion. If that condition of things

exists, I say, Sir, that I feel quite as capable so long as I represent East Edmonton, of making the appointments myself. I think it is well that there should be some appointments made such as I have in my mind, and for this reason. Up at Lake LaBiche, in Alberta, the appointee is of the Liberal persuasion, and he is active at the present time in making accusations -both against this Government and against myself-sweeping accusations that cannot he substantiated. I am perfectly willing that he should keep on doing that because it will be easier for me to destroy him and his friends when I get started.
I was in favour of the abolition of patronage in 1917, I am in favour of the abolition of patronage now; but I was not in favour of the transfer of patronage from members to deputy heads, and other officials in 1917; neither am I at the present time. I submit that while I cannot vote for the resolution before the House when it comes to a vote, it is urgent upon this Government to see that there is some remedy under this Act whereby patronage if not under the members of Parliament throughout Canada, that there will be a cessation of patronage dispensation within the public departments whether it is at Ottawa or elsewhere.
I wish to call attention to another point before I resume my seat, and it is in anticipation of an argument which may be made against me-that if appointments are made of politicians who use their positions for political purposes it is possible to remove them under section 32 of the Civil Service Act. That section which is headed "Political Partisanship" and reads as follows:
No deputy head, officer, clerk or employee in the Civil Service shall be debarred from voting at any Dominion or provincial election if, under the laws governing the said election, he has the right to vote; but no such deputy head, officer, clerk or employee shall engage in partisan work in connection with any such election, or contribute, receive or in any way deal with any money for any party funds.
You will see from what I have read that there is only one condition under which a remedy can be given to a member who feels that he is aggrieved by
10 p.m. a person who is a partisan, and it is that this person must be a partisan during election time. So that the party complained of has five years or four years, as the case may be, during which he can carry on political propaganda against the employer, and the member has no remedy unless the offender continues

that attitude during the time there is an election. I submit there should be some remedy in this respect also. I have no objection to any man having his political opinions; this is a free country and he should have the liberty to exercise those opinions as he sees fit. But I also believe that there should be some recognition of the respective positions of employer and employee; and it is undignified, if not disloyal for a person to accept a position from the employer and then contrive all he can against him. If that is true in the case of the particular individual it is also true of the state. I submit, therefore, that the state should be in a position to see that the employees who do not behave themselves and who do not care to serve loyally, at all times and not merely when there is an election, shall be dismissed from the service.


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend participating in this debate, but I notice a document here containing the names of the census commissioners for the various counties throughout the province of Quebec, and I find that the Tories of the county of Pontiac have been slighted by the present Government. The address of the first commissioner for the county of Pontiac is given here as , 71 Spadina Ave., Ottawa. Now, Sir, the Tories are a bad lot anywhere, but I do not believe that they are any worse in Pontiac county than they are in Carleton county, and I think this appointment, since it was to be a Tory party appointment, should have been made from the county of Pontiac and not from the city of Ottawa.
I was asked by the Chief Commissioner of the Census for suggestions as to taking the census in the' county of Pontiac which is one of the largest in the Dominion. I advised that he should have three commissioners for the three main divisions of the county. As I pointed out in a previous debate, I am as a rule careful not to make suggestions to this Government, because the best suggestion in the world would be so badly managed by them that it would have been better never to have made it. Apparently the Government followed my advice to some extent; at any rate, they appointed three commissioners. With two of them I have no quarrel, for they are from the county of Pontiac. But why the third appointee should be a man residing in the city of Ottawa is beyond my reasoning powers and is, I think, incapable of

[DOT]explanation by the Government. The older section of the constituency commences within thirty-five miles of the city of Ottawa, and for that district they have appointed Mr. Barry at Campbell's Bay. The second district, the Temiskaming, is about 300 miles from the main or older portion of the constituency, and apparently there is no person appointed there. The third is known as the Abitibi district, and there the Government have appointed Mr. Lucien Ladouceur of Amos, Que. When I was indiscreet enough to suggest a third commissioner I suppose they thought they had better have a good Tory friend who had been assisting them here, so they appointed a man from Ottawa. But they have not taken care of the Temiskaming or Ville Marie district by any one of these appointments, and it will cost the Government more to have either of these commissioners go to that district than to appoint a local man.
I suppose this debate will serve the purpose of leading some people in the country to believe that patronage has been abolished, for I do not know any other good Government purpose that it could serve. Of course, it will have no effect upon me because, since I became a member of this House, I have failed to see that political patronage has been abolished in any appointments that were of a nature to be useful to the party in power. Why, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) this afternoon in answering some criticisms from this side of the House treated the good faith of the Government in this matter as more or less of a joke. Apparently he thought it was quite a joke that any person should take the contention seriously that the Government were living up to their promises of 1917. He may think the Government is more or less of a joke, Mr. Speaker, but the great bulk of the people of this country do not; they consider the Government is a tragedy.


Edmond Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I understand this resolution is to be withdrawn.


Mr. COPP:: Where did you get that
from?


Edmond Proulx: My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) said at the beginning of his speech that we would have more details of the subject matter of the resolution later on; and while my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) in stating that we had had a few years' experience of this system and found that it did not work too well in some respects, rather implied that there might be some amendments made to the Civil Service Act; and taking into consideration also the fact that there was a ministerial caucus this morning, I infer that the matter must have been discussed there, and some promises must have been made by the ministers to their supporters that amendments would be made to the Civil Service Act this session. So I presume this resolution is going to be withdrawn.
In case it is not withdrawn, I wish to say that I do not intend to support the resolution. I believe that when Parliament some years ago applied the Civil Service Act to the Inside Service it was good legislation, and I believe the Act has worked very well in that respect. Mistakes may have been made, but ministers and deputy ministers also make mistakes. The Civil Service Commission, I believe, is trying to apply the Act to the best advantage. With regard to the Outside Service, I am of the opinion of my hon. friends, the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lem-ieux), that for positions such as postmasterships in the large cities and towns the Civil Service Commission is the best body to hold competitive examinations and make the proper appointments; in other words, I believe that those positions should be filled on merit rather than as the result of political influence. With regard to the appointment of postmasters and other local officials in rural districts I have no fault to find with the previous practice. When my friends were in power I exercised the patronage in my constituency, I never shirked the responsibility, and I do not think I ever recommended a wrong appointment; anyway, my people never reproached me. I did not always please those who applied for appointment, I had to make a choice from among those I considered best fitted to fill the vacancy, just as the Civil Service Commission have to do now. I think the same applies in all other constituencies. Members of Parliament have a certain standing in their constituencies, and I think they can be trusted to make proper recommendations. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) was very generous to-night, more generous than I have known him in the past, he being ready, he said, to concede to us the privilege of making recommendations. Well, I am not going to ask that privilege from this Government; but if they apply to me I will exercise the responsibility of re-

commending fit and proper persons for any appointments in my constituency.
When I was asked by the Dominion Statistician last fall to make recommendations with regard to the district for the taking of the census, I was not like my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Ped-low), I did not expect the Government would be so generous as to ask me to recommend any persons as census commissioners or enumerators, so I never volunteered any recommendations. I may say that from applications I have received I must assume that my electors, like the electors of my hon. friend from South Renfrew and of other hon. gentlemen who have spoken to-day, have been deceived into imagining that patronage had been abolished and that those census appointments were open to all electors, irrespective of party affiliations. I may say that I received quite a few applications, which I forwarded to the Dominion Statistician. I expected that he would transmit them to the County Commissioner, and I know that if the applicants were appointed, they would be able to do the work properly. But I am not too sure that they will be appointed; I can see by what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) said this aftern'oon that the appointments for the taking of the census are going to be political appointments. It would seem that this is about the only consolation left to Government supporters. They are not going to stay in power very long, and it must be a consolation to them to get a few of their friends appointed in connection with the taking of the census. I do not begrudge them the consolation; I think they are justly entitled to it. If they can make a few friends out of it and thereby save themselves from defeat at the next election, they are welcome to it, but I do not think that they will make enough friends to enable them to bring about that result.
I do not want to prolong the debate, Mr. Speaker. I do not approve of the resolution as drafted because it includes both the Inside and the Outside Service, and I want the Inside Service to remain under the Civil Service Commission. I think it would be a retrograde step to take the Inside Service away from the Civil Service Commission. If the resolution was amended in such a way as to leave the Inside Service with the Civil Service Commission, as well as all appointments to positions in the different cities-in post offices and customs offices- giving only the local appointments to mem-

bers or to defeated candidates, then I would be disposed to support the resolution. As I say, I am not disposed to support it as at present drafted.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Speaker, the discussion on the resolution before the House has disclosed some misunderstanding of the situation. Apparently my hon. friends on both sides of the House have during the last two or three years taken seriously the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and his confreres in the Cabinet when they were talking of the abolition of patronage. Those who have known the right hon. gentleman as long as I have must realize, however, his ability to make a most eloquent speech, to talk idealism, to pour forth platitudes- but when it comes down to doing things he is still imbued with the old doctrine of the dyed-in-the-wool Tory: "To the victors belong the spoils." In common with his confreres, he says: We are living under conditions of patronage just as we have done all the years that have passed.
Now, I am not deceived, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this matter. I had no confidence in the statement of the Government that patronage would be abolished; therefore I am not disappointed. When my friend, Mr. Coates, wrote to me, as he did to other members of Parliament, asking for information with regard to the areas that were being established in my constituency, for the purpose of collecting Census statistics I replied furnishing him with the information, but I did not, as other hon. members did, waste a moment of time in offering any suggestions or making any recommendations with regard to the appointment of census enumerators or any person else who might be employed in connection with the taking of the census in my constituency. I knew that such suggestions or recommendations would not be acted upon; they had never done so in the past. In spite of the protestations made by hon. gentlemen opposite, they had no idea that any such recommendations would be received or acted upon, they are not deceiving me or deceiving the country in regard to the matter.
As to the suggestion that political patronage in Canada has been abolished, why, Mr. Speaker, it is more rampant now than it ever was. Our friends opposite are using the Civil Service Commission, appointed by themselves to find jobs for some of their own political friends, and they are using that Commission as a buffer between themselves

and the people. That is all the Civil Service Commission was ever intended to be; that is all it has ever been used for. It is merely talking nonsense for hon. gentlemen to speak at length about political patronage being abolished; the people of this country know better. They know it, Sir, because they have had the experience and are having the experience every day and every hour. Down in my constituency I have adopted a new arrangement in regard to patronage. By some means or other, my friends opposite have caused unsuspecting people in some localities to believe that patronage has been abolished. They come to me and write to me asking that I recommend them for some positions in the service of the country. Well, Sir, for some time they continued coming to me, and I would tell them:	If you want this job
do not take a recommendation from me; that would absolutely put you out of business. So I have adopted another course. When a man comes to me who I do not wish to get a job I recommend him and he is sure of being turned down by the powers that be; the more and stronger reasons I have for keeping that man from getting a job, the stronger I make my recommendation, and the more certain I am that he will not get the job. If I had a friend whom I would like to get a job and there is practically no possibility of his getting it, I write a letter to some of my friends who will go to the powers that be and tell them that this man should not have the job because he is rather inclined to be tory- and sometimes he gets a job in that way. In fact, that is the only way that I can work patronage in my own constituency under the present Government.
I am inclined to accept the statement of my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) who has told us frequently in this House- and he told us emphatically this afternoon -that policical patronage has not been abolished; that it was being handed over to a few_ individuals who make the appointments to the public service. My hon. friend is either right or wrong. If he is wrong, he is intentionally taking the stand that he does, for he knows. He has been a member of parliament for some years; he lives in Ottawa, where he is in touch with thousands of Civil Service employees; he knows the situation. If his statement is true, Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that the Government should stand up and talk about political patronage being abolished and thus try to decive the people. It is a quarrel between my hon. friends of the Government and the
hon. member from Ottawa, their loyal supporter; one is right and the other is wrong. With the little knowledge that I have I am rather inclined to believe that my hon. friend from Ottawa is right and that my hon. friends of the Government are still trying to deceive the people in regard to this patronage question.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce would make his solemn protestations, his eloquent appeals that we 'should drop party politics, hon. gentlemen on this side would say to me: "Why, how he is mellowing with years." They did not understand the hon. gentleman. They did not understand him then, and they do not understand him now. He can make eloquent pleadings in regard to the situation, but that is what he did as long ago as I can remember him in the province of New Brunswick; what he has done during all his public life he is doing now. Why, Sir, he admitted to-day that we are going back to old line party politics in the selection of 24,000 census enumerators. He is going to follow along the same old lines in which he was brought up and in which, I am sure, he will pass to the other side, notwithstanding the pleasant speeches which he makes in regard to the matter- speeches which do not mean anything to the people of this country.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Before the hon.
member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) left, he asked me to state that he wished this motion withdrawn, his object having been accomplished by the discussion that has taken place this afternoon. I therefore, wish to move that the motion be withdrawn. I understand that he has made the same statement to Your Honour.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Might I be permitted to say a word?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is
asking that the motion be withdrawn.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette) :: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed, I was standing up when the hon. gentleman asked that the motion be withdrawn, and in that case I think I should be permitted to speak.


William Sora Middlebro: I thought no other members wished to speak. My motion i3 only made in case all are through.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Mr. Speaker, I have only
a word to say; I do not want to delay the House. It appears to me that one point which should have been submitted to the Government has not been submitted. I

have in my hand a list of the census commissioners for the province of Quebec. As we all know there are in Quebec 65 constituencies, and in some constituencies, there is more than one commissioner, so that there are about seventy commissioners for the census of 1921 in that province. It has been argued that patronage does not exist any more, and that, therefore, these gentlemen who have been nominated as commissioners in Quebec should have been chosen from the people of both parties. If we take the last Federal election as representing the opinion of Quebec in regard to the Liberal or the Conservative party, we should come to the conclusion that the Liberal party is in the majority in that province. Therefore, if these nominations had been made on a non-partisan basis, the majority of the nominees should be Liberals. Are they Liberals or Conservatives? I have my opinion about that, but I shall not pronounce upon the subject. I should like hon. gentlemen on the other side to give the answer, and I am on the floor for that purpose of extending an invitation to them to do so. Out of about 70 nominees, are there 35 Liberals? Are ten of them Liberals? Are five of them Liberals? Are two of them Liberals? Is there one Liberal out of the 70 nominees? I should like to know.


William Stevens Fielding: Is there one righteous man?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman really desire an answer to the question? I may say that we never concerned ourselves to inquire.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Then it would surely be
impossible that out of 70 nominations, not even one Liberal should be chosen. No one will believe that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As regards those
appointments to which the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Dennis) has referred, it is not at all possible that one single Liberal has been appointed. The possibility would be rather the other way. The incredible thing would have happened if the Government had appointed a Liberal where there was a possibility of doing anything else. In the last election of 1917, we were told that appointments would be at least fifty-fifty as the Government was supposed to be fifty-fifty. In my constituency of North Cape Breton and Victoria, there were about 60 or 65 officials, great or small, in connection with the election, and out of

those 60 or 65 there were two Libei'als. That possibly is the conception of hon. gentlemen opposite of fifty-fifty. They have such a lofty appreciation of their own crowd, that possibly that is the proportion in which they would regard them, although the value and merit would go the other way. The two that I got out of the 65 were got by mere accident. At a place called Big Baddeck, a gentleman by the name of John Cylie was appointed. A gentleman of splendid Irish extraction, who would not act for the Government in the election, and at the eleventh hour they had to take a Scotchman by the name of Mclnnis. In the other case, they appointed a man who had no learning at all, who could not write his name, but at the eleventh hour he took cold feet and thought he would not be equal to the occasion, and in that emergency they had to appoint his neighbour who was the nearest man who would do the job, as there was no time to look around for anybody else. Therefore, out of 65 where the proportion was to be fifty-fifty, there were only two Liberals and those two appointments were made by the law of necessity and accident, so that nobody is going to surprise me in any way by telling me that this Government, although promising to do these wonderful things and to abolish patronage, has thrown all that to the winds and followed the old-time custom.
In the present series of appointments I see that the same custom is being exactly followed. I do not profess to be able to tell who all the commissioners in Nova Scotia are, but I know the names and personnel of the men in my immediate neighbourhood. Good fellows they are in every way, but they are, of course, of the stripe which they were expected to be under the circumstances. With that, I find no fault, but I find fault with this. For the last four or five years, and particularly for the last three years, we have been promised that all appointments of this class should go to returned soldiers; that returned soldiers were to be appointed to every office for which such men could be found. I know the men who have been appointed in the counties of Victoria, Cape Breton and Richmond, but not one of them is a returned soldier, and I am sure the place is full of men who are returned soldiers just as capable of filling those offices as the men who were appointed. Why were those returned soldiers not appointed? Why did the Government not keep its word in that connection? Here is an army of 24,000

men who will be appointed throughout this country, and what guarantee have we that when the matter gets out of the hands of the Government, any better appointments, as far as returned soldiers are concerned, will be made than the Government have made themselves?
I believe it is true that when a commissioner is appointed in any particular area, he has the selection of his men. He has been appointed on Tory lines for Tory service, not at all because he has given any service to his country overseas. When he comes to make his selections, he will have to pick out and put in office men who are Tory heelers in the different wards, and the returned soldier will not "have even a look-in," as the slang phrase goes. I, therefore, protest against what I may call deception, or perhaps, worse-treachery in making promises to returned men that they should receive offices of this kind and then, when the opportunity has arisen, where 24,000 men are to be appointed, returned men-and there are plenty of them in the country to do the work-are entirely ignored.
It is said that the average pay of those enumerators will be about $100, although, perhaps, some of them will receive more than that and some less. If. you put the average at $100 for each of the 24,000, youg have something like $2,400,000 to be expended merely in connection with the enumeration or filling out the schedules. That would be quite an item amongst returned men who are to-day unemployed in this country; but we have no assurance, no guarantee whatever, that from the Atlantic to the Pacific a single returned man will be employed. It should have been made a 'condition precedent that returned men should get these positions. That is one of the things that should have been stipulated before the making of those appointments was handed over to the census commissioners. I know the men who were appointed in the part of the country from which I come are well-to-do men who do not need those jobs. They are not poor. They are well-to-do merchants, farmers, or contractors. They have lots of money, and are able to get along without a job of this kind, while on the other hand there are lots of clever fellows who have lost a leg, or a hand, or an eye, at the war, to whom such a job would be a God send, but they are brushed aside as no goods, and the positions are given to men who from a financial standpoint do not need them at all. I think it is only proper, in case the matter
may yet be remedied and these jobs be given to returned men, that I should bring this matter to the notice of the Government, and I do so in all sincerity so far as the returned soldiers are concerned, but I am afraid there will not be much sincerity in any answer I may receive.	.
As to the merits of this motion, the situation in the Civil Service is an old story to those of us who have been here for many years. I remember the former Prime Minister making a statement when leader of the Opposition that the trouble with the Civil Service was that it was overmanned and underpaid. That was the statement made by the hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden). But did things get better after the right hon. gentleman got charge of things in this country? What happened? For the first three years after the Government came into power, between 1911 and 1914, when the war broke out, 11,000 men, roughly speaking, were dismissed, turned out on the road to make room for others, and 25,000 were put in their places, just for the sake of patronage. That is what has crowded the offices and the departments to such an extent that something had to be done. The ministers themselves did not care to take the responsibility of putting these men out, the deputy ministers could not put them out, there was nobody to put them out, and so the Government had to get Arthur Young and Company and Grif-fenhagen from a foreign country, and send them sword in hand into these different departments to kill, slay, destroy, and kick out these people for whom the ministers had no use. The departments had become overloaded with these men by reason of promises and patronage, and when these foreigners came to put them out it cost this country, according to the statement made by the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), which I believe is correct, $139,666 -just to relieve the congestion in the departments that had been brought about by the mis-management of hon. gentlemen opposite.
A couple of years ago, when this matter was brought up in the House, I tried to illustrate conditions in the Civil Service by telling a little story that someone told me about the conditions in the departments in Ottawa. A minister of the Crown promised a man a job. The man came up here looking for the job, but there was no job for him. He knocked about the minister's office for a few days, and at last, in despair, the minister gave him a note



to the deputy, "For God's sake do something with this fellow. I must get him out of my office and out of my sight. Put him somewhere." The deputy had to obey, and was perhaps willing to obey, the behests of his master. He told this fellow: "Here is a pile of blue books. Take them out of here and put them away back there. Then when you have done that, put them in that room over there, then you can bring them back here. Keep at it all the time." Well, the man started in to move these books around from one place to the other, and kept at it continually for a week or so. Then he came back to the deputy minister and said: "Mr. Brown, I am not going to stay here. I am going away. There is something the matter. There is a blooming Bolshevist or something in this office that follows me around wherever I go. ff I go into this room he is after me. If I go into that room he follows me there, and when I come back here, he is here too." "Oh, don't be alarmed about that," said the deputy, "that is your assistant." Such was the condition of things. The man himself had nothing to do, but he was given a helper to assist him, and I suppose there was somebody else helping the helper. That is the condition the Civil Service has arrived at.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce tells us with gusto and a great pounding of wood this afternoon that in one department he found 475 men who were actually doing nothing, so he turned them out. He had put these men in himself; Griffenhagen found out there was nothing for them to do, so the minister told Griffenhagen to decapitate them. The minister has gained glory in the country for putting them in and now he is looking for more glory for putting them out, and I suppose there will be more glory coming to the Government for putting these fellows in once more again. Out they go, and in they come, and so the merry-go-round will go for the short time ahead of this Government. That is the way things are being done in the Civil Service. Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh as if it were not a serious matter. Do they not think that the people of this country are a serious, sane people? Do they not think that our people are a Godfearing, truth-telling people, and have a right to believe what solemn old gentlemen who are ministers of the Crown tell them? No, they seem to glory in being able to camouflage the people of this country, and think them foolish mortals if they believe for one moment that the Government are serious about anything they tell them.
[Mr. McKenzie. J
And no wonder they reach that conclusion when I find resolutions of this kind being passed in some parts of the country. Here is a resolution that was sent to me, to the effect that there was no patronage in this country, that the Government was keeping to its word, and that it would be a pity to disturb them in the magnificent way they were carrying out their promises in 1917:
Whereas the Dominion Government in 1918 passed an Act entitled ''The Civil Service Act of Canada", by which Act political patronage was abolished and all future appointments and promotions were to be made by merit, and
Whereas we have ample proof that the sale Act is operating independent of politica leanings, service and merit being the main con sideration in appointments and promotions,
Therefore be it resolved that this association places itself on record as being unalterably opposed to any return to political patronage so far as the Civil Service of Canada is concerned, and that a copy of the foregoing resolution be forwarded to the Honourable the Prime Minister of Canada, the members representing Nova Scotia in the House of Commons the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and to the press of Halifax.
That has come to me from the fair province of Nova Scotia, where there are good honest men living quietly in the land of the apple blossom, men who go to church regularly, say their prayers as they should, eat plenty of fish, and sleep soundly at night, and believe that there is yet such a thing in this world as honesty. Well, in the simplicity of their hearts, they sent in this resolution and requested me to back it up in the House. I have submitted it to the House, not because I believe its contents, but, Mr. Speaker, I have been here too long and have watched the manoeuvrings of hon. gentlemen opposite too closely to be deceived in any way as to what their intention is and the way in which they execute it. But I read the resolution to show how people can be deceived and how they are led to put confidence where it really is not merited.
If the Civil Service Act were carried out properly I believe that it would work well, so far, at all events, as the Inside Service is concerned, and possibly the only way in which that service can be efficiently managed is by means of the Civil Service Act. Of course, it works both ways. It is clumsy and impossible to expect the Civil Service Commission to make appointments in remote parts of the country, and, on the other hand, it would be impossible to ask myself or any other man who lives in the extreme East or the extreme West to make an appointment at Ottawa. For that reason I believe that the Civil Service Commission should be given full control of the

Inside Service, as was done by the Liberal government in 1908. But I do believe that as regards minor appointments and appointments that have to be made in country constituencies, they would more properly be attended to by members supporting the Government.
Some hon. gentleman has said that the patronage should be given to defeated candidates and members not supporting the Government. I do not believe that myself. I am a party man; I make no bones about that fact. I believe in the party system, and I think that a proper, honestly conducted party is one of the essentials of clean government in this country. I am in favour of party, not because of any profit that the system could bring to me or to my friends, but because it is indispensable to wholesome government. We have not found any better way of governing this country than by means of the party system. It is therefore absolutely essential that that system should exist, and if the patronage which any party has charge of while in power is given to its friends and the work is properly done, I have no complaint to make. But what I do object to is that there should be deception, that men should parade the country and come to my friends saying: "Vote for me, because we have abolished patronage; we are all alike; there is no difference between us;" whereas, in their hearts, they know that this is not so and that patronage will be given to their friends.
Most extraordinary things happen in my riding, where there is a large population and a great variety of government interests. Appointments are made now and again, and I have frequently tried to help out. On one occasion particularly, where there were two offices vacant, I suggested that one from each party should be appointed in view of the fact that patronage no longer existed. But, nothing of the kind was done. Every time the Government happened to light upon their own friends, nothing but a Tory, and a good Tory, was appointed. Will the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Finance, or some sage of the Government, tell me how it is that the prophetic vision of the Civil Service Commission has every time lit upon a Tory? Is the olfactory nerve of the chairman, and of those around him, developed to such a degree that, merely by existence in such a Tory atmosphere, they can at a distance of fifteen hundred or two thousand miles pick out a Tory from amongst other
mortals? Yet, that is what is happening. So that it is mere camouflage and deception to say that these appointments are made as a result of observation, examinations, literary tests, etc., when these various devices always achieve the end of selecting a supporter of the Government. I would say to the Government at once that if they desire to fulfil their promise that patronage would be abolished they should immediately determine to be honest about these things and to make these appointments in such a way as shall leave no room for suspicion.
Now, before I sit down, I want to have a word or two with the Minister of Justice in regard to his rush to the defence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon. No doubt the artillery which was turned on the Minister of Trade and Commerce from the direction of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was pretty hot, and the Minister of Justice, finding that the defence of his right hon. friend who sat alongside him had been badly demolished, thought that it was really time to rush to his aid, heedless of the fact that possibly there was no call from that gentlemen's friends for him to espouse his cause. I do not know how it was, but my right hon. friend's mind drifted into Holy Writ. Now, we do not very often find him in that realm.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Force of good example.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: His law is usually very good, although, I must say, sometimes rather prosy. However, he generally succeeds in reaching his objective; I must do him that justice. As a reward of good hearing, keen attention, patience and good staying powers, one is generally able to get one's money's worth when the right hon. minister is expounding law. But this afternoon he made a dreadful mistake in his incursion into foreign ground. At last he found himself among the prophets; he found himself with Saul and other characters he does not meet very often. I could not understand what he was driving at when he said: "The offence is about to. come, but woe unto him through whom it. cometh." That is a prophecy. It was uttered at a time when it was half prophecy and half preaching. But it never occurred to the right hon. gentlemen to reflect on the occasion that called forth that prophecy. It was made shortly before the great tragedy of nearly two thousand years ago. "The offence is about to come, but woe unto him through whom it

cometh." The right hon. gentlemen never thought of the two principal characters that were going to carry out the prophecy -two striking characters. One of them was Pontius Pilate, and the other was Judas Iscariot.


Charles Joseph Doherty: May I ask which of my hon. friends, the hon. gentleman who now has the floor and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, is Pontius Pilate, and which is Judas Iscariot?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no difficulty in replying to my right hon. friend. I believe myself that Pontius Pilate was a lawyer; I have no doubt about that. He was a lawyer in authority administering justice; so is my right hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And, if I mistake not, Judas Iscariot was commercially inclined, and in the political arrangements of those days he would be Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have only to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I would advise the Minister of Justice, to ponder more carefully over what the outcome of his Biblical quotations will be in the future.


Mr. C. A. FOURNIER (Bellechasse):: I have learned many things this evening. I have learned that we have spent the whole day for nothing, because this resolution is going to be withdrawn. Before it is withdrawn I have one or two observations to make. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I do not care for patronage. In 1917 I was elected against two opponents. They received eighty votes between them; so I do not care whether they get the patronage or not. One thing that I do object to, is to have hon. gentlemen opposite declare that they are sincere in this matter. I would like them to demonstrate their sincerity. It is useless to seek to disguise matters; hon. gentlemen opposite are Tories. They go to bed Tories, and they wake np in the morning with another name, whether it be Arthur Young, Griffenhagen or something else. Mr. Speaker, you know me. You know that I am a Catholic. I profess no other religion. If I should say to you that I am a Catholic Protestant attending a Synagogue you would laugh at me, would you not? You would say that I was a fraud and you would be right. I leave the decision to you. You can find just as suitable a name to characterize hon. gentlemen opposite when they talk about their sincerity. As to the question of patronage and the making of appointments by the Civil

Service Commission, I believe there should be a competitive system. I think it is proper that the Civil Service Commission should make appointments; but as regards this petty appointment and that petty appointment, even in the case of a man who is employed in watching the building of a wharf, that is all nonsense. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there should be a little sincerity in this matter for it is costing the country a lot of money. It is all well enough to say that at the Printing Bureau we have saved $600,000, but when we come to the Auditor General's Report we find that there has been a large sum paid for printing done outside the Bureau.
I shall not detain the House any longer except to say that we ought to be a little more serious than to spend a whole day discussing a resolution of this kind and then have it withdrawn. I am perfectly satisfied that what has been said by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is perfectly correct, and it will be hard for hon. gentlemen opposite to go around the country now and protest their sincerity in the matter of patronage- that patronage that was supposed to be abolished and never was.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for
Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) who was unable to remain until the close of the debate intimated to me that he was quite satisfied with the discussion and was willing to have the resolution withdrawn. I now submit the question to the House as to whether the hon. gentlemen shall have leave to withdraw his resolution.
Resolution withdrawn.
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at eleven p.m.
Monday, March 14, 1921