OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
Volume 1: Pages 1-1015	Volume II: Pages 1017-2033
Volume III:: Pages 2035-3039	Volume IV: Pages 3041-3619



VOLUME CLIV


[Stage Direction]
*

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons
[Stage Direction]
Debates
Friday, June 16, 1922


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 143 (from the Senate) for the relief of Frederick McClelland Aiken.- Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House do tomorrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the resolutions in relation to the appointment of a board to be known as the Canadian Wheat Board.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the expression of opinion of this House in the debate and vote of the 15th May last relative to the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) : Is it the intention of the Government to at once bring down legislation to carry out the wishes of the House and to implement the promise made by him and other members of the Government to that effect? This is an important question and I am sure that hon. members generally will be interested to hear the minister's answer.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I intimated yesterday
to the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that in the course of a day or two I would state to the House the entire remaining programme. I hope tomorrow to be able to inform the House what further legislation will be brought down this session.


Leon Johnson Ladner: On this question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Including all legislation which the Government proposes to bring down.


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of .Agriculture if he proposes to bring down his resolution on which to base, a bill to regulate the sale of fertilizers. Due to the fact that the session is drawing to a close, and that consequently a good deal of the legislative cargo may be jettisoned, I am anxious to hear what my hon. friend (Mr. Motherwell) proposes to do in the matter.


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) :: It will be taken up on the
first Order of the Day.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the House in connection with the charges which have been levelled against the Pensions Board by the Great War Veterans' Association, and which were published in yesterday's Ottawa newspapers. These charges are now under examination by the parliamentary committee on Pensions and Reestablishment, and it is presumed that the report of the committee will deal with the subject. Therefore, out of deference to the committee I would suggest that hon. members suspend judgment until such report is laid on the table, when I shall be in a position to state what action the Government is prepared to take theron.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Would the minister intimate what is the nature of the charge against the commissioners, and explain how it is that it comes under the purview of the committee on Re-establishment.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The charges were brought to the attention of the chairman of the parliamentary committee by the Dominion Secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association.

Revenue and Audit Act


Arthur Meighen: What charges?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The charges which have been published in the newspapers and to which reference was made in the House yesterday by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Humphrey). My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) will remember that I made a statement in the House yesterday in the matter. I may apprise the House further that I received this morning a communication from the chairman of the Board referring to those charges in specific terms. I thought I had among my papers the charges in their exact wording, but I do not seem to have them now. At any rate, they have been published in the newspapers; the charge is, in a word, that the board conspired to deprive ex-service men of rights to Which they were by statute entitled.



REVENUE AND AUDIT ACT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 57, to amend the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Mr. FIELDING:: 
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Perhaps the Minister of Justice will explain this Clause.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: I am not prepared to explain it; I did not know the matter was coming up this afternoon.


William Stevens Fielding: It it merely to facilitate the transfer of bonds in the cases of deceased persons.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-what periods accounts shall include:
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister (Mr. Fielding) said that balances unused could subsequently be made available. How will that be done?


William Stevens Fielding: If moneys out of the appropriations have not been expended and no action has been taken on them, they will lapse. If a letter of credit has been issued which has not been fully used, the unused portion of it may be provided for by a new letter of credit chargeable to the coming year.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Schedule to The Currency Act, 1910, as amended by chapter nine of the statutes of 1920, by changing the millesimal fineness of silver coins from 4 to 6, and by providing that this enactment shall apply to silver coins heretofore struck since the first day of January, 1920, and also to amend the said Schedule, as amended by chapter six of the statutes of 1921, by striking out the millesimal fineness of nickel five cent coins.
William Stevens Fielding: This resolution has for its object the enactment of a bill which is desired by the authorities of the Mint. Under the act respecting the currency our silver coins are required to have a certain standard of fineness; out of every 1,000 parts 800 are required to be of pure silver.

Agricultural Fertilizers
That, in the language of the Mint, is called a "remedy"; for the sake of convenience I will call it the margin of safety. That margin of safety is at present fixed at 4 points; that is to say, if there should be a departure of more than 4 points from the standard, the currency would not be lawful. It has been found, in the experience of the Mint, that this limitation, though they have not in any case violated it, is a rather severe one, and they ask that the margin be made 6 points instead of 4. Once a year there is a test of the coins made, which is known as the trial of the Pyx, and if these coins do not conform exactly to the standard there would be a very embarrassing situation. While no coins have been cast which do not conform with the existing law, the authorities of the Mint think that in the interests of safety they should have a little larger margin, and therefore it is proposed to change the "remedy" from 4 to 6.
The second part of the resolution refers to the nickel currency. In the act as it now stands, there is provision for a certain standard of nickel. It was rather a mistake to introduce that, I think. The nickel is not looked upon as valuable as a metal. The nickel coin is merely a token; it is not esteemed for its intrinsic value but what it stands for. So it is proposed that there shall be no "remedy" needed in the case of the nickel coin, and there is no need to fix a margin of safety as in the case of the silver coin.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. FIELDING thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 147 to amend the Currency Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Penny Bank Act, chapter thirty-one of the Revised Statutes of Canada, by providing that a proportion not exceeding one-half of such moneys as are received on deposit elsewhere than at the place where the chief office of the bank is situated may he deposited by the bank in such chartered banks or other financial institutions as the Minister of Finance may designate as depositaries, and to provide for withdrawals from such depositaries.
195J
William Stevens Fielding: This resolution is to to be the basis of a bill which has been requested by the gentlemen interested in the Penny Bank established at Toronto. The object is to allow the bank to enlarge its sphere of operations, and in the case of any places outside of Toronto in which it may engage to do business, to retain a certain amount of its deposits on hand. It is a bill introduced entirely at their request. The bank, I think, has been satisfactory in its operations, and I imagine there is no objection to what they are asking.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would think that perhaps any discussion we have on this should take place in committee on the bill. It is a matter of importance which we ought to consider, and I think we should hear at greater length from the minister, when the bill is under consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: I am very glad to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend. We can pass the resolution, and the bill can stand for further consideration.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. FIELDING thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 148 to amend the Penny Bank Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURAL FERTILIZERS

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. R. Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to regulate the sale of Agricultural Fertilizers, and to repeal The Fertilizers Act, 1909, chapter 16 of the statutes of 1909, and An Act to amend The Fertilizers Act, 1909, chapter 20 of the statutes of 1919, and to provide:-
1.	That no person shall manufacture or import any fertilizer to be solid, offered or held for sale in Canada unless each brand is registered with the Minister and a registration number assigned to it, and application for registration must he made by the manufacturer or importer in such form as the Minister prescribes, and must be accompanied by a registration fee of ten dollars or twenty dollars or thirty dollars for each brand registered, according as it contains one, two or three of the following substances, that is to say, nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash.
2.	That the assignment of a registration number shall of itself authorize the sale of a fertilizer for the period continuing until the first day of July following the date upon which it is granted but such registration may he renewed

Agricultural Fertilizers
[Stage Direction]
from year to year and the same registration number may be assigned to the fertilizer provided no change is made in the brand name, guaranteed analysis, materials from which it is made or the fineness thereof.
3.	That the fees for a renewal of a registration shall be the same as those for the original registration.
4.	That provision be made prescribing the particulars to be stated in every application for a registration number, and the conditions under which the Minister may refuse to register any fertilizer or cancel any registration.
5.	That no person shall sell, offer, expose or hold for sale in Canada any fertilizer unless each package containing the fertilizer, or a tag or label durably attached thereto, or if in bulk, the invoice of sale, is branded or marked in printed characters with the name and address of the manufacturers or importer, the brand name, the guaranteed analysis and other particulars as prescribed.
6.	That no person shall sell, offer, expose or hold for sale in Canada any material purported to be a fertilizer, or any fertilizer except basis slag or natural rock phosphate, unless it contains not less than two per cent of nitrogen or five per cent of available phosphoric, acid or two per cent of potash soluble in water, and not less than a total of twelve per cent of nitrogen, available phosphoric acid or potash soluble in water.
7.	That no person shall sell, offer, expose or hold for sale in Canada any fertilizer which contains more than one-tenth of one per cent anhydrous borax or any other constituent poisonous to plant life when applied to the soil.
8.	That these provisions shall not apply (a) to fertilizers which are manufactured and sold on a prescription received by. the manufacturer in writing from a purchaser who states therein that such fertilizer is not intended for sale, unless such fertilizers are actually again sold, or (b) to the selling or offering for sale of fertilizers for manufacturing purposes.
9.	That provision be made for the appointment of an advisory board to recommend regulations, and to give the minister power to make regulations, and for the analysis of fer_ tilizers, and the appointment and powers of inspectors, and such other enactments as are necessary to enforce the proposed measure.
10.	That the act to be based upon these resolutions shall come into operation on such date as may be prescribed by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
William Richard Motherwell: A bill to consolidate and amend the present Fertilizer Act will be founded on this resolution. We are proposing a consolidation of the present law and will endeavour at the same time to bring it up to date, with respect to certain matters which will be fully dealt with in the bill itself. In order to save time I would suggest that the committee adopt this resolution, after which the bill itself can be introduced and referred to the Committee on Agriculture where its provisions can be thoroughly inquired into.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell 
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 149, to regulate the sale of Agricultural Fertilizers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not intended to refer this bill to the Committee on Agriculture ?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It may as well receive its second reading.


William Richard Motherwell: I move that the bill be now read a second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. E. Lapointe, (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution.-Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Resolved, that It is expedient to amend The Meat and Canned Foods Act, chapter twenty-seven of the statutes of 1907, and amending Acts, and to provide:-
1.	(a) That "shell fish" may be included among the products prepared for food for export or stored for export in an establishment as defined in section one of chapter 31 of the statutes of 1918 ;
(b)	That "dry lobster meat" or "dry meat" shall mean drained meat, that is, the meat remaining after a can which has been processed and allowed to cool thoroughly is opened and upturned so as to permit free drainage of the liquid therefrom for not less than one minute and not more than one and a half minutes; and,
(c)	That " cam " and " canned fish or shellfish " shall include any hermetically sealed glass bottle, package or container, and any fish or shellfish processed or preserved in the usual way packed in such can, bottle, package or container.
2.	That section 12A, as enacted by chapter 33 of the statutes of 1917, be amended to provide that fish and shellfish packed in cans shall be subject to inspection! such as may be provided by the regulations during the whole course of preparation and packing, and at any time thereafter at the cannery or at the warehouse of the first purchaser at his request, and shall be labelled with the particulars as prescribed therein, with the name and address of the packer or of the first dealer obtaining it direct from the packer.
3.	That subsection 4 of the said section 12A be amended to provide that exemption from labelling of the cans of fish or shellfish may be allowed, if such labelling hinders the sale of the same in markets outside of Canada.
4.	That section 12C of the said Act be" amended to provide that all canned fish and shellfish shall be sound, wholesome and fit for

Meat and Canned Foods
human food, and any unsound canned fish or shellfish found during the process of preparing and packing or at any time thereafter, at the cannery or the warehouse of the first purchaser, may he seized and confiscated on view by any inspecting offioer and dealt with as provided by the regulations, and the inspector may take samples for inspection.
5. That section 12D of the said Act as enacted by chapter 22 of the statutes of 1919 (second session) be amended to provide that there shall be five sizes of cans for canning lobsters. These shall be of the sizes commonly known as three, six, mine, twelve and sixteen ounce cans. The cans of each size in the order named shall each contain not less than three ounces avoirdupois, Six ounces avoirdupois, nine ounces avoirdupois, twelve ounces avoirdupois, and sixteen ounces avoirdupois of drained lobster meat. No other size of can shall be used for [packing lobsters, without first obtaining the written permission of the minister. Such written permission shall state the minimum amount of drained lobster meat each size of can so authorized shall contain. All cans that do not contain the weight specified for each of the sizes herein named, or that may be hereafter named may be seized and held by any inspecting officer and disposed of as provided by the regulations.
6.	That section 12E of the said Act as en-aoted by chapter 33 of the statutes of 1917 be amended to provide that for the purposes of the Act, the varieties of British Columbia salmon shall be designated, and, provided the need for such is established to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council, graded as provided in the regulations.
7.	That seotion 12F of the said Act as enacted by the said chapter be amended to provide that in the event of the provisions of the Act or of any regulation made thereunder or the lawful instructions of inspecting officers not being compiled with in any fish or shellfish cannery, the minister may order the fish or shellfish cannery to be closed; provided, however, that any cannery in which the sanitary conditions are being neglected may be immediately closed by the inspecting officer until the defects are remedied.
8.	That the provisions of section 1-2G as enacted by the said chapter relating to the exportation of fish not canned in accordance with law be repealed.
9.	That the provisions of seotion 12H as enacted by chapter 22 of the statutes of 1919 (second session) be amended to provide that canned fish or canned shellfish inported into Canada to be exported again need only be labelled to show the country of origin; and no false or misleading mark or designation of the kind or variety of the contents shall be shown on any can of fish or shellfish imported for sale in Canada.
Arthur Meighen: Has the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) called the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to clause 9, which provides that the goods shall he marked with the country of origin, provided they are fish, and, if so, how does the Minister of Finance distinguish this class of article from others, so as to provide that corresponding legislation as to other goods shall be enacted by Order in Council?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I think there is a difference between canned goods, articles of food, and articles of ordinary consumption. At all events, I do not think the Minister of Finance has any objection to this clause.


Arthur Meighen: One of the great difficulties in connection with the Marking Act is just in connection with the marking of canned goods, because, when the country of origin is stamped on the can, that means that the can is produced in that country, but the impression conveyed to the purchaser everywhere is that the contents of the can have been produced in that country. That has been just one of the main obstacles in the way of the enforcement of the act, requiring further attention from Parliament, and that obstacle exists, I would think, here. If the law should now be enacted by Parliament, as regards canned goods, certainly the duty of the man shipping canned goods to Canada should be made clear.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the right hon. member will see that this provision as applied to canned goods, has been in operation for many years. There is only a slight change.


Arthur Meighen: What is the change? Mr. LAPOINTE: Perhaps, I might explain that these amendments have been found necessary by the officers of the department and by business men engaged in that industry. The Meat and Canned Foods' Act, in so far as it deals with fish and shellfish, is under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It was amended quite extensively in 1917. At that time, it was thought that the amendments would meet the requirements of the situation, but it has been found that minor changes are still required, and those changes are asked for by the bill which will come before the House. Those changes are recommended by the department. They have been submitted to the Lobster Can-ners' Association, which met at Moncton quite recently, and approved of. They have also been submitted to the salmon canners of British Columbia, who have suggested some slight changes, which have been accepted by the department. I think each of these changes will be more properly discussed when the bill is before the committee, and I would ask that the resolution be carried and any explanation that is required on each section of the bill will be given when it is discussed in committee. I think that is the more reasonable way of dealing with the matter.

Meat and Canned Foods


Arthur Meighen: The House and the committee will note that, though the minister rose to explain the effect of the amendments, that is the one thing he left out. He said these were suggested by the officers of the department and were accepted.


Ernest Lapointe: I have asked my hon. friend to wait.


Arthur Meighen: I think the explanation should be given now. I know that a bill will be introduced, but we miss the entire effect of it if we simply say: " Let the resolution go, and never mind what it means, do not bother about its effect, we will have a discussion on the bill." I can recall the time when an hon. member asked " What is the use of passing the resolution?" the answer by the minister was, " Oh, that is called for by the rules." Certainly it is, and there is a reason for the rule. Why should we not have a very brief explanation, which will enable us to prepare for the discussion of the bill?


Ernest Lapointe: On what section does the hon. member want an explanation?


Arthur Meighen: I mentioned the reference to clause 9, but I think the minister should give us a brief synopsis of the effect of the changes. Then we can refer to Hansard, and prepare for discussion on the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend
insists on having the character and meaning of every change given, I will deal with every one of them.


Arthur Meighen: The meaning chiefly.


Ernest Lapointe: The first change relates to the term "fish". The term "fish" as used in the act does not include shellfish; and as the latter was omitted from paragraph (b) it is now inserted. The amendment to paragraph (e) simply provides that when the term "inspecting officer" are used they will mean an inspector appointed under the act.


Mr. DUFF:: Still more important.


Ernest Lapointe: The amendment to paragraph "1" is intended to define more clearly the words "canned goods" to which the act applies. As to paragraph "j", I will read the change


Arthur Meighen: There is no paragraph "j", "1", or anything else here.


Ernest Lapointe: I am going to read the clauses of the bill itself.


Arthur Meighen: We have not the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: That is why I asked that the discussion should be postponed until the bill was in the hands of members of the committee. The resolution is simply a resume-


Arthur Meighen: If the minister's headings are in the same order as the clauses of the resolution-


Ernest Lapointe: But they are not. The sections of the bill are not the same.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that the minister go on, and I can compare the changes after they are placed on Hansard.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a complicated matter to some extent. I have the old bill, and I have the new bill, and, for each one of the amendments I have to refer to three or four papers and that is why I take the present bill-


Arthur Meighen: If the minister's remarks apply to the bill, I can compare it after I see Hansard.


Ernest Lapointe: Paragraph "j" section I of the bill was intended to make clearer what was meant by "dry lobster meat". There was already a definition, and some words are added to it. It was also to give some latitude in the length of time for draining the liquid from a can before the meat is weighed. The time is at present fixed as one minute, neither more nor less. By the new bill we extend it to one minute and a half.
Section^ 2. At present under subsection 1 of section 12 A, canned fish and shellfish are subject to inspection during the course of preparation and packing only. The amendment provides that such fish and shellfish may be inspected at the cannery any time after they have been packed or at the first purchaser's warehouse, if he sc desires. It is also proposed to substitute the word "labelled" for "marked," as being more in line with the intention of the section. The word "fish" in paragraph (a) is the result of a mistake. It is, therefore, being replaced by the word "first" as originally intended-the "first" dealer instead of the "fish" dealer.
Subsection 4 of section 12 A provides for the exemption from the labelling requirements of canned fish and shellfish exported to foreign markets or the markets of the United Kingdom. That is the law as it was. This does not include Australia and New Zealand; it says only foreign mar-

Meat and, Canned Foods
kets and the United Kingdom, hence the change in the wording of the subsection to "markets outside of Canada."
Section 3. Section 12 C, which is to he repealed, provides for the seizure of unsound fish or shellfish before packing, but dees not make any provision for so dealing with unsound fish or shellfish when in the cans. As fish and shellfish found to be unsound prior to canning are amply provided for in section 12 B, the amendment to section 12 C is intended to cover unsound goods in cans. That is, we have the same right even after they are canned.
Section 4. The amendment to section 12 D is intended to fix definitely the size of each of the five sizes of cans at present legalized. They are the same sizes as before. As a matter of fact, it is especially to empower inspecting officers to seize and hold lightweight cans, pending a decision as to their disposal. We have not that right under the law as it stands.
Section 5. Section 12 E at present simply designates the different varieties of. British Columbia salmon. As there has been and still is a more or less insistent call for the official grading of the different varieties of salmon when packed in the cans, the amendment provides for such being done if and when it is deemed necessary. Also, the amended section provides for transferring the naming of the varieties to the regulations, because of anticipated changes when grading takes place.
Section 6. Section 12 F gives the minister sole power to close a cannery in the event of the provisions of the Act not being complied with. That is the section as it was. It sometimes happens that an inspecting officer finds a cannery operating under such a state of filth as to call for the immediate stoppage of operations. Delays in reporting to and receiving instructions from Ottawa allow canning to go on under undesirable conditions frequently for too long a time. The amendment consequently seeks to give power to the officers to take immediate action when such conditions are discovered and, of course, to report to Ottawa.
Section 9. Section 12 G is deemed to be entirely unnecessary and, therefore, apt to lead to confusion. Consequently, its deletion is proposed. All that is provided for by section 12 G is already provided for in other sections.
Section 10. The proposed amendment to subsection 1 of section 12 H, is, in the first
place, to provide that canned fish or shellfish imported into Canada to be again exported must show the name of the country of origin, in order that they may not be mistaken for Canadian goods. In the second place it is to provide that no misleading mark or name concerning the kind or variety of canned fish or shellfish imported for sale in Canada be used. The last provision is intended to stop the practice of Alaska packers sending Alaska red salmon into Canada labelled as sockeye, as this meantime permits them unfairly to compete with British Columbia sockeye, a much superior fish. I think that covers all the amendments.


Arthur Meighen: Just one question. Will the minister intimate, if his notes supply the information, what the state of the law was as to the first part of clause 9 which now appears to be clause 10 of his bill, the very last?


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Is there anything on those cans, when the label is gone, to indicate the name of the packer?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Charles Marcil: That is an unfortunate thing. A case of ptomaine poisoning may occur; the label may be gone, and there will then be no way of finding out the name and address of the packer. Would it not be a wise provision to have the packer's name, number and address printed on the can itself? A label is easily torn off, and then you have no means of tracing the packer and finding out where the can comes from.


Ernest Lapointe: The same thing exists as regards other kinds of canned goods than fish. Section 12-H, referred to by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) reads, as it is in the act:
A11 cans of fish or shellfish imported into Canada shall he correctly labelled so as to indicate the kind and quality of their contents, the minimum weight in avoirdupois of the contents of the cans in the case of canned fish and of the dry meat in the can in the case of canned shellfish, the place of origin and the name and address of the person, firm or corporation by whom they are packed or by whom they are imported: provided that canned fish or canned shellfish imported into Canada to be exported again need not be so labelled.
The new proposed clause will read:
All cans of fish or shellfish imported Into Canada shall be correctly labelled so as to indicate the kind and quality of their contents, the minimum weight in avoirdupois of the contents of the cans in the case of canned fish and of the dry meat in the can in the case of
Meat and Canned Foods

canned shellfish, the place of origin and the name and the name and address of the person, firm or corporation by whom they are packed or by whom they are imported provided that canned fish or canned shellfish imported into Canada to be exported again need only be labelled to show the country of origin; and no false or misleading mark or designation of the kind or variety of the contents shall be shown on any can of fish or shellfish imported for sale in Canada.


Mr. MARTELL:: This clause will also apply to canned lobsters. For instance, there is a practice whereby lobsters which were packed say, in Newfoundland, come to Halifax, N.S., and are bought there by jobbers, repacked and exported. Supposing the label were destroyed, consciously or unconsciously, a jobber would be able to palm off those lobsters as Canadian lobsters. There is no protection for the Canadian lobster packed under strict departmental inspection as against the Newfoundland lobster. That is a very important point which the minister should consider.


Ernest Lapointe: I will take that matter into consideration with the officials of my department.


Mr. MacLAREN:: The paper label is
not sufficiently durable or permanent; it may be destroyed or lost, either deliberately or accidentally. Therefore, as has just been stated, once the label has been removed, it is impossible to identify where the particular can came from, supposing 4 p.m. a case of ptomaine poisoning has occurred-this is of great importance, because some cases of ptomaine poisoning are fatal. If a poisoned can is not marked in such a way that it can be identified, it is impossble to trace the factory in which the goods were put up and where there may be many other cans in the same condition. I trust that some means may be adopted of having a permanent mark on the can itself.


William Duff: While it would be a very good thing to have the individual tin stamped with the name of the packer, yet I think anybody who understands this business, realizes that it would be impossible for the canner to stamp every tin with his name. As regards bad fish which may be found in cans and ptomaine poisoning occurring from those bad fish, it is a well-known fact that when fish are packed in a can by the packer, he immediately puts a label on the can and that gives it a more attractive appearance. No grocer or fish dealer will sell a can of lobster or salmon 
unless the label still remains on the can in proper shape. The label makes the package more attractive and, consequently, the housekeeper will not buy a package of lobster or salmon unless there is on the can a label showing the name, quality and quantity of the contents and the packer's name and address. But it is quite possible, as the hon. member for St. John says, that after the can has been opened and the contents cooked they may be found to be affected. As a rule the first thing the housewife does before putting the can in a pot of hot water is to tear off the label, and if ptomaine poisoning follows the eating of the contents the housewife naturally is so excited that she does not remember which grocer she bought the can from, let alone who packed it. So it is absolutely impossible to mark these cans so that the public will know who packed the contents.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not a fact that in a great many cases the name of the packer never appears on the label? For instance, a lot 'of wholesale grocers in Nova Scotia' such as Bauld Bros., will have a particular brand put up for themselves and the label does not disclose who actually packed the lobsters.


William Duff: I think bay hon. friend refers to the packers of Newfoundland. All our Canadian packers place their name and their brand on the label. Both our lobster and salmon packers are very proud of their pack.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is is not also a fact that small packers do not put any brand at all upon their pack? The lobsters are sent to a jobber in the lobster business at Halifax, and he re-packs the fish, placing his own brand upon the cans.


William Duff: That is exactly what this resolution is designed to make the packer do-put his own label on the can.


Ernest Lapointe: And take the responsibility.


William Duff: Exactly. *


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does not the minister think it a mistake to vest authority in at inspector to close a cannery if in his judgment it is not in a sanitary condition? As those who are familiar with the canning business are aware, the pack is put out during a period of four or five weeks, when a cannery will pack perhaps a hundred thousand cases. It seems to me that the

Meat and Canned Foods
public can 'be very easily protected by our providing for inspection of the pack after it has been put up. These inspectors are only human, they are not very highly paid, and it seems to me that this is altogether too great authority to put in their hands. Has the minister consulted with the canning interests in British Columbia in respect to this matter?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and the canners themselves agree to this provision, which is necessary if the law is to be properly enforced; otherwise, too long d'elays are involved and the unsanitary conditions continue.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is the Canners' Association in British Columbia recommending this change?


Ernest Lapointe: This bill was submitted to the salmon canners of British Columbia, ar.d they themselves suggested some of the provisions which we have embodied. We also submitted the bill to the canners in the maritime provinces, and this embodies their wishes.	i


Charles Marcil: I think the canners can be relied on to look after their own interests. The public are being protected in this case. As the hon. member for Lunenburg( Mr. Duff) says, when a can cf fish is brought home the label is torn off, the can is placed in boiling water, and if something happens after the contents are eaten it is almost impossible to discover the name of the packers.


Ernest Lapointe: We are trying to prevent that condition of things, and we are making the law more severe.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I hope the minister understands the point I am trying to make clear. It is not a question of cans or labels referred to by the hon. member for Bonaventure. Suppose a cannery is in the midst of a large pack, with fifteen thousand to twenty thousand salmon in scows and on the Wharf, and an inspector finds certain unsanitary conditions, does the minister realize the power which that inspector is given to immediately stop operations? ,


William Duff: Whose hands would the hon. member place the power in if not in the inspector's? Who else is there to see that the cannery is in proper condition?


Ernest Lapointe: May I say to my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner)
that it is in the interests of the canners themselves that these provisions should be made as stringent as they are. The canning industry is a very important one in this country and our goods enjoy a very high standing in all the markets of the world. Consequently our packers are anxious to preserve their reputation and to prevent people injuring it who are careless about observing the requirements which the bonafide canners do live up to.


Mr. BROWN:: The hon. member for Lunenburg has indicated that there are some insuperable difficulties1 in having the packers' names stamped on the cans. Would he briefly indicate these difficulties?
,Mr. DUFF: These cans are made in factories from long sheets of tin, and it is impossible to imprint the names and addresses of the various packers of the cans.


John Livingstone Brown: Would it not be quite
feasible to do that in the factory where the goods are packed?


William Duff: But the cans are made in
the factory from long sheets of tin, and it is not feasible to put the name of the packer on the can itself, so a label is pasted on. If you stamp these cans you are likely to make holes and the contents could not be preserved.


Mr. HUGHES:: There is another reason : there are only a few manufacturers of cans, but there are a great many packers. How could the manufacturer imprint or emboss the name of the packer on the cans when he does not know who is going to buy them?


John Livingstone Brown: I still think it might be
possible to put a mark on the can that would not be destroyed when the can is put in boiling water.


James Joseph Hughes: How would that indicate the packer when there are so many engaged in the business? It is impossible.


John Livingstone Brown: I think it may be possible.


Mr. LEWIS:: I do not think it is impossible at all. It might be impossible in regard to the body of the can-I know something about tin work-but the lids are stamped with a ring to increase their strength, and when that is being done certain letters could be imprinted.


William Duff: Did you ever see any
canned goods so marked?
Meat and Canned Foods


Arthur John Lewis: I have seen cans with the
lids stamped.


William Duff: I mean with the name of
the packer.


Arthur John Lewis: Just two or three letters.


Mr. HATFIELD:: These cans are imported into our country in carloads, and distributed to the various canners throughout the district. So it would be virtually impossible to have any mark whatever put on the cans at the factory where they are [DOT]nade.


Arthur John Lewis: I was asked a moment ago if I know of any cans that are being stamped. I think I could mention half a dozen tobacco cans that have the lids stamped with the firm's name. I think that could be done here.


John Livingstone Brown: It looks as if there is room here for the operation of someone's inventive genius. I do not see why it should not be possible to devise some indestructible mark that could be registered and that would be removed by the action of boiling water.


Ernest Lapointe: This bill applies only to the fishing industry. Any such change as my hon. friend has suggested would have !o be made to the whole act and applied :o all canned goods.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 150, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Lapointe the bill was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1:


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I think the minister should give the committee some information with regard to this matter. Why are such careful regulations provided in regard to food for export while nothing is provided in regard to food consumed in Canada?


Ernest Lapointe: These provisions apply as well to food for Canadian consumption. This clause is a mere repetition of the former clause, with the addition of the word "shellfish".


Donald Sutherland: But it applies to food for export?


Ernest Lapointe: This clause relates
more particularly to export goods.


Donald Sutherland: Altogether.


Ernest Lapointe: The last part of it does.


Charles Marcil: Can the canning of fish be carried on by persons who have not taken out a license?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Charles Marcil: What
happens if it is done?


Ernest Lapointe: The goods are seized and the further carrying on of the business without a license prevented.


Charles Marcil: When a license is issued to a tobacco factory a number is assigned and the cans have to bear that number. Why not apply the same principle in this case, so that when the label is gone the place where the goods were put up can be traced by the number on the can? That would afford some protection to the public; as it is now, once the label disappears a whole family could be poisoned and there would be no recourse.


Ernest Lapointe: That suggestion has already been carefully considered by those interested in the industry and by the officers of the department. There is much to be said in favour of it, but there are difficulties to be overcome, and so far it has not been found advisable to adopt the plan.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister would be well advised not to seek to go on with the committee work on this bill to-day. The bill is evidently fresh from the press and we have not had opportunity to consider it.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no desire to press the matter. If there is objection, I will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Arthur Meighen: I would point out that the resolution that forms the basis of the bill is in the name of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; the bill as printed is in the name of the Minister of Agriculture.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a mistake in the first printing. It will be corrected be fore the bill comes up again.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

Supply-Marine



MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Fisheries - Marine Biological Board o£ Canada, 542,000.
Ernest Lapointe: The expenditure last
year was $42,000.


Arthur Meighen: Exactly?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. This board
is mainly a volunteer organization, the members and investigators not being paid. The board's investigations are to throw light on matters connected with the life history of fish, the reasons for deterioration in canned fish product, cured fish and so forth. I can give the membership of the board if the committee wishes. It includes several university professors. The board has a permanent staff at St. Andrews, N.B., and Nanaimo, B.C. The board consists of nine members, two of whom are appointed by the minister and represent the department, the other seven representing the principal universities which are provided with the most efficient research laboratories. This is the usual vote.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is Mr. Andrew Halkett in the employ of the Biological Board?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is he is not a sort of
scientific expert to the department?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, he is the naturalist of the department, but he comes under the department direct, not under the board.


Lewis Herbert Martell: What are his qualifications from a scholastic standpoint?


Ernest Lapointe: I will ask my hon. friend to wait until next year so that I may have an opportunity of getting the information.


Lewis Herbert Martell: This man has never
been educated at a university, and he has no scientific training. He is simply an accountant, or he was in the accountant's branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. His health broke down, and he was shifted out to tell people about the life history and functions of fish. I think it is rather an absurdity to be sending this man around the country wasting public money telling people about the life history of fish, which he knows nothing about. I may also inform the minister that some years ago
an application was made for the promotion of Mr. Halkett, and his case was submitted to Professor Shortt, then Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. Professor Shortt asked to see some of the reports made by this man, and the information came back to the department that they were the sort of report a grade-eight school boy could get out. I think the sooner this farce is stopped the better.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be glad to inquire into the qualifications of the gentleman. As it is, my hon. friend seems to know a great deal more about him than I do.


Murray MacLaren: Does this item include the cost of maintenance of the Biological Department at St. Andrew's, N.B.?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: I might say that important investigations with regard to fish, their diseases, propagation, and other matters are carried on at that establishment, and so far as its work is concerned, it is on a very sound and profitable basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Immigration and Colonization-immigration contingencies, ?1,170,000.
Arthur Meighen: What is the minister really doing to account for the asking of what was voted last year and $300,000 more?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: First let me say this is the item that was left over to meet the convenience of my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). The amount required for 1922-3 is $1,170,000. The amount voted for 19211922 was $870,000.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How much of that was spent?


Charles A. Stewart: Practically all of it if I remember correctly.
With a view to inducing as great a number of desirable immigrants as possible to come to Canada during the year 1922-3, a special committee composed of ministers of the Crown has been formed with the object of studying the immigration situation and laying down a policy which will be to the greatest advantage of Canada. For this purpose the department has considerably increased the amounts under the following headings:
Supply-Immigration

General expenses in the British Isles, increased by $60,000; general expenses in the United States, increased by $30,000 ; contingencies and general expenses in Canada, including a larger number of temporary employees at sea ports, detention hospitals, inland agencies, boundary inspection points, etc., increased by $128,000; printing and stationery, increased by $22,000; special grants to immigration and colonization societies, increased by $20,000; postage, telegrams, freight, etc., increased by $15,000; unforeseen expenses, increased by $25,000.
I could give a detailed statement of the items. Suffice it to say that there is a desire for increased immigration, but that immigration requires careful inspection as to quality rather than quantity. We are more or less hampered by the fact that we are unable to take a very large number of desirable immigrants who would come to Canada if positions could be found for them, because as you know, Mr. Chairman, there is little or no employment to be found for outside people as mechanics, artisans, or in the professional walks of life, so we are confined pretty much to agriculturists, household workers, and agricultural labour. I am hopeful, however, that that condition will improve. We have been making special efforts in the Old Land. We are trying to make the examination a little more rigid both in Great Britain and on the Continent, in order that we may not have to return so many who are unable to pass the test on this side of the water. This entails additional expense. Up to the moment, the staffs have not been increased to any very great extent. In the United States, we have an increase of about three over the staff of last year, working in the central states, and an increase of one in the New England states. In Great Britain, up to the moment we have not found it advisable to put on larger staffs. But next fall when our plans are perfected, it is our intention to put on propaganda work and to do considerable advertising both in Great Britain and the United States, and for this purpose we shall require a considerable amount of money. I can assure, you, Mr. Chairman, that it is my hope to keep well within the estimate, but I do think also that the opportunity offers, provided we have sufficient money, to get desirable settlers that we constantly hear are leaving Great Britain for Australia rather than coming to Canada.


Murray MacLaren: I want to ask the minister if it is not possible for immigrants, coming, say, from Glasgow, Liverpool, London and other ports, to be medically examined at those ports in such a 
way that they would be definitely passed as suitable for admission to Canada. 1 think there are many cases where immigrants could be definitely, not provisionally, passed, and given the assurance that they would be accepted by proper examination at those ports. In that way I feel that the number who would be required to be returned would be very much reduced. It will soon become known to people who propose coming to Canada that if they take the opportunity of going to suitable officers, say, in Great Britain especially, they could definitely know if they would be admitted to this country. It is too bad that they should be allowed to come out here, after selling their goods and chattels, and then be rejected. I would draw the attention to the minister to the desirability of working out suitable plans for a more definite acceptance of immigrants before they leave their native shores.


Mr. MILLAR:: I would like to draw the minister's attention to a matter that was brought to my notice recently, from which it would almost seem that some of the regulations, or some of the provisions of the Immigration Act, tend to defeat the purpose of the department in trying to get settlers. The case that has been brought to my attention is that of a Russian now living in Germany. His cousin is a farmer in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, whom I know to be a good farmer and good settler. He recently made a request to the Immigration Department that his cousin be per mitted to come from Germany to work for him on the farm, but at present, it seems, the law does not permit Germans to enter Canada. In his second letter to me he pointed out that his cousin, although living in Germany, was really a Russian. I would ask if it is the intention of the department to continue this arrangement, or whether there is any thought of changing it in the near future.


Charles A. Stewart: I will first answer the question of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. MacLaren) with respect to medical inspection. I may say that my first thought on taking over the department was to see if it were possible to have the medical inspection at the port of embarkation, or prior to the selling by persons of their homes and immigrating to Canada, but I found it would mean that we would have to establish medical men of our own both in Great Britain and on the continent, and furthermore that such medical

Supply-Immigration
inspection might not disclose some frailty in an immigrant which a sea voyage would reveal. I believe it is the opinion of the medical officers of the department that we must insist on the medical inspection taking place on this side of the water. We have done this, however. We have instructed our overseas agents to make very careful inquiry and also to place in the hands of intending immigrants to Canada sufficient data for them to realize what the medical inspection at Canadian ports will mean. Of course, they might very well submit themselves to medical inspection before embarking for Canada, and thereby lessen the chances of rejection when they reach this side. However, I think we must insist that the medical inspection shall be at the port of disembarkation and by our own medical officers.
I quite well understand the hardship that is involved, but in order to avoid that as much as possible we are causing our agents in Great Britain and on the continent to disseminate the necessary information as much as possible among intending settlers. For that purpose we have established three new agencies on the continent this year, in the hope that we shall not have these difficulties arise whereby we are forced to deport people because of physical shortcomings revealed by medical inspection on this side of the Atlantic.


Murray MacLaren: Is the objection to the adoption of the plan due to the expense which would be involved?


Charles A. Stewart: Not altogether.


Murray MacLaren: Is that partly the reason?


Charles A. Stewart: It would be expensive, it is true, to carry out the plan, but I am convinced-perhaps I should not be so strong as that in my assertion; at any rate so far as I have been able to understand in making a study of this matter-we can never have an inspection in Great Britain, or on the continent, by which we can allow people to enter Canada without further inspection by our own officers.


Murray MacLaren: Is there not some inspection of immigrants made on board ship?


Charles A. Stewart: There is an inspection of the immigrant by the ship's doctor, because the steamship companies must take the immigrant back if he fails to pass inspection, and therefore they are fairly careful. We are trying, as far as possible, through our agencies to exercise every precaution. There will always be immigrants that will have to be returned, but we are trying to reduce the number as far as it is humanly possible so to do. In addition to furnishing the intending immigrants with all possible information before they dispose of their homes, or before they leave the country in which they are located, the endeavour is made to instruct them as to the nature of the medical examination to which they will have to submit themselves before entering Canada. *
Now, with respect to the question of my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) let me say that we have not, so far, taken down the barriers against German immigrants. I received an application only yesterday from a young man in Saskatchewan who desires to bring his sister from Germany. I think that we can, perhaps, permit young women who have friends here to come from Germany, but to say that at this moment we are prepared to throw down the bars altogether and admit German immigration would be incorrect- I do not think that we have arrived at that particular point as yet. However, I am quite prepared to give consideration to what appears to be deserving cases.


Mr. GOOD:: What discretion has the minister in cases of that sort?


Charles A. Stewart: Practically all the discretion he needs. The minister has power to admit almost anyone into Canada.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I was just going to ask the minister if his attention has been drawn to an article in the June number of the Canadian Trade Congress Journal; It is an article by Mr. Tom Moore, the President of the Trades and Labour Congress, and I see that it has been copied to some extent in the Ottawa Journal of this evening. There are one or two points in the article to which I would like to direct the attention of the minister. Mr. Moore evidently thinks that too much latitude is permitted in the booking offices, or the immigration regulations are too loose, so that too many are allowed to enter Canada, nominally as farm labourers and domestic servants who are not such in reality. The article reads as follows:
Supply-Immigration

"When the natural resources of Canada are free from monopolistic control and all willing to work are assured of the opportunity to do so, then will be time enough to consider freer immigration policies. The present policy is only an aid to those desiring to get rich quick through the method of labor exploitation and is detrimental to the interests of both the workers in Canada, and those being falsely led to believe that prosperity and opportunity abound for all in this country. The future of Canada demands that immigrants shall not be subject to disillusionment but on tne contrary shall And conditions all that they were led to believe. It is only in this way that a contented and prosperous citizenship may be acquired. Any other method leads ultimately to discontent, unrest and revolt and surely the experience of the past few years should be sufficient warning against the adoption of policies so detrimental to the future of our country."
This is the conclusion 'of Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Dominion Trades and Dabor Congress, in an article on Immigration to ap_ pear in the June Canadian Congress Journal.
Mr. Moore condemns the Government policy which he says has opened the flood gates and made the way easy for all and sundry to flock to Canada. The new policy will allow an almost unlimited flow of cheap labor for farms and industries, he points out, ana it practically means the wages and standards of living of Canadian workers will be fixed in Europe.
Then Mr. Moore's words are again quoted as follows:
"It is assumed that any one swearing he or she is a legitimate farm worker or domestic servant, or that they have reasonable chance of employment, will have little trouble entering the country," Mr. Moore writes.
"In a recent advertisement of a booking agency, claiming to be one of the official agents of certain Canadian shipping and transportation companies, the following paragraph appears: 'We can make all the necessary arrangement to bring out your passenger. Save you money in passage fare and save your passenger inconvenience with the immigration officials. All affidavits made are free.' What a wonderful inference as to how little trouble will be experienced if experts at drawing up affidavits to comply with the regulations are allowed to book the passage of the prospective emigrant.
"The purpose of immigration restrictions should be to protect those already here, and protect against exploitation and unnecessary hardship the workers of other countries who contemplate emigrating."
That is rather a pointed article, and. if the conditions which exist in regard to immigrants seeking to come to Canada are as loose as indicated in that article,
I think more stringent methods should be employed. If'the basis of that article is correct, all a man has to do is to go to some shipping agent and make a formal affidavit, one of those documents prepared by a shipping agent. In nine cases out of ten, probably, the affidavit is not read over to the man, and he may not understand the language. If that is the only requirement, 
I submit it is not sufficient. No doubt there is a good deal of foundation for Mr. Moore's complaint. A good many people come into Canada ostensibly as farm labourers who. are not farm labourers, never were, and on reaching Canada they disavow any intention of ever becoming farmers. I do not know that it is possible to devise a method by which you can exclude all such, but, I think, if more stringent rules were adopted, many who now come in breach of the regulations might be excluded. My object is to call, the attention of the minister to this article, because if more stringent regulations should be put in force, let us enact them. We do not want in this country, at this time, a stream of immigration to our cities and towns, to further congest the labour market.


Mr. MANION:: A statement has been
made to me, of the truth of which I know nothing, that out in the western provinces, at the present time, the department are employing certain labourers to work for them temporarily, I do not know in what capacity. It was claimed that these me-were employed, say, for six months, then let out for a short time, and re-employed, the purpose being to get round the Civil Service Act. This statement was made to me, and I am presenting it to the minister, to have him deny it, if it is false, or to otherwise comment upon it, if he wishes.


Charles A. Stewart: Under
the Civil Service Act, we have the privilege of employing men temporarily for three months. I think, to a limited degree, that can be carried on, the idea being that it is purely temporary. If the employment continues for a longer period, these men must of necessity pass the examinations and become permanent employees. We have had cases of that kind, in one or two instances, but to a very limited degree. I desire to say frankly that it is a very considerable handicap in the 'Department of Immigration, where they have a fluctuating service and might want a few people for a few months, to have to wait for the slow process of getting them on the permanent staff. The same thing is true of the Northwest Territories. Hon. members will notice that I have a bill on the Order Paper, to provide for a little leniency in respect of the employment of officials who are thousands of miles away, in the North country. However, I think the Civil Service Commission

Supply-Immigration
are prepared to grant me, in that respect, the privilege of taking care of the four or five employees who are away in that territory, and may have to move from one point to another, where oil may be discovered, or a rush for fyling may take place. Outside of that, I have no very serious complaints to make. The practice to which the hon. member refers does not prevail to any extent. There may be three or four cases in the whole department where they employ several hundred people. With respect to the point rais-J by my hon. friend, there is constant friction. There are to-day, printers at the 'boundary line, who are desirous of coming to Montreal, and yet there are many printers in that city. I mention this to show the difficulties with which we are faced. These men are refusing to work. There is a strike on. As near as I can understand the situation, these men refused to work for certain establishments, not only in Montreal, but in other parts of Canada. I am not very familiar with the situation. We try to keep closely in touch with the labour situation throughout Canada. Let me say to my hon. friends, the Progressives from western Canada, that for a period of two weeks I placed an absolute prohibition on farm labourers coming from United States into Saskatchewan, and many farmers in Saskatchewan, who might have received asistance from the United States, had to go without farm labourers and do their own work, notwithstanding the fact that in British Columbia, in Winnipeg, and in Toronto, there are a large number of men out of employment. These men will not go on the land; they refuse that kind of employment. We are trying to work harmoniously with the Labour Department in this respect, and after a period of two weeks I was forced to take off the embargo, and let more men come in from the United States.
With respect to the falsity of the affidavit, I could not for a moment deny that such a thing might occur. It is said of a certain class of people that they will come in under almost any conditions, and I am being constantly criticized because these people are coming into the cities; but I do not agree with the statement of Mr. Moore, or any one else, that we 'should put up the bars in Canada, and say, "We are not going to let people into Canada, and will absolutely shut them out because conditions are such in Canada that they cannot receive employment." We are forced to-day to put our bars up against immigration to
Canada of a very splendid lot or artisans in Great Britain, who would make fine settlers in Canada, for we are constantly telling them that there is no place or employment for them, and we are trying to meet that situation. All you have to do, Mr. Chairman, is to look at the amount of immigration flowing into Canada at present. It is not nearly large enough. If immigration is to be one of the assisting factors in building up Canada, we have to get it on a larger scale, and I am convinced that in no respect is that stream of immigration going to affect the general situationin Canada. We are using every effort to bring people in who will go upon the land. My hon. friend says that conditions upon the land are not of such a character as to warrant our even bringing these in. There may be something to be said about that; but what we are trying to do is to encourage the farmer and the farm labourer to come into and settle in Canada. If there are men and women Who are making false affidavits, I should like my hon. friend to go down to the port of entry at Quebec or Montreal or St. John-perhaps he has already done so-and he will see that we subject intending immigrants to the most rigid examination, medical and otherwise, and if such people as he speaks of get in, they get in without our knowledge. Some of them will undoubtedly get in; but I cannot agree that a very large number are passing in this way.


Robert James Manion: I had intended to make a few remarks on this subject and there were some other hon. members in this corner who intended to speak at a little length; but at this stage of the session, I do not wish to take up much of the time of the committee. I thank the minister for having advised me that he was bringing on his estimates. This subject is, perhaps, the most important one that we have in this country at the present time. We have the railway problem and the financial problem, and both of them, to my mind, can be ultimately solved, to a great extent, by a proper immigration policy. The railways need greater traffic, and the financial needs of this country make it imperative that we have more people to pay taxes.
I wish to draw to the attention of the minister a statement which appeared some time ago in the Winnipeg Free Press. In this statement, speeches by the Bishop of Birmingham and Mr. Rider Haggard, of England, were quoted. In those speeches, according to the press, both those gentle-
Supply-Immigration

men suggested that not only Canada but the Dominions in general should be used as countries to Which to send those of the British people, English, Irish, Scotch and *Welsh, I presume, who were not physically up to the mark, as a method of "reinvigorating" them-I think that was the expression used. I do not know the attitude taken by the departmental people in England, but I am quite sure the department does not feel that this country can afford to act as a reinvigorating agency for any class of people, whether British or otherwise, because, after all, Whatever people come to this country should be physically fit to take their place and make their way. There is no easy road to success in this country; hard Work and effort are essential. If this has not already been done I believe it is the duty of the Government at the present time to advise publicly the people of Great Britain as to the Government's attitude on the matter, because men of the prominence of Rider Haggard, the Bishop of Birmingham and others who have made similar speeches at other times should be made aware of the fact that the Dominions do not wish people, whether British or otherwise, who are not physically fit to make their way, to come to Canada, on account of the hardships they will encounter and the efforts required to ensure success in this country.
There is another point in regard to which I wish to offer a suggestion which may not have already been brought to the minister's attention. I refer to a method by which Australia is obtaining a very good class of citizens, and which is called the "nomination system,"-I do not know whether the minister has heard of it or not. I read a good account of it recently in the Atlantic Magazine or one of the other monthly reviews. In that system the method is employed of accepting nominations from citizens who have come from the Old Land, particularly from the British Isles, and who have made good in Australia. They have the right to nominate to the Department of Immigration of Australia certain friends of theirs, whom they 5 p.m. know aivl whom they can recommend as good citizens to come to Australia. It is reported in the review in which I read the account, that a very fine class of citizens is being brought out in that way, because a citizen who nominates or recommends a man, feels a sort of responsibility for him. He will not, generally speaking, advise the government

to admit people who are not fit to come; he knows the necessities of settlers coming to that country; and when a settler does come in, he feels a sort of responsibility, takes an interest in him and offers suggestions to him as to the best methods of getting along in Australia. The description of this system appealed very much to me, and it might be well worth the while of the minister to look into it and perhaps bring in some such system in addition to the methods which he has in force at the present time in this country.
As regards the admission to Canada of people from various parts of the world, the United States has found it necessary to restrict their immigration, and this Government is correct in putting on restrictions on certain classes of people coming into this country. We all know that we need people very much to help to solve our public problems, but we need the right kind of people brought in in such numbers that we can assimilate them. A point struck me very forcibly recently in reading an article by a very able American writer, who was giving the number of immigrants admitted into the Unted States in various years. As I checked up the report, I found that the United States, prior to some few years ago, had not admitted into its country the number of immigrants that Canada was admitting before the war. For example, in 1870, when the population of the United States was 38,000,000, the number of immigrants into the United States was only 378,000, whereas Canada, in 1914, just before the war, with a population of considerably less than 9,000,000, admitted 402,000. In other words, Canada, with a population of less than 9,000,000, admitted many more immigrants into her country than the United States had in any year prior to 1870, when the population of the United States was 38,000,000. That illustrates very markedly the necessity of Canada being very careful with her immigration policy, because, after all, the whole principles of democracy are based upon the general average of intelligence of the people comprising that democracy. If you admit such a large number of people into a country that they not only dilute your own democracy, but change its whole force by flooding it, so to speak, that would naturally change our whole Canadian citizenship. In a few words, I wish to bring those three or four points before the minister; but particularly, I wish to emphasize the speeches quoted by the Winnipeg Free Press-and, by the way, very much con-

Supply-Immigration
demned by that newspaper- advocating sending out British people to "reinvigorate" them in the Dominions; and to emphasize also the method in Australia of nominating prospective immigrants into that country.


Mr. NEILL:: I do not think the point raised by Mr. Moore of the Trades and Labour Council has been adequately answered by the minister. Some months ago when the question of immigration was discussed in this House, we were told by the minister that the restriction would be rigidly enforced, the immigration being confined to farm labourers and domestic servants, and we accepted that assurance. Mr. Moore complains that that has been evaded by means of affidavits more or less carelessly entered into. We presume that is the only safeguard. The minister does not deny that it is the only method. When we consider conditions in southern Europe, when we know that many of these immigrants do not speak the English language, when we consider that they are being asked , or solicited to emigrate by agents of shipping companies who are interested in a monetary sense, and when we hear that the only safeguard against taking in an undesirable class-that is, other than domestic servants or farm labourers-is that they are asked to make an affidavit, we cannot but think that there is practically no restriction at all. That means that as they pass through the shipping office, they are shown a paper, a spot on it is pointed out to them and they are told to make their cross in that particular place. The emigrant regards it as part of the formality of going abroad and he does so. Ninety per cent of them do not know what the contents of the affidavits are. Everything points to too great laxity. Apparently there is no one sufficiently interested to see that the regulations are enforced. The result is that we have not-


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot permit the hon. gentleman to make a statement which is so far from the facts. I stated that in Great Britain every immigrant practically passes through the hands of some immigration agent. On the Continent, until quite recently, we had but one agency, and when a great number of immigrants were embarking some may have got past without conforming with the regulations. But to say that shiploads of such immigrants are being landed in Canada is to stray beyond the point of truth, and I must protest
against the statement. Every single last one of these immigrants must pass the immigration officer at the port of entry into Canada. True, we cannot tell that a particular individulal may not be making a false affidavit as to occupation, but I would draw the attention of my hon friend to the fact that we make a very rigid investigation Dealing with the class of people coming into my hon friend's province, I am prepared to admit a good deal of what he says-that those people managed to enter in various ways, and perhaps we are not aware haw many did get in; but we are going to remedy that condition of things as far as we can. What my hon. friend states, however, is not applicable to imlmigrants coming through the eastern ports of Canada or through the ports of the United States.


Alan Webster Neill: Did I understand the minister to state that there was only one immigration officer on the Continent?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, up until a month ago; there are now three.


Alan Webster Neill: I still submit that I am not very far out in my assertion. Where are these men located, in Antwerp?


Charles A. Stewart: There was always one located in Antwerp. That has always been a great port for immigrants.


Alan Webster Neill: A man comes from Bolivia, a country in southeastern Europe-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are slightly wrong in your geography.


Alan Webster Neill: I meant to say Bavaria-I would rather see immigrants come from South America than from southeastern Eu-x'ope; I am speaking of the Balkans, where they have been raising Cain for the last twenty years. Those people are not desirable immigrants. When they reach the eastern boundary of Europe what facilities have our officials to gauge their fitness for or experience in agriculture.


Charles A. Stewart: As a matter of fact, there are very few immigrants coming from the countries mentioned by my hon. friend. The bulk of them are coming, or attempting to come, from Poland. That is where we are having the greatest difficulty at the present time. Very few of those people are agriculturists. I wish my hon. friend was Minister of Immigration for two days; he would then realize some of the difficulties that confront us. But those people are not landing in Canada.

Supply-Immigration


Alan Webster Neill: We hear every day of large numbers of immigrants coming into this country. Where do they come from? And if they come from Poland, and are not farmers, what are they? I do not wish to embarrass the minister, nor to take up the time of the House, but is there any way of ascertaining whether these people are agriculturists save by an a'll-too-easily-evaded affidavit? Do they have to produce a certificate from the government of the country they come from that they have been engaged in agricultural life?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; that is the very reason why we have men at Bucharest and Warsaw at the present time. And if an immigrant comes down to one of the eastern ports without being armed with a certificate from those agents he will not be allowed to ship. Formerly we had the difficulty my 'hon. friend refers to, but that is not the case to-day. However, I would not like to make my statement too definite, because these officials have only been at those posts for the past four weeks. Having that inspection close to the home of the immigrants makes it very convenient for them if they are rejected. A considerable number of farmers are coming from Poland to join their friends in western Canada, hut to say there are large number's of immigrants coming into our cities is not in accordance with the facts.


Mr. IRVINE:: In view of the fact that agriculture is more or less of a seasonable occupation, and in view also of the poor economic conditions on the farm described by the representatives of the farmers in this House, dbes not the minister think that the immigrants who are being brought in now will very largely swell the ranks of eur unemployed next winter? And is the Government prepared to accept the responsibility for that result?	*


Charles A. Stewart: Let me tell my hon. friend from East Calgary that if we are to bring no immigrants in the department would like to know. But practically every member who speaks upon the subject of immigration points to it as the main solution of our difficulties. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River has just made that assertion. And the Department of Immigration is being asked to bring people into this country. Well, whom are we to bring in? I have pointed out that on the prairies many of our farmers have had to go without farm help, notwithstanding the fact, as my hon.

friend knows, that in the cities there are many unemployed, because these unemployed will not work on the farms. If a condition arises next winter because of the seasonal employment on the land, I think my hon. friend from East Calgary will not find in the cities a very large number of the people whom we are bringing from Great Britain and the continent. We are endeavouring to bring in farmers, not men who are looking for employment in cities, and I cannot conceive of any other policy to meet the situation than the one I have just outlined.


Mr. EVANS:: By recent Order in Council has the money qualification of immigrants been abandoned? I think it was $250.


Charles A. Stewart: It has
been abandoned except in so far as orientals are concerned.


Donald Sutherland: I was very glad to hear the minister state that the rigid inspection of immigrants at the port of landing is to be continued. I think this is very important, and notwithstanding the desirability of having immigrants examined before they come to this country, yet under present conditions I believe the responsibility rests upon the steamship companies and their booking agents to return to their homes those intending immigrants who cannot pass inspection. In that way I feel that an almost sufficient safeguard is provided. It is certainly very sad to find a family seeking admittance to this country turned back at the port of landing, and I have known cases where large families have been refused admittance under almost heartbreaking circumstances. But we cannot very well avoid such occasional hardships, and if the minister and his department exercise the precautions which they evidently intend to do, such cases will be reduced to a minimum.
Now, in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) as to the seasonal occupation of those engaged in farm work, it is quite true that for the last six or eight years very little immigration has flowed into this country owing to the conditions which prevailed in the Old Land. The department may be ever so anxious to provide the necessary labour for the carrying on of farming operations in this country, hut no matter what safeguards they employ, there will be people coming in who have no desire or intention to carry on farm work or to continue in it for any length

Supply-Immigration
of time. I do not know that the department or the minister can be blamed if a certain proportion of these people do not remain in the occupation which they are expected to follow. And, after all, I do not know that any great hardship will ensue if they do not, provided that they are willing to fulfil some of the obligations which rest upon them as citizens of this country. The idea that everybody who comes here should take up farm work seems to have been a little overdone.
It has been stated by Mr. Moore and others that a large number of persons in this country are out of employment, but I venture to state that since the first immigrant arrived in Canada there were never so many actual demands for workers as there are at this time. Many people are out of work because they cannot get employment such as they have been engaged in in the past, and are not willing to take up any other. Calls for workers are being made from many different quarters, yet there are no workers to be found. Who is to blame for that? Have we arrived at the stage where a man who cannot get just the kind of employment he wants, though there are demands for services in many directions, simply sits down and asks the country to come to his rescue? There is no use in closing our eyes to the conditions which confront us, or in allowing our partisan inclinations to influence us. It is the duty of every citizen to come to the assistance of the minister and of the Government on this question so that it may be settled now and for all time to come. Many people have made it their business during the last few years to agitate the public mind and to make it appear that there is no work in this country, and at the same time they have been demanding that hours of labour shall be reduced, that what a workman does shall be subject to limitations, and that if he does more than that he shall be penalized by the unions which are running this country at the present time. We all know that this condition confronts us; yet we have not the courage to express our views-to spit it out; to say what is passing through our minds. This is the condition which is responsible for much of the trouble with which the country is confronted in the matter of railway transportation. I say that that is the key note of the whole trouble. The unions are in control; they are dictating to the Government and to everybody else, and as a result we are en-196i
deavouring to meet big deficits in connection with the operation of our railway lines. How long is this to continue? Yet some people say that the minister should shut out all immigration until everybody who is now unemployed can find work that suits his present requirements or desires. I say that there never was a greater demand for labour in this country than there is now, and if we can get desirable citizens from the Old Land we need have nothing to fear, provided that the minister carries out the inspection at the port of landing which he says he intends to put into effect. But we must be placed in such a position that no union shall dictate the transportation rates of this country, as is the condition at present. We are in the hands of an organization which during the war period dictated the policy of this country, and as a result of having had to submit to that organization we are confronted by our present difficulties. The sooner we throw off these shackles and give our assistance as a unit to the minister and to the Government in this respect, the better it will be for all concerned.


William Irvine: The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) says that we should settle this question now and for all time. I have no objection, if he wants to do that, but I doubt very much whether he can settle any question now and for all time. He also says that we should have the courage, to use his own words, to " spit " this thing out now. Well, I do not see any great need for courage to say anything that the hon. member said, unless you have to have courage when you are talking a little beside the facts. I am sure no one in the House will agree with the statement of the hon. member that those who have been unemployed in Canada during the last year are out of work simply because they are looking for particular jobs; that is too ridiculous for comment. As to my question to the minister, I do not think the answer is satisfactory. I am not one of those who think that immigration is the solution of all our national troubles. However, I am not speaking dogmatically for or against that, neither am I opposed to immigration as such. I do not think under present circumstances it is possible to bring in farmers only, but eve.i if we could do that, no one will say that the farmers of this country, particularly those of western Canada, are prepared to hire

Supply-Immigration
help all the year round, especially in view of the fact that they find it difficult to meet their own economic needs. What, then, will become of these immigrants in the winter months? Granting that there are men in the cities who will not work on the farms, if these other people also go into the cities and look for work, will there not be more unemployment? My question is: Will the Government assume now the responsibility for the situation which this action is very likely to create?


Mr. LEADER:: I would like to ask the
minister what attitude the Government intends to take with regard to Hutterites coming into Canada. We have in the constituency of Portage la Prairie a unique situation. During the war this class of immigrants came into Canada from the United States; I am told that their object was to avoid naval service. Anyway, they were allowed to come here and to settle up round Elie. They are regarded 'by the settlers up there as undesirable citizens; they segregate into colonies and are simply impossible of assimilation. Since coming down here I have received a resolution passed by the local branch of the United Farmers of Elie and in St. Eustache, a copy of which I handed to the minister, protesting against any further immigration of this class of settlers. Is it the 'intention of the Government to remove the restrictions that now exist with regard to the entry of this class of immigrants?


Charles A. Stewart: ' That has already been done by Order in Council, with respect to both Hutterites and Men-nonites.


Harry Leader: The restrictions have
been removed?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Harry Leader: Well, what shall I do
with regard to the resolution passed by my constituents iprotesting against the entry of these immigrants into Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: No
settler can come into Canada on the specific understanding that in any way he can avoid the obligations of Canadian citizenship. As I understand it, that has been the difficulty in the past. Moreover, some of these people have persisted in settling in colonies. That cannot be charged against the Mennonites, except the old colonies in Manitoba.


Harry Leader: Do I understand the
minister to say that if these people come in with the intention of settling in colonies, that will be prohibited?


Charles A. Stewart: I could not say we would prohibit it, but I can say this. These people will have to assume all the obligations of a Canadian citizen, with respect to military service and everything else. But to say that they shall not settle on three or four sections of land would be going beyond that point perhaps. Every effort, however, will be made to prevent them colonizing.
It is my intention as soon as the House prorogues to visit every provincial government in Canada for the purpose of working out with them a scheme of settle* ment, particularly in the western provinces, and in that way give them a larger control of the individual after he arrives in Canada. The complaint has frequently been made-I have made it myself in Alberta

that the Dominion government was bringing in settlers a large percentage of whom were mentally deficient. That is why I am insisting to-day on very strict medical examination and a careful scrutiny of the family history of intending immigrants. I know I am being accused by many good people of being too strict in this connection. Friends and sometimes members of parliament object very strenuously to my action in deciding to deport people who are not physically and mentally fit.


William Irvine: Does the minister think it would be feasible for the Canadian authorities to make the examination that is made on this side of the water, before embarkation? It does seem to me that the present system puts the immigrant to a very great deal of inconvenience if he is found unfit on his arrival here and is returned.


Harry Leader: I am pleased to hear the remarks of the minister, and I trust that he will pay a visit to the district that I speak of and examine conditions there. If he does, he will find out that what I say is true, and that these people are living in colonies. I think they have perhaps seven or nine now. I had the opportunity of going through one of these colonies, and I do not believe that the conditions that exist there are desirable in Canada. These people are good farmers but I do not believe we shall ever be able to assimilate them. The settlers up there are protesting against their entry, and I would ask the minister

Supply-I mmigration
to be just a little bit careful about admitting these people. I am sure he would not think it desirable to have these foreigners settle in Canada and retain their language and customs that are not what we expect from good Canadian citizens. It is a German sect, I believe. They retain their own language and object to military service. In fact, they do not even desire the franchise, and will not vote or take any part in the government of this country. I am told they are undesirable citizens.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I do not think I have abused the indulgence of the House this session, but I should like to make a few remarks on this subject, and I hope you will not censure me, Mr. Chairman, for taking up a few minutes. There seems to be an impression in this House that the only immigration that comes to Canada is from the British Isles. I have all the respect in the world for the people of the British Isles, but I want to say that some of our best immigrants have come from other places. When this item was up some days ago, mention was made of "the man with the sheepskin coat," and it was said that the foreign element comprised a high percentage of the jail-birds and convicts in this country. That might be true, but, nevertheless, the man with the sheepski" coat has been a big factor in developing this country. He has built our railroads, and the sewers in our cities; he has done all the dirty work. In western Canada I do not think we could get our crops threshed if it were not for the man with the sheepskin coat.
I want to say just a word or two about those we call the Ukrainians. They come from central Europe, from Galicia, I think. We as Canadians are to blame a great deal if we have these people in jail in our country. I believe that our political system has really given a great opportunity to debauch these people and lower their standards, instead of raising them to ours. I want to read a little article taken from the Ukrainian of the week of May 22. I do not want to leave the impression that I am throwing slurs at any political party, but we all know that in political parties there are unscrupulous politicians. This article says:
The Ukrainians get the worst deal of all other nationalities inhabiting Manitoba under the party governments. In the first place because the parties-both the Conservatives and Liberals-
Of course, we were fewer.
-never tried to enlighten the Ukrainians in political matters-
At this point, let me say that my own observation has been that just previous to an election these people are brought up and given naturalization papers by the hundred, although they do not know what they mean. I do not believe they could read one if they were asked, and that is where we fail. The editorial continues:
-but rather demoralized them during election campaigns by lavishing money rewards, by offering strong drink, and by promising to build roads, etc. for their votes.


Lewis Herbert Martell: When did this natural-zation take place?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: At different times.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Before the last election?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Before all elections.
It goes on:
This dishonest, unpatriotic and shameful work of the parties finally caused the Ukrainians to consider elections as opportunity for making a little money or getting some other rewards. They were granted naturalization papers with, out being educated as to the real value and importance of these papers; they were told that the papers entitled them to vote-although the parties bribed their votes. In short our settlers, until comparatively recent times were fine political instruments in the hands of the Anglo-Saxons; whichever party expended more money on buying their votes, that party prided in its victory and glories in its domination. Although as we say, neither party tried to get the Ukrainian settler acquainted with Canadian citizenship, with Canadian ideals and relationship; neither government cared to inform the Ukrainians of their political rights and duties; in addition they were forbidden to use their own language, the only language they could speak then, and read their own newspapers which were their only news of obtaining information concerning citizen rights and duties.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Were not these people disfranchised in 1917?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am coming to that,
if my hon. friend will wait a moment. A good many of these people were given naturalization papers and made British subjects. Then in 1917 a lot of them offered for service during the war. I know some of these boys myself. Take our Mennonite settlers and even our Ukrainian settlers; in Red Cross work they were very active. Take the Mennonities in the district of Stein-back in my riding. They sent tons and tons of bologna sausages over to the starving Russians.

S apply-I mmig ration


An hon. MEMBER:: Even that was better than fighting.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: As I understand, they were given a guarantee when they came to this country that they would not have to fight.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is wrong.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I may be wrong, but at any rate I do not want to take up the time of the committee in arguing the matter. I claim that the man who comes to this country in a sheepskin coat is better than the man who comes to this country wearing gloves and a white collar. Go to the city of Winnipeg during harvest time, go to the employment offices there, run, I think, by the provincial government in conjunction with the federal authorities, and if you want men to work on your farm it is the men who have worn sheepskin coats that will respond to the demand; the others professing to seek for employment do not want to work on the farm at all. The man who lives on the prairie in the winter time needs a sheepskin coat, and I may say that I wear one myself in the winter season.


John Evans: In the West we have hordes of foreigners who have settled in colonies. Many of these have made excellent settlers. I have in mind, in particular, the Galician who is ambitious from the start, from the very time he landed in this country, to become a good Canadian. The Galicians, I believe, are making good, but at the present time, particularly since the war, we have a class of people out there who are not content with our form of government and there are foreigners there to-day from the south-eastern part of Europe, foreigners settled in colonies, who are continually advocating Sovietism. I, for one, would certainly protest against letting the gates down and admitting, without any restriction, foreigners in large numbers to settle in colonies amongst us. I certainly would urge the Minister of Immigration to use every care in the selection of immigrants. I have read with interest Sir Clifford Sifton's scheme of immigration, but from what I can see his plan for settling our lands would amount to a system of slavery and I protest against bringing the calling of the agriculturist down to that level. I say, however, that those people who will not allow themselves to be assimilated and will not assume the duties and responsibilities of full Canadian citizenship should be debarred from entering this country.


Donald Sutherland: I would like to ask the minister if the old custom of granting a bonus or subsidy to booking agents is to be revived under this vote? In years gone by a bonus was paid to booking agents in respect of desirable settlers whom they might secure, and I am not sure that the policy was not a very good one, because the booking agents are in a better position than even the agents of the governmeent to judge as to the merits of prospective settlers. The bonus was paid only in the case of those who were going on the land or were domestic servants. The demand for domestic servants, in this country today is possibly greater than it has been at any time in the past, and I would therefore like to know if there is any intention on the part of the government to revive the old custom referred to?


Charles A. Stewart: I have had no experience of booking agents, but on looking over the records of the department and discussing the matter with the immigration officials, I discovered that while there were a great many good agents, unfortunately there was a not inconsiderable number who took advantage of the system, and in fact were influenced in their efforts by the idea of number rather than quality.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) I am in accord with some of his remarks. I am in accord with my hon. friend when he says that unemployment in this country is possibly due, to some extent, t othe fact that many of those who are unemployed do not want to go to work on farms. Now, that is their own personal business, but I want to point out to the minister that if he enters upon a large scheme of immigration in order to bring farmers or farm labourers to this country he is probably going to have the condition of affairs pointed out by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine). I know my own district well and I know it will not give employment to anything like the same number of men during the winter months that it possibly does in the sutafmer months. Therefore, you will have to find employment, to that extent, for these surplus men in winter. In this I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Irvine), and I am very anxious that the Government should answer the question he asked as to whether or not they were prepared to assume the responsibility for the unemployment that may result next winter in consequence of this policy. I

Supply-Immigration
think it would be very well indeed if the department Would endeavour to determine the causes of emigration from Canada. If it solved that problem and 'applied the remedy, there would be very little trouble in getting immigrants for Canada. That, I think, is the real problem, the .serious problem, that confronts this department at the present time. NkVw the Minister of Immigration himself, speaking some time ago at a meeting of weekly newspaper proprietors or editors, mlade a remark something like this: He said that in the last decade we had lost about two millions, in round numbers, of the residents of this country, and that during the same period twenty million dollars-I think that was the figure- had been spent on immigration. He went on to say that the Government was 'anxious, and he himself was anxious, to find the cause for this loss. I had been under the impression that we representatives from the West had been endeavouring to show him the causes; we argue that they are economic in their nature. I am sorry that we failed to enlighten the minister, but I hope he will give patient thought and deep consideration to the cause of our loss of population. If we had maintained the immense number-amounting, I think, to two millions-that we have lost we would be in a much happier condition in this country to-day.
I deplore the policy of child immigration and I wish to go on record as protesting against it. I do not think it is fair to Canada, nor do I think it is fair to the children themselves who are coming over here. I would like to ask any member of this House how he would like to see his children hired out to unknown persons in an unknown country. To be frank with the committee I think such & policy amounts to brutality. Take farms where they are already children, and I am afraid that in the majority of cases the grossest discrimination will be displayed against the unfortunate immigrant child. I was very glad to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) with regard to the importance of looking after the health of our immigrants. It is quite true, as the minister himself remarked a few minutes ago, that due consideration can and should be given to the history of adult immigrants, but let us see what type of immigrants must these children be? Probably they come from orphan homes, or from the home of degenerate families. Nobody but degenerate parents
would want to part with children to send them away to work in a distant country. How are you going to obtain the family history of children coming from such homes? You will be able to ascertain little or nothing about them. Therefore, I say child immigration is wrong.
I now want to call attention to an extract from the Manitoba Free Press of May 15, and I do so because I believe that gross injustice has (been done to residents in foreign countries by unscrupulous agents, whether of the steamships companies or real estate companies, or other people connected even with the gqlvernmnt. This itm reads:
Prince Rupert, B.C., May 17 (By Canadian Press.)-Protests are being received by local newspapers and government offices from British settlers in Massett, Queen Charlotte islands, who recently came over from England. The settlers arranged for the passage and settlement through a private company in England, but they are asking government assistance in clearing the land, which they say was represented to them as rich agricultural property, with no mention being made of the timber to be removed before farming could be started.
They also claim they were promised that mill work would be available to assist them in making a living. This work has not been commenced, they say, and no machinery to start the mills is in sight.
Shareholders say they were invited by a London company to buy plots in Massett at $300 each, and now find themselves unable either to farm the land or to earn a living in any other way.
I am sure this is worthy of the attention of the minister. In conclusion, I desire to ask the Minister this question:
Does the Government repay the immigrant who is deported on arrival on this side, because of ill-health or disease, the fare to this country which he has paid to the Canadian Pacific or some other line?


Charles A. Stewart: He is taken back by the shipping company.


Edward Joseph Garland: Free of charge?


Charles A. Stewart: But he has already paid his way out; he does not get that back. What has the Government to do with that?


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the suggestion of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), that you should establish in the country from which you are inviting immigrants a place where they could be examined before embarking, is a good one.
Supply-Immigration


William Charles Good: Is there any provision in regard to passports or certificates being furnished to the immigrants on the other side, before they can get on board a ship to come over here?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, yes, they must have them.


Mr. COOTE:: I wish to assure the Minister of the Interior that he is, possibly, the last minister I would wish to criticize. I simply want to point out to this committee something that has not yet been stated. I have waited till the last, hoping someone else would mention it. I say that our immigration policy is rather lopsided. Our governments have always endeavoured to bring into this country agriculturists. At present, we are producing more on our farms than we can find a profitable market for. I want hon. members to think it over. Is it good business for us to bring more farmers here to raise more produce, when we cannot find a market for what we produce to-day? It is a fact that some of the farm produce that has been obtained by hard labour is left to rot in the field, or is thrown away. I am going to leave that matter with the Government to think over. I suggest to the minister that, if it is a fact that a great number of the unemployed people in this country are in the cities and will not go to the farms, he should use part of this $300,000 to induce some manufacturers to come from Great Britain or some place where they are used to manufacturing without a protective tariff, and start factories in our cities, to provide employment for these unemployed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Civil Service Commission-
Salaries	$177,630
Contingencies	 130,000
Mr. CHEVRIER:: Let me preface my remarks by saying that I hold no brief for the Civil Service Commission, nor do I hold any brief against them, nor against any members of the Civil Service. That commission is a creature of the statute, and if the members of the Civil Service Commission, or the commission themselves, When they exercise all the rights, duties and obligations cast upon them by statute, prejudicially affect the rights of any one, or the rights of the Civil Service, I say that they cannot as such be blamed, but 
that the blame must be placed upon those who are responsible for the creation of the commission. We are called upon to vote the sum of $300,000 for the maintenance of the Civil Service Commission during the coming year. There has been a lot of discussion about, and a great deal of dissatisfaction with, the Civil Service Commission, and I intend to treat the question more from a legal point of view; and, if the House will bear with me for a short while, I will endeavour to trace the legislation respecting the Civil Service Commission, and to point out the difficulties in the work of the commission, and, to the best of my ability, to show the remedy to be adopted for the existing state of affairs. The Civil Service Commission may be traced to the statute of 1882 with reference to the Civil Service, and that is embodied in section 3, Chapter IV of 45 Victoria.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the Chair, and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 126 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Hosie.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 127 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Ila Cameron.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 128 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frank Hamilton Bawden.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 129 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harry Alexander Smith.

Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 130 (from the Senate), for the relief of Allen Richard Morgan.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 131 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mildred Emma Blachford.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 135 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Henry Boyd.-Mr. Boyce.
Bill No. 39 (from the Senate), for the relief of Georgina Gibbings.-Mr. Mac-Kelvie.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 134 (from the Senate), for the relief of Roy Wilbert Shaver.

Mr. Mc-Giverin.
Bill No. 138 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frank Clifford Gennery.

Mr. Rankin.

Supply-Civil Service
Bill No. 139 (from the Senate), for the could be. Under section 5 the inside serrelief of Sarah Brackinreid.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 140 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mildred Catherine Touchbourne.
*-Mr. Kay.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: When the committee
rose at six o'clock I was referring to the legislation governing the operations of th->
Civil Service (Commission. I was just going to show that this legislation had its inception in 1882, and that from the enactment then made followed the present Civil Service Act. The act of 1882 is cited as Chapter 4 of 45 Victoria. Section 3, with which we are concerned at present, reads as follows:
A board of examiners shall, from time to time, be appointed by the Governor in Council, who for the purposes of this act shall be known and are hereinafter referred to as " The board," consisting of three members who shall be authorized to examine all candidates for admission to the Civil Service of Canada, and to give certificates of qualification to such persons as are found qualified according to such regulations as shall be framed for the guidance of the board.
That section remained the law under which all appointments were made to the Civil Service of Canada, until the year 1908. In that year there was passed an Act to Amend the Civil Service Act, assented to on the 20th of July, 1908, and known as an Act to amend the Civil Service Act, 1908, Chapter 15 of 7 and 8 Edward VII. Section 3 contained the provision which determined the constitution of the Civil Service Commission. It provided as follows:
The Civil Service shall be divided into two divisions, namely, the inside service which shall consist of that part of the public service in or under the several departments of the executive government of Canada-
Then it recites quite a number of names of departments; whereupon the second division of the service is described as follows:
The outside service, which shall consist of the rest of the public service.
This act applied to the inside service only. It is simple in its inception and capable of being easily worked out. It was copied from the British Civil Service Act, and it met all the difficulties inherent to civil service administration. There is no legislation I know of that is perfect, but this legislation was as near perfect as anv
vice was divided into three classes, each of which was divided into two more, so that the whole of the service was divided into six categories. Sections 27, 28 and 29 set out the salaries for each of these classes. The duties of the commission were set out in section 10, as follows:
(a)	to test and pass upon the qualifications of candidates for admission to the service, and for promotion in the service, and to issue certificates with respect thereto were required under this act or regulations made thereunder;
(b)	of its own motion to investigate and report upon the operation of the Civil Service Act or of this act, and upon the violation of any of the provisions of the Civil Service Act or of this act or of any regulation made under either of the said acts, and upon the request of the head of a department with the approval of the Governor in Council, to investigate and report upon the organization of the department.
Admissions into the service, therefore were to be by competitive examination. I will refer to this more at length when I take up the act under which we are working to-day. Appointments to the service were regulated by section 13, which stated:
Appointment to positions in the inside service under that of deputy head shall be by competitive examination, which shall be of such a nature as will determine the qualifications of candidates for the particular positions to which they are to be appointed, and shall be held by the commission from time to time in accordance with the regulations made by it and approved by the Governor in Council.
This was a fair statement of the manner in which appointments should be made. Section 18 provides as follows:
From the said list-
Referring to the list of successful competitors in an examination.
-"the commission, on the application of the deputy head, with the approval of the head of any department, shall supply the required clerks, whether for permanent or temporary duty.
Under that act, therefore, fair play was assured through competitive examination, and the deputy minister could then, with the approval of the minister, appoint the person whom he wished to fill the vacant position. I think that that met all the requirements of a democratic government such as that which is now ours.
The responsibility was upon the minister to see that his department was properly administered. He had confidence in his deputy; the deputy knew the requirements of his department and could choose from among the successful candidates the man whom he regarded as best qualified to
Supply-Civil Service

vice reform? But to return to the manner in which appointments are made under the two sections to which I have referred, we find that they are to be made in accordance with demonstrations of skill, or by competitive examination. Now, if the Civil Service Commission will undertake to make all appointments to the Civil Service by competitive examination or by demonstrations of skill, then I have nothing more to say. But I know that the Civil Service Commission has not in the past, and cannot in the future, comply with the terms of the law as it is to-day; and I for one do not think that, when laws are being flagrantly violated every day, we should hesitate to apply the remedy when we have the power to rectify this condition of affairs. I do not blame the Civil Service Commission for not following the law in every respect, but I blame the law itself, and I blame those who have put such a law on the statute books. Since the Civil Service Commission has been appointed there have been over five thousand appointments of postmasters in Canada, and I defy anybody to name a single instance where the law has been complied with-that is to say, where a competitive examination has been held or where a demonstration of skill has been required. Nevertheless, these appointments continue to be made. They are made by one of the agents, or one of the subinspectors, of the department going into a city, town or village where a vacancy exists and finding out for himself, making an oral test, as to which of the various applicants is most deserving of the position. The law says that all appointments in the Civil Service shall be made by competitive examination or demonstration of skill, and I say it is not in accordance with the law that these appointments should be made in this manner.
What is the procedure, if the Civil Service Commission or a deputy minister desires to place in a department a professional man, a lawyer, or an engineer with highly technical qualifications? The Civil Service Commission does not make the appointment by competitive examination or demonstration 'of skill because it has not the machinery with which to do that. What it does-here in the city of Ottawa or in any other city where an appointment is to be made-is to select three members of the legal profession, of the medical profession, or of the Royal Canadian Institute of Architects, or some other organization of the kind, for the purpose of making an appointment, and who 
in fact make the appointment, and then it proceeds to fill the vacant position regardless of the provisions which require an appointment to be made either by competitive examination or demonstration of skill. I ask, are demonstrations of skill made in this city, or in any other city, when it is intended to make an appointment? If the Public Works Department requires charwomen, or window cleaners, or steamfitters, or bricklayers, or masons, are demonstrations of skill made? No, anybody applying to the Civil Service Commission for these positions puts his or her name down on a list and that is called the eligible list, then the Civil Service Commission, or those acting for it, take the applicants by order of date and not by order of merit, ignorant whether the widow,-it may be of a soldier,-has any children, and ignorant of the qualifications of the particular mechanic required. It simply takes the name off the list as the persons have registered in the order in which they appear there. I repeat that if the Civil Service Commission made these appointments by competitive examination or by demonstration of skill I would have nothing further to say, but that is not practicable.
Now section 38 of the Spinney Bill of last year says that when it is impracticable, or not in the public interest, to apply the act to any position or positions the Civil Service Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council exclude such position or positions from the working of the act. If the Civil Service Commission desires to be loyal to itself, then there is nothing else for it to do hut to return to the proper authority the filling of all those positions which are not susceptible of competitive examination or demonstrations of skill. Now just to give a concrete case. A returned man came to my colleague and myself some weeks ago and said that for months and months he had his name before the Civil Service Commission for the position of elevator man. When we pressed him a little he admitted that he could neither read nor write but he said " If you will place me in charge of any hydraulic or electrical elevator I will proceed to take it down and rebuild it ". That man could not pass a competitive examination and yet could give a demonstration of skill and qualify himself for the desired position. Nevertheless, although a returned man with a large family he failed to get a place.

Supply-Civil Service
Before the commission proceeded to organize and classify the Civil Service they called in so-called experts. In the case of the Printing Bureau the Griffen-hagens were employed. Some may say that they are not the same firm as Arthur Young & Co., but if anybody believes that let him go through the offices of the civil servants and inquire whether the clerks who worked for the Griffenhagens did not also work for Arthur Young & Co. And if any other proof were required that the Griffienhagen firm was the same as the Arthur Young Company, but under a different name, we have plenty of it. Of course, it is said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but it did not smell as sweet to the Civil Service of Canada. The letter transmitting the Report of Transmission is signed "The Arthur Young Company by D. O. Griffinhagen." Then, they proceeded to put out of business, and to throw onto the street 406 employees of the Printing Bureau. It was then decided to put into force a certain act, called the Calder Act, for the purpose of granting superannuation or pension to those upon whose neck the axe would fall, and I quote subsection 3 of section 2 of that act, where I find this stipulation:
When it is decided to retire any person under the provisions of this act, notice in writing thereof, giving the reasons for such retirement, shall be sent to such person, and he shall have a right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission.
But the Order in Council compelling the retirement of these people put it in a differ ent light. I quote from Order in Council No. 2225 of 27th June, 1921, as follows:
"Recommendation (b), Permanent employees who do not come under the provisions of and with the allowances determined by the Retirement Act of 1920, provided that the retirements recommended with such allowances be accepted by such employees without appeal; and that failing such acceptance, the said employees, or any of them failing to accept, be retired purely and simply."
Hon. members of this House voted last night against taking away the right to appeal in the case of certain crimes, and again last year, and the year before, the administration of the day proceeded to put out on the street over 450 people, when the act itself stated that they had a right to appeal, and an Order in Council was passed stating that they must take their retiring allowance without appeal, or they would get nothing. We started out with the act of 1908, establishing six divisions in the
Civil Service. There was harmony, peace and contentment, but when the report came out, instead of six divisions in the service, there were 1,500,-practically 2,000, but that is not all. Section 42 of the act of 1919 disclosed a most interesting state of affairs. That act of 1919 was passed for what purpose? To enable the report of the Griffinhagen, Arthur Young Company to be taken in. The act stated that the Civil Service was divided into certain categories, and to those categories were assigned certain schedules. The Arthur Young Company brought in their report, and the whole service had to be reorganized. What does the report say as to the finality of this classification? After having spent two years, and having cost the country pretty nearly half a million dollars, and after having thrown disorder into the service, having cost time and a good deal of sacrifice, finally it was considered that the experts from Chicago, in the light of their knowledge and genius, would bring in something that would be an everlasting monument to their ability. Section 42 of the act of 1919 says, on the contrary:
The classes of positions, including the several rates of compensation in the classification of the Civil Service of Canada signed by the commission and dated the first day of October, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, and submitted to Parliament, are hereby ratified and confirmed, and the Civil Service shall, as far as practicable, be classified in accordance therewith.
This act was passed in contemplation of the receipt of the classification. Ask the Civil Service, to-day, if it is practicable to classify anything under this reorganized classification!-
And further

The commission shall hereafter, as it may from time to time deem necessary, establish additional classes and grades and classify therein new positions created or positions included or not included in any class or grade established in the said classification, and may divide, combine, alter, or abolish existing classes and grades.
Where is the finality of this Civil Service cassification? Now, to show what the classification means to the Civil Service. I am quoting from what I call the joke book, and if any hon. member wants a joke book, without any expense, he can apply to the distribution office and obtain what is called the "Classification of the Civil Service of Canada". It contains over 900 pages, and every page contains one of the most recent jokes. The qualifications of the assistant deputy minister of the Department of Fin-
Supply-Civil Service

ance include "supervisory ability". His remuneration is fixed at $5,100 for that supervisory ability. The assistant deputy minister of the Department of Immigration must have executive ability of a high order, and yet his salary is $4,800. Then the assistant deputy minister of the Department of Justice must have administrative ability and yet he receives $5,100. The assistant deputy minister of the Department of Militia and Defence requires the highest degree of administrative ability. He receives $5,100, and the man who has adininistrative ability only, receives $5,100. The assistant deputy minister of the Department of Public Works must have administrative ability only, and he receives $5,100. The assistant deputy minister of the Department of the Interior must have administrative ability, the same as the other gentleman who must have administrative ability; the first gentleman receives $5,100, and this gentleman who requires administrative ability receives $4,800. The assistant deputy minister of the Department of Naval Service, with the highest degree of administrative ability, does not get $5,100, but only $4,500. He receives the less salary, and he must have the highest degree of administrative ability. If there is any logic or consistency in this classification, the Civil Service of Canada have failed to see it, and nobody has yet been able to find it. I have said that this is a joke, and I will just refer you to one or two other matters. The entomologist is the man who classifies bugs. The assistant entomologist must have "ability to rough it", and must be "in excellent physical condition", and the chief entomologist must have "administrative ability, good address and ability in public speaking". The industrial guard-house keeper-female-must have strength and' ability, honesty and sobriety.
Some hon. MEMBEES:	Oh, oh.


Mr. CHEVEIER:: Those are some of
the things hon. gentlemen can properly regard as jokes. A machinist's boy-one would think this would be something very serious-is defined as one whose
Ability is to pass through small apertures in boilers.
And his qualifications must be:
Ability to pass through small apertures; alertness.
Let me see how this classification has affected the Civil Service, and I can do nothing better than to quote from one of the organs of the Civil Service itself. I 
am quoting from the News Letter of 14th. March, 1921:
But the Civil Service Commission has failed in its attempts to grapple effectively with problems of Civil Service administration. We do not think that this is due entirely, or even chiefly to lack of administrative ability on the part of the present commissioners. We are of the opinion that it is principally owing to the lack of democratic machinery for affording civil servants themselves a voice in the determination of policies affecting their welfare. The commission has had to arrive at decisions entirely in the light of its own information and ideas; and while it may have done the best it could, it has utterly failed to satisfy a majority of civil servants. Not only has the commission failed to evolve practical and workable policies for the Civil .Service as a whole, but the subsidiary Board of 'Hearing and Recommendation, formed to deal with certain restricted classes of appeals, has revealed the grossest incompetence and the most unwarranted bias in its handling of the appeals which have come before it ... . Our view is that all questions should be decided by Joint Councils.
I might read more, but I will not take up any more of the time of the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on:


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I will read just one
more, leaving out a few others.
The fact that changes affecting some 15,000 employees have already been made in reclassification and that there are almost 6,000 personal appeals now being heard shows that there must be something seriously and basically wrong with classification and even if every appeal now in were granted the erroneous principles of classification would still remain. It was framed by people who knew practically nothing about the Canadian Civil iService. An attempt is being made to patch it up and administer it by people entirely out of touch with the actual work being performed, qualifications necessary, etc., of the cases they are attempting to consider. The classification is so extremely and so unnecessarily complex as to be unworkable and in the various services the relative importance and value of positions have not been adequately considered nor could they be by a small group of men knowing nothing about the details of such positions.
The attempts which have been made, and are being made to remedy this state of affairs are really nothing more than an attempt to patch up a classification system built upon false premises and principles and hence essentially unsatisfactory and unworkable and practically every such attempt being made results in a further throwing out of adjustment of some other feature of classification, giving rise to still further protests and appeals. This will continue unless steps are taken for a thorough overhauling and revision of the whole matter, carried on, as we recommend in this and other memoranda, under the Joint Council or Whitley plan.
My colleague and I have advocated those councils as a part of civil service reform, and we urge the formation of those councils. We believe, and the Civil Service believe, that there is need for reorganiza-

Supply-Civil Service
tion and re-classification. We know that the service is not perfect. It would be preposterous to say that, in an organization containing over 10,000 employees, there is not some difficulty; but no one more than the Civil Service themselves, will welcome an impartial reorganization and classification, and as a result of that would be brought into the service that peace and contentment to which it is entitled.
I do not know who i's responsible; but there is something radically wrong in a number of examinations that are now being held by the Civil Service Commission. Let me cite just this fact. In the Department of the Interior it was necessary to fill the position of a senior clerk. On the 22nd of December a letter was written by the deputy minister to the Civil Service Commission, stating:
On the 2nd November last, we asked you to fill by promotion from within the Dominion Lands branch, the vacant position of senior clerk, vice L. S. Forbes, retired. You sent us forms and we posted the position in the branch.
The deputy minister goes on to say:
X have just been advised by the head of the branch 'that these applicants have been- required to attend at the commission and write an essay on the Development of Land, Water and Aerial Transportation.
I appeal to the sense of justice of this committee and to hon. members who sit on the Progressive benches, who are familiar with homestead regulations and the laws regulating lands in the West. The paper set for that was:
Write an S00 word essay, or more, of at least six properly constructed paragraphs, on the following subject: The Development of Land, Water and Aerial Transportation.
The result of that examination was that none of those who had been recommended by the deputy minister for that position got it, but that it went to an outsider who was well qualified under that 'heading, but who knew nothing about the administration of lands in the West.
The way to cure this is to be honest with ourselves and to say that all those appointments that cannot come within the purview of a written examination, all those appointments that cannot come under a demonstration of skill, he taken away from the Civil Service Commission; that is that the Civil Service Commission be loyal to itself and return them to the proper authorities, to those to whom they belong; that the Civil Service Commission divest itself of those appointments and turn them over to the authority which ought to regulate them.
If that be done, the Civil Service will be contented, happy, and we shall have achieved our duty in enacting legislation which can be operated and we shall not be party to the disobeying, breaking and violating of laws which we ourselves have placed upon the Statute books of this country.


Mr. McGIVERIN:: I wish to congratulate my hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Chev-ritr) on this, his first speech in this House. He has very ably and thoroughly discussed this subject, arid I am heartily in 'accord with all that he has said. My colleague and I are sometimes called the long and the short of it. It is right and fitting on this occasion that the short shall he long and the long shall be short. I shall, therefore, be brief. I had the honour of representing the city k>f Ottawa in this House from 1908 to 1911. After that I suffered twice for the faith; but I came back in the last election. In 1908, the first movement in regard to civil service reform was instituted, and the inside service in Ottawa was brought under the commission. The act, as my hon. friend has said, is founded on the British Civil -Service Act, and it worked well. Civil service reform was founded on the entry into the service by a fair competitive examination, and as long as you have it on that basis it is all right; but when you reach the stage where you cannot get a fair competitive examination, as is the case in hundreds of appointments all over the country, you must of necessity get influence of some kind. I am in favour of civil service reform, but I want honest reform, and where you cannot get honest reform I prefer that the responsibility for appointment should be with the administration or heads of departments.
The other objection I have is that the act of 1919 gives altogether too much power to the Civil Service Commission in regard to appointments, promotions and classification. It takes away from the departmental heads the responsibility of handling the work of their departments. They are responsible to the ministers, the ministers are responsible to this House, and this House is in turn responsible to the people. The classification was not satisfactory. The Civil Service Commission themselves should have classified the service in co-operation with the heads of the departments instead of bringing in foreigners who had no idea of Canadian or any other civil service conditions. Under the 1908 act the Civil Service Commission
Supply-Civil Service

co-operated with the departmental heads; under this act the commission supersede them and are absolute in power. I do not believe in that.
In closing, I wish to say that the Government should inquire into the powers of the Civil Service Commission. Closely allied with this question is the revision of salaries. I shall have an opportunity next week of discussing that very important question when the cost of living bonus comes up. I feel confident that I shall then be able to show my fellow-members that civil servants are underpaid, and that the retention of the bonus is a most serious question and should meet with the sympathy of every member.
The Government should also deal with the question of superannuation and the desirability of establishing what are known as Whitley or inter-departmental councils.
If an investigation is made into these four matters I have every confidence that when the facts are brought before my fellow-members they will pass such legislation as will make for greater efficiency and contentment in the service. I am convinced that our Civil Service is efficient and hard-working, and in every way entitled to our support, and that it is incumbent upon us to see that its personnel is equitably treated.


Mr. McBRIDE:: The hon. member who
has just sat down stated that he did not think a single satisfactory postmaster had been appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I might tell him that three appointments have been made in my constituency since I was elected and the appointees are entirely satisfactory.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the hon. member permit me?


Thomas George McBride: I have the floor now.
The hon. member may poke fun at


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Cannot you answer a
question?


Thomas George McBride: The hon. member (Mr. Chevrier) made fun of the fact that a helper had to be able to go through a small hole of a boiler, but those who know anything about boilers are aware that this is absolutely essential in the process of cleaning.
Mr. PUTNAM. Will you permit a question?


Thomas George McBride: The hon. member stated that he thinks we ought to get back to the old patronage system. I do not want to

continue a member of this House if I am to be responsible for the appointment of civil servants throughout my constituency. I do not desire to assume that responsibility, for my duties here are sufficiently onerous without adding the burdens of patronage. My hon. friend also stated that in some cases returned men did not get a chance of appointment. My experience in my constituency has been that returned men have been given a chance every time, with one exception, and that was the case of the widow of a soldier who to-night sleeps over in France.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Chairman, I was a
member of this House when civil service reform was introduced by the late Hon. Sydney Fisher, and naturally since then I have followed every phase of the subject with considerable attention. It must not be forgotten that we can overdo even a good thing. Last year a special committee of this House made a report on the Civil Service, and I am going to read only a few lines to emphasize that point. This is the paragraph to which I wish to draw the attention of hon. members:
It is to be noted in taking this action in the direction of Civil Service reform Parliament has gone very much farther than the governments of Great Britain or the United States. In brief, Canada now has on its statute books a more radical and advanced measure of Civil Service reform than any other country in the world.
Canada is my native land and I am anxious to do all I can for her, but I do not consider that we possess all the wisdom in the world; indeed, I begin to suspect that if we have gone farther than Great Britain and the United States in this important matter we have perhaps gone too far.
Confederation had been consummated for forty years before Civil Service reform was introduced. We had got along very well without it, but as the country developed the responsibilities of our public men became so numerous and so onerous that in 1908 it was felt the time had come to institute a commission for the purpose of dealing with the inside service. Accordingly the Civil Service Commission came into being and was composed of Mr. Adam Shortt and Mr. Laro-chelle. Later on Mr. Shortt resigned and two of my former colleagues in this House, Mr. Roche and Mr. Jamieson, were appointed commissioners, Mr. Larochelle continuing in office with them.
The two hon. members for Ottawa have given you an idea to-night of how this

Supply-Civil Service
307:
civil service reform has worked in this city. I do not want to dwell any further on that point, but I would like to take a glimpse of the Civil Service as it affects a rural constituency. The original Civil Service Act applied only to the inside service, but in 1918 the outside service was brought in. We are here as representatives of the people. This is the parliament of the nation. The electors of my constituency cannot all come here, so they have delegated me to represent them, and my position is that of every member of this House. When election day comes along they vote for or against me. I am responsible for everything that happens, 'the actions of the Civil Service Commission included. I believe that the foundation stone of our political system is responsible government. I do not believe in shirking my duties. When the electors of my constituency write to me and point out certain grievances or ask for certain reforms, it is my duty to attend to those requests and to try to meet their legitimate demands, not to answer them by saying that I have nothing to do with the matter, that they must apply to the Civil Service Commission or to some other commission. That is simply shirking one's duty. A humble farmer down in my constituency who is not au fait with all the red tape machinations here naturally concludes, when he receives a reply like that, "Well, what is the use of sending members to represent us in Parliament if they have nothing to say in what concerns us?" There are about ninety-four post offices in my constituency. From 1911 to 1921, between fifty and seventy-five of the postmasters 1n these 'offices fwere changed. I do not wish to speak ill of the dead, but the late Hon. L. P. Pelletier, who became Postmaster General when the Borden government was formed in 1911, was a believer in the maxim:	"To the victors
belong the spoils," and every postmaster in my constituency who had any Liberal leanings was simply thrown out. The same thing was done in the Marine Department. In the archives of the Post Office Department to-day are to be found the records of these dismissals, the reasons being purely political in their character. I believe in a civil servant having the right to vote. I believe in a civil servant having the right to be Conservative or Liberal or Progressive, and that no man should be expelled from the service merely because of his political views.



REVISED

Robert James Manion: My hon. friend does not mean that he would permit them to take part in politics?


Charles Marcil: No, there is a provision in the act under which offensive political partisanship is to be punished by dismissal from the service. But in the cases I refer to, the allegations were very general, and the offices were simply handed over to the followers of the other party. That is an abuse that I do not want to see restored. I do not want to be in that position; on the other hand I realize that I am responsible to my electors. I do not want to be a dummy in this House; and my position is the position of every member of Parliament. When my electors tell me that a post office is badly managed or that a post office is or is not required, I do not want to have to say that I have nothing to do in the matter; that it is in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. The special committee of the House which went into this matter at the last session states in one of the paragraphs of its report that the appointment of postmasters in the rural parts of Canada rests practically with employees of the department; that the action of the Civil Service Commission in that respect is purely perfunctory. Here is what happens: A vacancy occurs. The Post Office Department is notified. The Post Office Department in turn, notify the Civil Service Commission, who are asked to make an appointment- and by the way, the salaries range from the princely sum of $60 a year up. One appointment was made a few months ago in my constituency; the vacancy occurred on the 15th of January and the appointment was made on the 20th of April. The postmistress in this case will receive $60 a year. I do not know how much was spent in making the appointment, but it could have been made in five minutes. Well, the Civil Service Commission, having been notified that a vacancy exists, sends a notice to the post office in question asking for applications. These applications come back to the commission and they are referred by it to the post office inspector for the district. The post office inspector for the district will treat these a tour de role; if he is overworked he will take his time about it. If it is important enough he will visit the locality or send a substitute, and in the course of time-two or three months -he will make a report to the commission. Now, the commission invariably accept the report of the post office inspector or



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Civil Service
[Stage Direction]
his substitute, which means that the appointment rests with an official of the department and that the representative of the constituency is not even informed that that a vacancy exists and has nothing to do in the matter. Believing, as I do, in responsible government, it is my view that the members representing these constituencies should have the say in this matter. The Civil Service Commission cannot, owing to the magnitude of the work and to the manner in which the commission is constituted, attend to appointments in connection with 18,000 post offices scattered all over Canada. They have not the knowledge; they have not the advantage of familiarity with local conditions, and it is not in the public interest that these appointments should be made in that way. There is no hon. member in this House who would be interested in making a bad appointment; if he did, he would pay the penalty when election day came around. He is interested, I say, in having a good appointment made, in making a good selection, in having the public satisfied, in seeing that the public interest is served. The amount of money expended in making these appointments under the present system must be very large, and I am sure that hon. members would be amazed at the amount that has been spent in connection with the classification of the service. For these reasons I consider that appointments to the outside service, with the exception of professional, technical or otherwise peculiar positions, should not remain with the Civil Service Commission. In the case of my constituency-and I assume it is the case of the average constituency in Canada-such appointments as district engineer, superintendent of lights, and post office inspector should be made by the Civil Service Commission, because these officials are really civil servants. But the man who gets $75 a year for lighting a lamp at night and extinguishing it in the morning can hardly be placed in the category of a civil servant; to appoint him in the roundabout way that I have mentioned is not in the public interest, and the method should be done away with. I know that there have been abuses in connection with the Civil Service, and that a hue and cry was raised throughout the whole country that patronage would have to be done away with. But patronage exists at present, though it is not exercised by those who have the right to exercise it; and those who have the right 
to exercise that patronage are the representatives of the people. The member of the constituency is the connecting link between the people and the government of the day, and it is my view that nothing should be done in that constituency until its representative has been advised of what is proposed to be done. He should at least be given an opportunity to express the wishes of his constituents. That, in substance, is what I claim for the outside service, and I hope that the Government of the day will-
Mr. McQUARRIE:: In case the government candidate was defeated, would the hen. member say that he should be consulted rather than the opposition member'


Charles Marcil: I think the member for the constituency should be consulted. From 1911 to 1921, for those ten years that I was in opposition, I never received one letter from any department of government, never was consulted on anything. I was simply ignored, and my position was simply that of every other member of the opposition. If any man contends that that is in the public interest, I shall not agree with him. The members elected are the representatives of the people, and they are here to carry out the wishes of the people, but they cannot carry them out unless they are given a voice in the administration of public affairs. Naturally the party in power may give the preference to its supporters; that is only fair. It is a principle long recognized, and will no doubt continue to be recognized under the system of party government that we have, but the member for the constituency even if he is on the opposition side, should not be ignored. In the case of appointments to the outside service, I contend that the commission themselves and those in charge of departments will admit that the present system is unsatisfactory, awkward, burdensome and very costly, and that it should be discontinued. I think that means should ibe found under the present legislation whereby the Government of the day could come to an understanding with the Civil Service Commission that certain classes of the outside service, and even of the inside service, such as have been mentioned by the hon. members for Ottawa, should be removed entirely from the operations of the act, which requires the Government to call on the commission to appoint charwomen, window cleaners, floor scrubbers, labourers and other help of that kind. The commission

Supply-Civil Service
should give its time to the civil service proper, as was the intent of Parliament in 1908, when -the late Hon. Mr. Fisher introduced his act. Let us not maintain a system that countries like England and the United States have not been able to follow.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: We ought to distinguish very clearly between the Civil Service Commission and anything that would do away with that commission, and, on the other hand, a criticism of the organization of that commission or of classification and administration under that commission. So far as my part of the country is concerned, we stand absolutely opposed to any return to the patronage system. That does not mean that we have necessarily arrived at the final form of civil service reform. It does seem to me, as I said the other night in this House, that there should be provision in some way that the work of the Civil Service Commission could be reviewed by this House. It is intolerable, I think, that any public body in this land should exist who would be entirely irresponsible, that is, in the sense of not being reponsible to the Parliament of this country. The work of this body should come under review in some form by the House, and I take it that here we should decide some of the underlying principles that should guide the commission in making appointments, promotions, and so on. That is an altogether different position from returning to the old patronage system and to the making of appointments largely as a matter of favour.
As a new member of the House, I hardly venture to suggest just exactly how this could be accomplished. It has seemed to me that we might have some sort of permanent parliamentary committee to deal with the Civil Service. That committee could review the work of the Civil Service Commission, bring reports and any outstanding grievances before the House. I think we could enunciate here certain principles which would guide the commission in its future work. That is one thing that I would advocate.
There is another suggestion that has been made by one of the representatives for Ottawa with respect to competitive examinations. It may well be that those in charge have made the examinations too academic in some respects, but that is not to say that we should have no competitive examinations at all. It would rather simply
197i
look to making the examinations more practical in character.
There are one or two other matters I should like to mention in connection with the Civil Service. There is the question of wages. In my own constituency we have a very large number of postal employees. As all the members of the House know, these postal employees, or the majority of them, are paid at a low rate, and what is true of them is true of the great body of civil servants. There was published a few days ago some figures with regard to the Civil Service showing that some 7,700 civil servants were receiving smaller salaries than $800, and 13,500 receiving $960 per annum or less. It seems to me that this is very little less than a disgrace to the government and the people of Canada. I take it that this Government, if anything, should try to be a model employer, and the first thing in connection with the employees is to see that they have at least a living wage. As we all know, that wage of $800 or $900 or $1,000 does not begin to come up to the minimum wage laid down by the Department of Labour as that which is essential in order that a man may support his family and give them the ordinary physical necessities of life. This great country is paying its own employees less than is sufficient to provide for the ordinary necessities of life. That is one of the abuses that ought to be remedied.
Further than that, there is the wide spread between the lower grade and the higher grade employees. That, too, is something which ought to be remedied. I know there are certain people who have a certain type of professional or organizing ability who have been able because of their high organization to secure in the past a certain high standard of living, but at this time, when we are urging that people should be reasonable in their demands, and when there is a tendency to standardize salaries, and to see to it that men are rewarded not so much in accordance with what they are able to press on the community as in accordance with the service rendered, it seems to me we might very well have a complete revision of these salaries, so that some people will not be receiving $6,000 or $8,000 or $9,000 a year, while other civil servants are receiving only $600, or $800, or $900. There is altogether too wide a spread in the salaries paid by this Government to its officials. I submit that this Parliament ought to have the power of de-
Supply-Civil Service

ciding these things. We should not be told time and again by members of the Government, who I believe are quite sincere when they put forward that position, that they have nothing to do with these matters as they are in the hands of the Civil Service Commission.
There is another thing, it would seem to me, that we might expect the Government to do. I think the Prime Minister himself has expressed his convictions already along this line, namely, that employees should have some voice at least in bhe conduct of their own affairs.
We have had put forward by the Minister of Labour at this very session the suggestion that we ought to have Whitley councils established. It would seem to me a reasonable thing to expect that the Government of Canada would be the first to institute councils of that character. It would be a great deal easier for the Government of Canada to do it-say in the Civil Service Departments-than it would be for a great many of the private firms to do it: and if this system can be administered in connection with the public departments it would certainly be a great leverage for some of us who want to see it carried out in the industries of the country. We believe that to-day no private employer or public corporation can say that a business is his own. We believe that, since we live in an age in which necessarily we must work in co-operation with one another, those who are termed employees have a vital part to play in the carrying on of industry and ought to have a real voice in the decision with regard to conditions of work, wages, and so on. So I would submit that in some way or other we should have a revision of the regulations with regard to the Civil Service which will make provision for a review of the work of the service before this House, and for the decision of big matters of public policy by this House, and that will provide such machinery as to details that the civil servants themselves will have a voice in carrying the work forward. It seems to me that these things would all tend to greater efficiency in the Civil Service itself.


James Joseph Hughes: The Civil Service Commission, as at present constituted and in its operation, appears to me to violate one of the first principles of responsible government, and one of the first principles of common sense. A hundred years ago we did not have responsible government in Canada and in those days the people con-
[ Mr. Woodsworth. ]
sidered it a very serious matter. At that time the collection and expenditure of the public revenue was left to an irresponsible body. The same body had the power of appointing men to carry on the public business, and the representatives of the people had nothing, or very little, to say in the matter. Against that condition of things the people actually rose in rebellion and to-day we look back in history and admit that the men responsible for that uprising were amply justified. We are proud of the steps they took to bring responsible government to Canada; we are proud of those who took part in those strenuous times; and we recall with pride the report of Lord Durham and the statesmanship of Lord Elgin. Well, in a measure we have got away from that position to-day. The people of Canada, through their representatives have surrendered their rights, have surrendered one of the functions of responsible government; and I would ask my Progressive friends to reflect upon that view of the situation. During the present session we have actually heard minister after minister declare that he cannot carry on the business of his department efficiently and economically because his hands are tied. Is that a proper condition of things? Did those ministers make statements that were correct? Do we really want to place members of the Government in that position? Is that really responsible government? As a member of Parliament I do not want ministers of the Crown to take that position. On the contrary I want to hold them responsible for the proper, efficient and economical management of their departments. As a member of Parliament I owe a duty to the country. My hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) said a short time ago that the whole of the people of Canada cannot come to Parliament; they must of necessity elect certain representatives to come here and do their business. My hon. friend was quite right in his statement and I would say this much further: The government of the day is a committee of Parliament. The Government is responsible to Parliament, and Parliament is responsible to the people. That is responsible government, and yet how can you have it in its entirety if the ministers of the day have no voice in the selection of the men who will assist them in carrying on the business of their departments, and no voice in promoting capable men in their departments? Now when that is the case, how can you expect efficiency in the public

Supply-Civil Service
service? There is not a business house in Canada that would introduce, or tolerate, such a system as that. I put that view of the matter to my Progressive friends who sit opposite. The patronage system may perhaps have been abused in the past, but even in its worst state it was not as bad as the present system. I take the ground that members of Parliament do not become corrupt as soon as they enter our legislative halls-


Ernest Lapointe: They have the temptation.


James Joseph Hughes: There are a great many temptations. That is what some people say but I have not experienced them. Now let us look at the matter from a common sense point of view. A member of Parliament is a man of some standing in the community. He must be such a man; he must be an honourable man and a man of integrity; otherwise no political party- Conservative, Liberal, or Progressive- would nominate him.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear,
hear.


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend says
"hear, hear", very well. Such a man is elected to Parliament, and yet we say that a person of that stamp should not be allowed to advise the government of the day in the selection in his county of a postmaster although he may be well acquainted with someone possessing the necessary qualifications, or a lighthouse keeper or as to who should fill some other small position. Why the situation is simply ridiculous. If the member of Parliament abuses his privileges he will not long remain in public life. We know, as a matter of fact, that in nine cases out of ten members of Parliament did not abuse their privileges in this respect. I do not care what party was in power it was not done as a rule. Now, as I have already stated, there is not at the present time a business house in Canada that would permit its business to be carried on in the way the government of Canada is obliged to conduct its business under the Civil Service Commission, and a remedy must be found. Last year this commission cost the country $360,-
000.	That, I think, was but a small portion of the actual amount, because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) stated here a few days ago certain facts which would go to show that the commission cost the country three, four or five times the amount that appears in the public accounts. The minister mentioned certain facts to
show that when he applied to the Civil Service Commission for men to do certain necessary work in his department the time for doing the work had passed before he could get the appointments made,and then it could not be done at all. Can government be carried on under such circumstances? It cannot be carried on efficiently and pro-i perly. This is not a partisan matter at all. It is not a view coming from Liberal members alone. A few days ago I was reading in the Montreal Gazette, a newspaper whose views can be relied upon by members in this House, and by people in this country-


Mr. CRERAR:: On all things?


James Joseph Hughes: On a great many things -on matters of this kind, at any rate. On the 26th April last the Gazette published an editorial dealing with the Civil Service, and the closing paragraph reads:
The present system is fundamentally defective in that it creates and maintains a government service which the government does not control. No great private administrative or industrial organization could be carried on efficiently upon any such basis, and the principle of responsibility applies equally to the business of government. The ministry which, for the time being, is charged with the conduct of the country's affairs ought to have the fullest measure of authority over the personnel of the service upon whose efficiency depends the success of the practical work of administration. The responsibility rests and must always rest upon the government, and, that being so, the government ought not to be divested of authority over its own staff, the selection of capable men for employment in the civil service is a duty which properly appertains to the government and belongs to the functions of government. No system which does not recognize that principle can be called a reform.
No sounder words can be uttered on this question. We have very large expenditures in this country over which the Civil Service exercises no control at all. It is only over a small portion of the public service that they exercise any control. For instance, the railways have the collection and expenditure of some three hundred and thirty or three hundred and forty million dollars a year, and the hiring and promotion of a vast number of employees, and the Civil Service Commission has no control over them. If it had there would be chaos.
When we take out of the public revenue the $140,000,000 of interest and some other statutory expenditures, what is left is very much less, indeed, than the expenditure on the National Railways. Yet we have a commission costing three or four hundred thousand dollars a year, interfer-
Supply-Civil Service

ing with the proper functions of the public service, embarrassing the ministers, and the government, and necessarily so. They cannot help it under the act. The Civil Service Commission, might, perhaps, if properly constituted, give some assistance to the government of the country, but, as constituted at the present time, and in the operations they are now performing, they are a positive injury to the efficient and economical management of the public business.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is the hon. member opposing this estimate and going to vote against it?


James Joseph Hughes: I am advocating a reform in the administration of the country. Under the late administration, there were far too many commissions appointed, and this was one of them. A member of the late administration made the statement that the commissions were more numerous than huckleberries in Kalamazoo. It was government by commission.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is not the
question. Is the hon. member going to vote to reduce this amount?


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member will have a chance to speak and tell the House what he intends to do. I am stating what I think should be done, and the position that the members of Parliament ought to take upon this matter. It is not a political question at all, in my judgment, and should not be made one. It is eminently a business question, having to do with proper administration and the carrying on of the functions of government, and I would ask my Progressive friends, who want to contribute their share towards the proper administration of public affairs, to take this matter into their serious consideration. Some change has to be made, it is overdue, and it ought to be made with the very least possible delay.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This question, which has engaged the attention of the House for the last hour and a half, is one of great importance and interest, not only to members of Parliament, but to the whole country. The need of an efficient, and loyal Civil Service is very essential to the successful carrying on of the administration of the country's affairs. I cannot agree with all that has fallen from the lips of my hon. friends opposite. With some of it I do agree. For one, I am fMr. Hughes.]
unalterably opposed to anything in the nature of a return to the old patronage system in filling the service of this country. The Civil Service Commission may not be all that it should be. I take it that my hon. friend1 from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) is not quite satisfied with the personnel of the Civil Service Commission. That may be or may not be-


James Joseph Hughes: No, I beg pardon, I did not make that statement.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am glad I misunderstood the hon. member. Upon that point i do not wish to pass an opinion, but, rather to deal with the principles underlying the law, as it is at the present time, and, if possible, to suggest wherein the law might in some respects be improved. If I were offering a criticism of the Civil Service Act, as we have it in practice now, since it was practically remade in 1919, it would be that the Civil Service Commission have altogether too much to do with the control of a civil servant after he enters the employ of the Government. I recognize that there are certain positions of a temporary character, such, for instance, as the services required to do work that is more of a daily character, where there is no permanency in the employment. In such cases as those, the securing of the people necessary to do that work might very well be taken out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission. That is an arguable point. But, as far as the permanent service of the country is concerned-and I care not whether it is the inside service or the outside service-that service should be placed, and maintained on the basis of competitive examination.
Once a person is in the service, he should have the fullest opportunity and encouragement to rise to the highest position, if his merits and ability warrant it. That is the condition that, I think, should obtain. I, therefore, hold this position, that all those filling situations of this character should enter the service through the gate of the Civil Service Commission, who would be entrusted with the duty and responsibility of seeing that the person coming info the service had the necessary qualifications. But, after that is done, it seems to me that, on the whole, we would, perhaps, get better results if ministers and deputy ministers in charge of the various departments had greater latitude in control of the service than they have at the present time. If a minister or a deputy minister in a department wishes to promote someone in his

Supply-Civil Service
department, if he wishes to transfer him from one branch of his department to another, that should certainly rest in his hands. If, indeed, for inefficiency or insubordination or for any other good reason, he wishes to dismiss a civil servant, then I think the power to do so should rest, if not altogether, at any rate, very largely in his hands. I know the Civil Service Act, as it stands at the present time, gives a civil servant a right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission. In that respect it puts the Commission in more or less of an administrative capacity which it should not occupy.


Mr. BUREAU:: Does the hon. member claim that a civil servant who is dismissed has the right of appeal to the commission?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sorry I failed to make myself clear, because I was arguing that that was a weakness in the present Civil Service Act.


Jacques Bureau: He has not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not quite understand my hon. friend.


Jacques Bureau: The question is this. Supposing I dismiss a man in my department, does the hon. gentleman claim that he has a right of appeal to the commission on account of the dismissal?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I say that that is one ol the defects in the present Civil Service Act, because you cannot get the directness of control that is necessary to efficient administration of a department of government under such conditions as that. The appointment of those servants who are engaged more or less temporarily in looking after canals, who are engaged as charwomen, as postmasters in rural districts, might, perhaps, be exempted from the scope of the Civil Service Commission.


Jacques Bureau: Lighthouse keepers.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This could apply to all
those duties or services of this kind that are in remote districts and that are not of a permanent character. The question has arisen that this is or should be a part of the duties of the member in the constituency, and some of my hon. friends opposite have argued that it is a negation of the principle of responsible government that; the member for a constituency has not the right to say who will fill a position in a certain lighthouse or a certain post office. I do not so understand the matter. I do not think
that is necessary to, or a part of, responsible government at all. It does appear to me, that the less the member of Parliament has to do with such appointments, the better for the service in the long run and the better for the member of Parliament. You ask me then:	How are those positions
to be filled? As regards rural postmasters, since I have been a member of Parliament,
I have never recommended any person for the position of rural postmaster. On one or two occasions I was asked, and I said:
I do not know who is the best person in that community to fill the position. You have an inspector somewhere in that territory, and if he knows his job, he can surely make the necessary inquiry and recommend the person who is the best man for the position. If he selects a man who is not qualified or competent to discharge the duties, public opinion in that district will very soon assert itself, and you will know that such is the case. If that practice can be adopted in the filling of those positions, holding the servants in the department who have to fill the positions or make the appointments strictly to account for the character of the people whom they select, then, I think, in the long run, you are going to get the highest state of efficiency that it is possible to get in the service. The difficulty with leaving to members of Parliament to make these recommendations is that it places the member in a very unfair position. One of the fundamental defects of the old method of making these appointments lay just in this, that the member almost invariably was under the pressure or, at any rate, under the temptation to fill the position with someone who had been a friend or a worker of his, in his political affairs-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why not?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Because I do not conceive that to be part of the business of a member. Are we to fill any position, no matter how small the emolument attached to it may be, on the basis of a reward for party service?


Mr. PUTNAM:: Is that not the way in
which the Senate is filled?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend wishes to make some changes as regard the method of appointments to the Senate, he will have my hearty support. But because the Senate is filled in that way and because the Senate might be filled upon a bad principle, is no reason why you should extend that
Supply-Civil Service

principle to the administrative services of the country. In making an appointment too, the member is almost certain to get into trouble. The hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) instanced what happened after 1911, and he spoke very truly. I know from personal knowledge that in case after case in western Canada, postmasters who were non-partisans, who had taken no part in politics, who were efficient officers, who were giving satisfactory services to their community, were displaced from their jobs and the position given to some person who had been a party worker. That method of appointment is not sound. It does not tend to efficiency in the country's business, and does not tend to a sound development of political and public morality.


Harold Putnam: Just to be practical, does the hon. member think that, generally throughout the rural districts of Canada, postmasters, whose positions have been filled in the past by what we might call, for short, the patronage system, are not giving really good satisfaction?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know. I know of cases where they did not give satisfaction. I know in many cases where good men were displaced and inferior men put in their place.


Harold Putnam: Generally?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I judge only by what has come under my observation and from what I know, gleaned in that way. I do not think that method of practice is a sound one in the selection of people for the public service.


Mr. LOVETT:: I think the hon. member stated a short time ago that the Post Office Inspector was the best man to select a man to fill the position of postmaster in a rural district. Am I right in that?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: How does the Post Office Inspector know the man suitable for such a position in a rural district when he lives miles away from that district? In the case of Nova Scotia, how could you expect an inspector living in Halifax to know whom to appoint down in Digby? Can you explain that?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not very difficult. If the inspector or other official has not the capacity to find out who is a suitable man to appoint as postmaster, he is not qualified for his job.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: How can he find out?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He would take his own means of finding out.


Mr. TURGEON:: Whom would he go to?


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: Is not that patronage?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, it is not.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: What is it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is the only way to get efficiency.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: It depends on who advises the inspector.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Under the conditions-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I perceive, Mr. Chairman, that I have stirred up something.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: I think my hon. friend will admit that I have not bothered the House very much this session.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Quite so.


Paul Lacombe Hatfield: Under the conditions that my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Lovett) mentioned, where there is a vacancy in a rural district and it becomes necessary for the inspector to select a suitable man, is it not within the bounds of reason that the elected representative of the people would be in a good position to give a recommendation which should carry weight?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I see no objection to inquiry being made of the member for the district as to who would be a suitable person, but the responsibility for the recommendation should lie with the officials in the department, and I think they can discharge that responsibility. Further, if there is any dissatisfaction with appointments made in that way, it will very soon be voiced by people in the district who are not getting the service they should get, and in that way you will develop throughout your services an efficiency and a singleness of purpose to secure the best men possible that in a few years will bring those services to a much higher plane of efficiency than can be maintained on any patronage basis. That is the argument I am trying to make. I think there are defects, as I stated a moment ago, in the Civil Service Act, and in my judgment those defects should receive the attention of Parliament and, if possible, be cured.
Let me repeat that I adhere absolutely to my opposition to anything that savours of a return to the patronage system as far
Supply-Civil Service
as the administration of this country's affairs is concerned. Lay down the conditions under which people shall come into the service. If your Civil Service Commission is not functioning as it should, if it is not efficient-and I am passing no reflection upon the present commission- then get a commission which is efficient, but do not charge any defect in administration against the soundness of the principle. That is the point I wish to make.


Jacques Bureau: The present commissioners are life appointees.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In any case Parliament is supreme in the matter. I shall deal now with an observation or two made by my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). I think one of the defects of the service is that it is over-staffed and over-manned. I believe that applies not only to the inside service, but very often to the outside service. That is inevitable when your service is built up, as it has been largely in the past, under the patronage system, because jobs were often found for people whether they were necessary to the service or not.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Would not my hon. friend also admit that this over-manning is due to improper organization, that one person will not touch another person's work as he would be compelled to do in an ordinary business establishment?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think my hon. friend is probably right in that observation, but when I contemplate the increase in the cost of running our civil government, it makes me reflect that something must surely be wrong. My hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg has stated that there are a great many servants underpaid. That may be. He also criticized the difference that exists between the salaries of low-paid and high-paid civil servants. I do not think his criticism in that respect is well founded. Objection has been taken at times in this House to paying government officials good salaries. Take, for instance, the department of my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance-possibly the greatest single administrative department in the country, having to do with the collection of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Can you say that it would not be profitable for the minister to get one, two or three men, if necessary, and pay them $12,000. $15,000 or $18,000 a year-men with the business ability to organize that great tax-collecting machine all over this Dominion and have it run more efficiently
and economically than is the case at the present time? I think many of our higher and more responsible public servants are underpaid rather than overpaid, and I believe it would be money in the treasury in the long run to secure men of marked organizing capacity and business ability to handle our service in an effective and efficient manner.
I have had some experience in business administration, Mr. Chairman,-not in a very large way perhaps, but still in a considerable measure,-and I have invariably found that when I selected a man because he was cheap and put him in a responsible position, he turned out to be an expensive man in the end. My experience has been that the greatest efficiency can be secured only by paying the necessary salary to get the man who possessed the requisite ability to fill the position. And the same thing will apply to government administration. You cannot always put government administration on the same basis as the administration of a private business, because the two things are often in their nature essentially different, but nevertheless it is possible to go a very considerable way towards placing the administration of the government service upon the same basis as the administration of private business and have the same considerations obtain.
I believe it is the desire of every hon. member to have the administration in the inside services here at Ottawa as well as in the broader field outside, placed upon a thoroughly efficient basis, and the cost of running the government machine cut down to the lowest point possible consistent with maintaining the necessary efficiency. That is very essential when we consider the terrific tax burdens the people are carrying to-day. Every thousand dollars, every million dollars that can be cut from the cost of administration is that much saved for the tax-payers. In my address on the budget I offered some suggestions to the Government in regard to the reorganization of the government service. In considering the estimates not only this year but in previous years I have been struck with the evident overlapping of work in the various departments. If the whole proposition is tackled in a broad, vigourous way I think great economies can be effected, and unquestionably the people of Canada are expecting this Parliament and Government to practise economy in the public services wherever it is possible to do so.

Supply-Civil Service


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does my hon. friend not think that it is the duty of the Civil Service Commission to see that governments do not put half a dozen men in to do the same work in different departments -work that should be coordinated? Does he not think that in the fulfilment of its proper functions the commission should see that that sort of thing is not done? That is what they are there for.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I do not concede
that that is the business of the Civil Service Commission. I do not think that the commission should in any sense be an administrative body.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It is to-day.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That may be; I am
stating what I think-that it should not in any sense be an administrative body. Its duty should be to see that only persons with the necessary qualifications are admitted to the Civil Service; * that being done, the responsibility for the efficiency and economic management of the various departments must rest upon the Government and the ministers in charge of those departments.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Mr. Chairman, if I
take the liberty to express my views upon this important subject, it will be only to repeat what I said in the last Parliament; for I have not changed my opinion since. This matter must be considered from many angles. We have to secure not only the efficiency of the service, but the greatest possible economy in the making of appointments as well as in the general administration of departments. Since 1918, when the disposition of appointments was put entirely in the hands of the Commission, the cost of administering the Civil Service has tremendously increased. It is well known that before that time appointments to the outside service did not cost the Government one cent. The recommendation of a person for appointment to a position in the Government service is a great responsibility on the part of the member of Parliament. I had the patronage of my county for many years, and I have been elected on each occasion with increased majorities; had I used bad judgment or recommended the appointment of inefficient or dishonest persons, I would have been defeated when the next election came on. I say it is a great hardship to have the exercise of patronage in your county. A member has to be on his guard all the time; when a vacancy occurs he has to be sure to select a man who is capable and efficient, but

one who is in public life should be prepared to give his best energies to his county and to his country; if he is not prepared to assume that responsibility, let him stay at home. From the aspect of economy, I may point out that when a postmasters in a rural district dies or leaves his position, it takes two or three months for the Commission to appoint another man in his place, and the cost runs up to two or three hundred dollars. Under the old system, during the fifteen years that I had the patronage of my county I simply wrote a letter to the Postmaster General or to the minister of the department concerned, and the appointment was made without one cent of cost to the country. In the last four years it has cost thousands of dollars to appoint men in my county who have no more right to the positions than anybody else. We are responsible for the expenditures of public money, and we should protest against sudh a system as this. During the last three or four years I have had a rest because I have not been consulted in matters of! patronage in my constituency; and in the case of some of the appointments made the officers are certainly not the most efficient. But there would have been no use in my complaining to the commission; I would not have been listened to. In the earlier years* following the placing of all these matters in the hands of a commission, I took the trouble to make recommendations for appointments, naming men whom I personally knew to be well qualified for the positions concerned, but not one man recommended by the member for Gloucester was appointed. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) knows that I know very well every man in the county of Gloucester, his qualifications and his efficiency. The member for the county is the one who best knows his constituents. I do not know the families in the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Baxter); I could not make recommendations for appointments in his constituency, neither could he make selections for appointments in mine. The post office inspector, to whom the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) referred, is in the same position; if he lives in the city of Halifax, what does he know about the local conditions in Amherst and other places? Now, what should be done? Men appointed to positions in the outside service must be efficient and of good character. Take the case of fishery officers; every fishery inspector or guardian occupies, in his own little district, a judicial position. He has power

Supply-Civil Service
308.3
to impose fines, he must be a man of sterling honesty. But how does the Commission know of his qualifications in that respect? They find out whether he knows that two and two make four-that is what it amounts to.


An hon. MEMBER:: A small man for a small hole.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The commission has
lately stated that it might be well if appointments to positions involving a salary under $200 were recommended by the member for the county. It may not have been so intended, but I look upon that as the greatest insult that could be offered to the representatives of the people in Parliament. It is an insult for a member of Parliament to be told that he is not fit to make appointments carrying a salary of over $200. I see the ex-Minister of Agriculture in his seat. It is an insult to him and hon. gentlemen opposite just as much as it is to me. If I am not qualified to nominate a man for a position worth $1,000 or $2,000, I do not want to choose a man for a position worth $200. My hon. friends of the Progressive party, led by my hon. friend from Marquette, say, let us do away with patronage, but in ten years' time they may find that the public service in the prairie provinces has been degraded because no responsibility for it attaches to members of Parliament, and before that time comes, it will have cost millions of dollars to the country. If a member is not willing to accept this responsibility, let him not seek to be elected to Parliament. He is the only one who can be held to account for the proper carrying on of the public service in his constituency, and he should be ready to accept that responsibility. This same Government that after 1911 put out every public official in the Dominion of Canada who was a Liberal or Liberal appointee-[DOT] and they cannot deny that, every such official was dismissed, and the only exceptions in my county were the postmasters in five or six places where there were no Conservatives in existence-


Mr. BOYS:: Does the hon. member say that that state of affairs existed throughout the whole of Canada?


Onésiphore Turgeon: Certainly.


William Alves Boys: In my riding from 1911 to the present time not one official was dismissed who was a Liberal.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Perhaps they were all Conservatives.


Ernest Lapointe: They were all dismissed in my riding.


Robert James Manion: In justice to the party, I would like to say the same for my riding as the hon. member for South Simeoe has said for his. I was not of this party in 1911, so I am not a biassed witness, and I do not know of a dismissal in my section of the country since 1911. I know one postmaster, a very well known man, who was appointed by the Liberals, and who has been kept in by the Conservatives ever since, and he is still in that position, though he is opposed to both parties now so far as I know.


William Alves Boys: I just want to make good my assertion. One of the first things brought to my notice when I came in at the by-election in 1912, was a request to dismiss the postmaster at Thornton who had been a Liberal all his life, but I declined to have anything to do with it.


Onésiphore Turgeon: There may be exceptions, where there were no Conservatives to be found, but we all know that the outside service was practically eliminated after the election of 1911, and that thousands and thousands of Liberals were dismissed all over the country.


Mr. MICHAUD:: And dismissed without any investigation.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I admit that in constituencies in Ontario which were largely Conservative the axe may not have been applied so ruthlessly, but it is well known that Liberals all over the country were dismissed.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Does that refer to the Department of Agriculture too?


Onésiphore Turgeon: We have very few officials of the Department of Agriculture in my constituency or in the province of New Brunswick, but I believe it applies to that department also.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: With regard to the constituency of Victoria City 1 know of no such dismissals, and with regard to the Department of Agriculture, it is a well known fact that nearly all the branch heads are Liberal's or Liberal appointees, and excellent men they are. None of them were shifted1; they are there still, and are rendering good service.
Supply-Civil Service


Onésiphore Turgeon: I am only speaking of the outside service.
Mr.BOYS: I will make this assertion, and I would be very glad to see the Government take it uip, that since 1911 down to the present time, not one per cent, of the officials of Liberal faith throughout the province of Ontario have been dismissed.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, this is being turned into an experience meeting.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I have already said that in Ontario the axe was not used to the same extent.


William Alves Boys: I spoke of Ontario because 1 really do not profess to know very much about the other provinces.


Onésiphore Turgeon: In 1911, there were only eight or ten Liberal constituencies in Ontario, and the ministers representing the province of Ontario took good care to keep their friends in office. That accounts for the comparatively small number of dismissals in Ontario. In 1919, this same government that dismissed these officials after 1911, thinking that they had their op-pointees nominated all over the country and the outside service filled with their supporters, brought the outside service under the commission in order to keep their appointees in the service. That is what was done. I protested at the time, and I am only repeating to-night what I said two or three years ago in this Parliament. I say that in the -best interests of the country, in the interests of the Civil Service, and more particularly for the sake of economy, for which my hon. friend from Marquette has made such a strong appeal, the responsibility for making appointments should be with the memibers of Parliament, whose duty it is to accept that responsibility. I am prepared to take the responsibility. If I have made a mistake and a man has been appointed who is not doing his duty, could I let that man stay in office? No, I would be the first to ask for his dismissal in the interests of the service. The outside service is not in the same position as the inside service, which has responsible heads. In the departmental offices here in Ottawa all the clerks are under the different heads. If a clerk does not know enough of his arithmetic or of his grammar-which is all that is required most of the time-the deputy minister or his chief puts him out-
Some hori. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Or relegate him to his old position.


Lewis Herbert Martell: When a man is not fit for his job they put him in the Marine Department to stamp lobster labels.


Onésiphore Turgeon: As I said a few moments ago in some of the minor positions in the service the responsibility is not large neither does any large amount of money pass through the hands of the office holder. On the other hand in the case of the customs service many officers become the custodians of very large sums. Such a man is under the supervision of his member, to use an expression that is quite common in the country constituencies; he is under the supervision of the man who formerly was responsible for his appointment and therefore he conducts himself with great circumspection. Now the action of the late government in bringing the Outside Service under the control of the Civil Service Commission was done without serious consideration, and is not likely to commend itself to the people when they think over the present situation. The government which is charged with the responsibility of looking after the larger interests of the country should be in a position to care for the smaller interests as well. Because, after all, it is very often the small things which play an important part in the happiness and prosperity of the people. In closing let me say that I think I have given utterance to nothing that is opposed to the principles of true democracy.


William Garland McQuarrie: My hon. friend who has just taken his seat has not described the situation quite correctly. If this discussion proves anything it proves that the late government actually did abolish patronage.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: If the late government abolished patronage it did so by placing a man in the Civil Service Commission who took the pains before he was put there to sweep the board clear of every Liberal in my constituency.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have heard various statements of that kind to-night but I can only speak from knowledge of my own district and my own province, and as far as I am aware there was no wholesale dismissal of Liberals in our country. During the last Parliament we were told by hon. members who are now sitting on the government side that patronage had not been abolished at all; that the claim that it had been was a farce, and that it still

Supply-Civil Service
existed in the same old form. Now they are finding out that such is not the case. When we hear ministers of the Crown standing up here and saying "For God's sake give me power," and when we hear hon. gentlemen opposite complaining today about the situation in which they now find themselves, we know that the pledge of the government which was elected in 1917 was really carried out, and that patronage was abolished. Now as far as I am concerned I would not like to see patronage restored, particularly now-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Garland McQuarrie: We used to hear about the abolition of patronage. That was one of the planks in the platform of the Union Government-abolition of patronage including patronage for Conservatives. Now, conditions have changed and we hear a cry for the restoration of patronage, which I suppose means the restoration of patronage for Liberals.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not patronage
but justice.


William Garland McQuarrie: The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), for whom I have a great deal of respect, expressed the view that members of Parliament should be consulted about appointments regardless of their political views, but he was frank enough to say that the appointment should go to supporters of the government of the day. Well, that is a fair statement on his part.


Charles Marcil: If the
hon. member will pardon me, I said that the party in power ought to give the preference to its friends but that I did not approve of the principle of ignoring the representative of a constituency as was done in my case for ten years.


William Garland McQuarrie: I think the hon. member will also be frank enough to say that previous to that time the Conservatives were ignored by the Liberal government. But the point I am coming to is this: The principle involved here is not that the member for the constituency should have something to say, but that the members supporting the government, or the defeated candidates for that matter, should have the say and that patronage for the Liberals should be restored.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Does my hon. friend
expect the Liberal party to remain in power for eternity?


William Duff: Certainly.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Well perhaps my hon.
friend is right. But chances will come and the party of the hon. member (Mr. Mc-Quarrie) will have its turn.


William Garland McQuarrie: It may be time for
a change in my hon. friend's constituency but his constituents do not seem to think that; he has been there for a long time now. Hon. members opposite doubtless will say that this is the psychological moment for the restoration of patronage because their party may not be in power for a very long time. That is quite probable. All indications or signs point to that and I will agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Turgeon) to that extent. As a matter of fact this Government has not a majority at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Any fool can govern
with a majority.


William Garland McQuarrie: It is quite evident that hon. gentlemen opposite want to get back to the patronage system. I am opposed to that, I do not think it would be a good thing at all. I certainly would not like to see them carry out wholesale dismissals so as to enable them to give appoint-mente to their friends. I say it would be a very bad thing indeed to do or to interfere with the Civil Service Commission at all.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: Did not the Tory party
do that kind of thing after 1911?


William Garland McQuarrie: I have already said that so far as I know they certainly did not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Garland McQuarrie: The hon. member
from Hants (Mr. Martell) smiles. A few minutes ago he said that when the civil servants were no good they put them in the Marine Department. He should know, because he was in the Marine Department himself. Personally, I am very much opposed to the restoration of patronage. I think appointment by the Civil Service Commission is the proper system to adopt; I have no criticism to make of the present members of that commision, and I have not heard any criticism here to-night. No one seems to have taken that stand. Apparently, they are doing their duty conscientiously, and doing it well-to the best of their ability at all events. But I have always thought that members of Parliament, irrespective of what party they be-
Supply-Civil Service

long to, might be consulted or, referred to more than they have been in reference to appointments, because in most cases they know something about the applicants for positions, and will be able to say whether they are suitable for appointment or not. I do not say that the recommendation of members should necessarily be accepted, but I think they might be referred to, in the case of some of the appointments, and they might be asked for their recommendation, and if they had any objections to raise, those objections should be taken into consideration. I wish to put myself on record as being in favour of the continuation of the Civil Service Commission. It may be that certain classes of appointments might very well be taken away from that commission. That matter was the subject of an act passed last session, and some arrangement might be made whereby some of the classes which have been referred to might be taken out of the jurisdiction of the commission, but I say, do not restore patronage, particularly patronage for the Liberals.


Mr. CARRUTHERS:: For the benefit of my innocent friends across the way, these doubing Thomases, I wish to say that I stand here to-night as a living example of the Grit officials who were beheaded in 1911.


Mr. LOGAN:: And in Ontario, too.


John W. Carruthers: In Ontario, too- cut off very close to the shoulder, with only 30 days' notice given me and not even the semblance of an investigation. This was done by a gentleman whom a number of hon. members know, W. R. Smythe, exmember of Parliament for East Algoma, a gentleman employed a little later, and still employed, at a salary of some $4,000 per annum. He was appointed in October, just previous to the election. I understand he refused to go into East Algoma to support my opponent, Mr. Nicholson, unless he got the appointment. Within a week or two after, he got the appointment from the late government-and yet there was no patronage!


Mr. SIMPSON:: What is the source of my hon. friend's information when he makes the statement that Mr. Smythe refused to go into East Algoma during the last election campaign?


John W. Carruthers: Well, he went there immediately after. I might say, in regard to East Algoma, that I know of only one or possibly two unimportant offices held, in the whole of that large riding

of 40,000 square miles by Liberals today. The great majority of Liberals holding office were summarily dismissed after the election of 1911, and that cannot be contradicted. I wish, for the benefit of my hon. friends on the Government benches, to refer to the trouble they are liable to get into with the civil service in Ottawa. I wish to give concrete examples that I have run across since I came down here, as a member, to show that there is no continuity in the departments. It seems to be a pigeon hole service, a hole here and a hole there, and there is no connection between them. I came here and laid before the Post Office Department a claim for $178 owing to residents of my riding, and the inspector did not know anything about it. I said to him. "These men who make this claim are strictly honest business men, and I do not think they would make the claim unless they were entitled to the money." I left him then and in two weeks' time, I was called down to his office, and he said: " Doctor, you were right and I was wrong; we owe that money ". That was on the 8th day of May. He gave instructions to have that cheque issued by the department. A day or two ago I got a letter from one of these gentlemen, saying that they had never received the cheque. I went to the department, and the superintendent looked up the files and showed me where his order had been issued that the money should be paid on the 18th May. It was never paid. On the 13th June that cheque had not been issued. There is an example of the overmanned Civil Service of the City of Ottawa. Someone is responsible for that. That money had been owing by the government to these people for nearly a year, and yet payment was delayed from the 18th May, and I do not know whether it is paid yet. It may go back into the pigeon hole, and I may get a letter a month hence, asking about that cheque.
I wish to refer to another matter in connection with the Marine Department. I do not like to make these complaints, but I think the minister should know, because he will get the blame, and not the subordinates. It was in connection with a derelict tug boat that was sunk in the channel of Little Current, last fall. This tug boat went upon a shoal, and lay in such a position that logs could not be towed through the channel, and millions of feet of logs have to be towed through every summer. Mr. Burke, of the Mid-

Supply-Civil Service
land Towing Company, wrote me in the winter. I came here early in March, to have the matter rectified, and I went to the department. Just before the towing season began, I got a wire from Mr. Burke, saying that his tug would he at the head of the channel in one week, and no move had been taken to remove the derelict from its position in the channel. I went down to the department and asked them to show me the files, in order to see what had been done, and what did I find? The department had written one letter to the insurance company, who held insurance on that tug, and had written one letter to the owners of the tug, and the matter dropped. It was never followed up:	There should
be some driving force to keep those things in motion, and therefore, as I say, I think I should bring this matter to the attention of the Government so that the minister may take action in the matter. Those are two concrete cases that, as I say, I find fault with. I do not know whether the trouble is due to the Civil Service Commission or not, but I do not wish my friends in the Government to get the blame of it.


Robert James Manion: I did not intend to take part in this debate; but the thought has struck me that it is rather extraordinary that, throughout the whole discussion, so far as I have heard-and I have been here during the most of it-not one word of praise has come from my hon. friends opposite for the Civil Service Commission. Apparently, many of them have been hit very hard or have been approached very strenuously since the election, and I understand the position must be difficult for a government getting into power after it has been out. I have never had the experience of being in Parliament when patronage existed. I came here in 1917 and when I look back I can think of no position that was filled in my constituency since I came into the House in which appointment I had any power whatever.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Can the hon. member point to a single instance where the government of which he was a member, or the so-called Union Government of 1917 to 1921, ever gave a position of any sort to a person who was known to be a Laurier Liberal?


Robert James Manion: I do not know of any appointments being given to Laurier Liberals, but I know of a number that were given to Liberals.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Of the Union variety.


Robert James Manion: I can name Senate appointees of the Liberal faith who, in the recent election, got out and fought against members of the late Union Government. That, however, is not the point.


Mr. STANSELL:: I think I can give the hon. member a case if he wishes it. I have in my constituency a man who was a life-long supporter of the Conservative government. He was retired and he had appointed in his place in 1921 a strong Laurier Liberal.


Robert James Manion: What I was going to say was that I had never anything to do with any appointment in my constituency, and I have never had a complaint from my constituency because I have not had anything to do with the appointments. I have no complaint to make of the fact that I have had nothing to do with appointments, and I am very glad to be rid of that occupation. I remember my predecessor and many in this House of the older members will remember Jim Conmee. He was a member in the old days when patronage existed on both sides. Whenever a government was Conservative, the Conservatives got the favours, and whenever a government was Liberal, the Liberals got the favours. I remember a joke told on him and I rather think it was true, that one day he came into my constituency and was told that during the election So-and-so was working against him. He said: "That is rather a funny thing; I have never done him a favour." The idea is the same as my experience has been that, wherever I have been able to do favours-I am not speaking in a political sense-in most cases the man for whom I have done favours has been very apt to be the first man to oppose me. I remember a case of a man in my constituency who was appointed by the same Jim Conmee in 1907, and given a good position. After 1911, the Conservative party kept him in the same position and his salary gradually increased, until to-day he is getting a pretty good salary. During the last election, not openly, but privately, this gentleman supported the Progressive who was opposing me, so that he went back on both the Liberal party which had appointed him and the Conservative party which had kept him in his position.
I wish to say just one word in fairness to the Civil Service Commission, because that is really what I rose to do. I have had no occasion, since I have been a mem-
Supply-Civil Service

ber, to make appointments or to suggest appointments to them. In a few cases where returned soldiers have asked me to recommend them, I have given them a general letter of recommendation; but I have yet to think of any such man that was appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I have, however, no complaint to make of any appointment made in my constituency by the Civil Service Commission.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member got his own friends.


Robert James Manion: I did not get miy friends. I have stated that, as regards any man whom I have recommended in a general way, I have not had one appointed; but I have never had a complaint from my constituency as regards appointments made by the Civil Service Commission. In other words, as regards appointments made in my constituency and also, I believe, in the neighbouring constituency of Port Arthur, there have been no complaints by the people of those constituencies. I believe it is only fair that that should be said about the Civil Service Commission. I admit there are faults in the present law and no doubt they should be remedied. Perhaps there are cases where the Civil Service Commission could favour the member of the constituency and do it in justice to all parties concerned. I have had this happen in my constituency-and this is irritating

that an inspector has come in to make inquiries regarding an appointment in the Civil Service and he has consulted many other people but has not come to me. I believe that he should have consulted me as well as other people, but I think the appointment was a good one when he made it.


Harold Putnam: Was the hon. gentlemlan satisfied that the returned soldiers whom he recommended were turned down?


Robert James Manion: I had no particular complaint to make because the positions were given to returned soldiers. If they had been given to other than returned soldiers, I would have had a complaint.


Harold Putnam: They were subject to examination?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Harold Putnam: And could not pass it?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but Someone passed it higher than they.


Harold Putnam: Does the hon. gentleman know whether they passed the examination or not?


Robert James Manion: I do not know, but I am simply saying that I know of none of them that got an appointment. I have, however, no complaint to make of the appointments that were made.


Harold Putnam: I have as regards returned soldiers being turned down on technical examinatioins.


Robert James Manion: As I understand the existing law, where a number of men try an examination, if one of them is a returned soldier and he passes the examination, he comes before any other man who passes. If the soldier fails on the examination, then, theoretically at least, he is supposed not to be able to fill the position.


Harold Putnam: Does that imply that the hon. gentleman agrees with the examination questions.


Robert James Manion: I do not say that I agree with some of the questions that are put, but I agree with the principle of examination, or you could not have anything in the shape of a Civil Service Commission. I have not gone into the question in detail, but I have seen in the press some of the questions that have been put. Generally speaking, the principle of examination is correct.


Harold Putnam: Would that not depend entirely upon the common sense of the questions in regard to the duties required of a man in a position?


Robert James Manion: The questions should certainly relate to the job; and what I say is that if the questions do not relate to the job I would not agree with them. I am trying to point out that the principle of examination is what I stand for, not for the questions that may be put.


Charles Marcil: In all cases in the outside service?


Robert James Manion: No, they could not well be examined.


Charles Marcil: Does the hon. member approve of the way appointments are made at the present time?


Robert James Manion: That is the case I cited. When an inspector comes into a constituency to make an appointment, I think it should be his duty to call upon the sitting member amongst other people and give his views consideration. That has not been done sufficiently, in my experience at least. I wish, however, to say that generally, by and large, I have found the Civil Service

Supply-Civil Service
Commission something which has not been complained about in my constituency. I wish to be fair to them in saying that, and I have never had an appointment made through them. I think it is only fair to them that those who have had that experience should say so. We have not had many instances, certainly none from the opposite side, and very few from this side, of rendering them the justice that, I believe, is due them. They occupy a very difficult position, and I believe, by and large, they occupy it pretty well.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If everything was so
perfectly satisfactory, particularly as regards the outside service, why did you want the Spinney Bill last session?


Robert James Manion: I did not specially want
it. I do not remember even what the Spinney Bill was. Everything is not satisfactory, improvements can be made, but I do not believe that the people as a whole are willing to go back to the old patronage system.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention at this late hour to speak at length; moreover the ground has fairly well been covered by the hon. members who 'preceded me in this debate; nevertheless this question concerning the Civil Service is so important that I deem it my duty to give to this House my views on the subject. Let me first state that I have nothing against the commissioners of the Civil Service; they are eminent men in whom I have confidence; however, I believe that the late government overburdened them with work and perhaps even with excessive powers. Mr. Chairman, it has always been an element cf surprise to me to hear the hon. ministers, in answering questions asked by members, state that they could not be held responsible for the present state of things, and that their authority was very limited over a great number of their employees; the same could be said with reference to their salary; finally that they were entirely in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. Perchance, would that Commission be more important than the Government? Again, I believe that the Borden government invested this commission with too much power. The thought which guided the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in establishing the Civil Service Commission was to give the commission, so far as positions were concerned, control of the inside service; that is to say that examinations
would be held and the most successful candidate would be given the vacant post. 'So far as this went, it was quite correct. But a great blunder was made in 1917, when the late government handed over the control of the outside service to the Civil Service Commission. I cannot see how the members of that commission can, with efficiency, choose workmen, elevator men, carpenters or persons belonging to other trades. I believe that members are better judges of those who have such qualifications to fill these positions. I repeat, in my opinion, that it was a mistake to give the control of the outside service to the Civil Service Commission. Now, I wish to pass a few remarks in regard to the famous re-classification which was made, a few years ago, by Griffenhagen and Company.
I always thought it bad policy that the Borden government considered it wise to fetch foreigners from the United 'States to perform work that they should have done themselves. I contend that the heads of departments were sufficiently qualified to classify the employees. I fail to understand how these foreigners in the course of a few weeks could size up the qualities r.eeded or the value of the work of such employees. Accordingly many complaints have reached us ever since this classification was made. No one was satisfied; all the employees complain and say they have been unjustly dealt with, and I believe they are perfectly right. To my personal knowledge, I am aware that employees having important duties to fulfil, receive, according to this famous re-classification, very inferior salaries. I was anxious to protest against the work done by these gentlemen who have upset everything in the Civil Service and created discontent everywhere they set foot. It seems to me that salaries amounting to six or seven hundred dollars per year are not equitable. I do not believe that an employee can live in a decent manner with a salary of fifty or sixty dollars a month. I cannot understand how these gentlemen who had charge of the reclassification could have discovered positions at such paltry remuneration. I am convinced that the grievances are well founded and ask the Government to start anew, at least for some parts of the service, this re-classification made with such lack of knowledge and very often unjustly. I am aware that the Government must protect the interests of the ratepayers, but on the other hand they must be just towards the employees of the Civil Service. They are an important

Supply-Civil Service

class of servants; they are for the most (part able men, and once more, I repeat it, I believe they have cause to complain of the manner in which things were conducted.
A short while ago, I heard some hon. members on the Opposition side make the statement that in their counties there had been no dismissal of employees when the Conservative party assumed power, in 1911. I have no knowledge of what occurred in my neighbour's counties but I can state that in my constituency many employees and competent ones, who were irreproachably fulfilling their duties, were dismissed for the simple reason that they were Liberals. I know that in my constituency, as well as in the county of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) a great number of postmasters were removed without cause, simply owing to their connection with the Liberal party; I also know that a great number of employees, in the different departments were dismissed. I might cite the case of a lock watchman, belonging to my constituency, who was discharged because he was a Liberal. Moreover a great number of workingmen of Hull, who were employed by the Public Works Department, were dismissed for the same reason: they were Liberals. The Borden government, between the years 1911 and 1914, dismissed 11,000 employees, under the guise of economy, yet, it found it possible to replace these 11,000 by 23,000 employees who were taken into the service during the same period. It goes without saying that these gentlemen now in the Opposition have made a frightful abuse of patronage. After dismissing our friends, they overcrowded the departments with their own friends, and some time later they passed this famous legislation abolishing patronage, knowing fully well that they would be defeated in the election as it so happened, however making sure beforehand of the permanency of their friends.
I want to protest against this way of doing things, and I feel fully confident that the present Government, which is prompted by a desire to render justice to all groups, will find means to ameliorate the present situation and will amend the Civil Service Act in a way that all political parties will be put on the same footing. I do not believe that it is in the country's interest that the party in power alone should have the right to distribute favours, as it was practised by the Conservative party.
Once more, in the name of my electors and those of the whole country, I ask the

Government to amend the Civil Service Act in such a way as to pay equitable salaries to employees, so that like all other citizens of this country, they may be placed in such circumstances as to enable them to bring up their families decently.


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary) (Translation):: whose efficiency was not to be gainsaid, were deliberately cast aside. When we came to enquire about the qualifications of this young man who, on the recommendation of the higher Library officials, climbed from the position of messenger to that of assistant secretary or book-keeper, I do not know exactly, the one who had recommended him was not aware whether he had passed any examinations. To the truth of this statement, the Speaker of the House of Commons might bear testimony as he was chairman of this committee. You cannot imagine the answer we were given! Mr. Tache in his answer put down a date which allows me to state, that at that time, the person whom he recommended could hardly have been born. Well, Mr. Chairman, do you think that Parliament can ratify the acts of this Civil Service Commission, which acts on such information as I have just stated? I contend that under the present circumstances, when we must ever be practising economy, we have no right to waste the money of the Public Treasury.
In the money order branch of the Post Office Department, there is a young clerk with twelve or fifteen years' experience, who has trained three of his companions to the work that is done in that branch. Now, of late, high officials of this Department-as in the case I was mentioning a moment ago -recommended to the Civil Service Commission those three pupils, the first of which is deserving, the second being so, so, and the third utterly worthless; however, their "coach" was deliberately kept in the background although his record is most satisfactory.
There is in the Naturalization branch of the Department of the Secretary of State- we must look into every corner-a licentiate of laws-a qualification which is essential for that kind of work-who took a full course of classical studies; and next to him is a man who has had only a very elementary education, with no legal knowledge, whose salary nevertheless, is higher than his own.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame!


Hermas Deslauriers: A public servant taking advantage of his position to secure for himself back pay and an increase in salary should be called upon to clear himself before his remuneration is confirmed. For instance, we have the example of the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. W. Foran. When a question is put or information is asked for

by an hon. member whom the people have elected, so that he might uphold the public interests, that member is entitled to be acquainted with the whole truth, even by the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission. Thus, when the hon. member from Belle-chasse (Mr. Fournier) was asking questions concerning the commission, its secretary was bound to state the facts. The hon. member asked:
1.	Has the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission been classified?
2.	If so. by whom?
3.	What was his salary on April 1, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922?
4.	Did he receive any back pay ?
5.	If so, what amount?
6.	At what date, month and year?
On April 10, 1922, the hon. Secretary of State gave the following answers:
1.	Yes.
2.	The Parliament of Canada, on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. (See classification volume adopted 10th November, 1919).
3.	April 1918, *4,000 ;	1919,	$4,260 ;	1920,
$4,400 ; 1921, $4,620 ; 1922, $5,100.
4.	Yes.
5.	$960.
6.	31st December, 1921.
As you may see, we are referred for our evidence to the classification volume adopted on November 10, 1919.
On May 5, 1922,1 put the following question to the Government:
How many coipies of the edition of the 10th of November were distributed.
This is the answer I got: "No edition on that date."
On the 10th of April, he answers in a certain way, and on May 5, he answers in a different way. However, he applies for a full salary and above all for numerous and substantial increases!
As to his salary, this is what it was on the several dates I am going to give: March 31, 1918, according to the report from the Auditor General, a salary of $3,700 was granted to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, while in Hansard of April 10, 1922, it is seen that during the year 1918, his salary was $4,000. In the Auditor General's report dated May 31, 1919, the salary of that official is given as $3,800, while according to Hansard of April 10, 1922, that salary in 1919 was $4,260. The report states that on March 31, 1920, Mr. Foran was receiving $4,440 a year and Hansard shows that to be correct. According to the report, the salary of the secretary of the Civil Service Commission was $4,400 on March 31, 1921, but then from the answer

Supply-Civil Service
given by the Secretary of State and printed in Hansard on the 10th of April, 1922, that gentleman's salary during 1921 amounted to $4,620; and also from Hansard of the same date Mr. Foran's salary for the year 1922, is $5,100. On December 31, 1921, the secretary of the Civil Service Commission received an amount of $1,220 as back-pay.
I must add that following the official volume upon the classification of the civil service in September, 1919, the sum of $4,620 was agreed on as the maximum salary of the secretary of the commission. Now, that gentleman succeeded in having it raised to $5,100 What should be done under these circumstances? He ought to be compelled to obey the law or, better still, be asked to retire.
Now, a few moments ago, I told you how the organization board of the Civil Service Commission held examinations. We are anxious about getting posted so as to prevent the grafting of nepotism on our administration and the forming of a "family compact" wherein secrecy is too well observed for the good of the country. We [DOT] find in the report of the Auditor General for 1918, vol. 3, page Y-9, the name of a lady, M. G. Goode; in the same report for 1919, vol. I, we find the name of M. Goode, that of L. Daley and W. J. Paynter; again in the same report for 1920, vol. I, chapter 8, we find the name of E. F. Bland, and in the report for 1921, we find the names of E. F. Bland, M. Daley and Paynter. Who are these persons? Mrs. M. G. Goode or M. Goode is the eldest daughter of Mr. WTm. For an, secretary of the commission; Mrs. L. Daley is the wife of the chief English examiner of the commission; Mrs. E. F. Bland is the wife of the assistant secretary of the commission, and W. J. Paynter or G. Paynter, is the wife of the chief accountant of the commission. Can any better family compact be found administering the affairs of the country, specially when it is a question of having salary increases granted? On May 9, 1922, I asked a number of questions in regard to certain persons of the commission, among other questions I asked if a person by the name of R. B. Veit was related to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission. I received the following answer:
No official information.
The secretary of the Civil Service Commission did not seem to recognize his brother-in-law.
I also asked if a Mr Bland was related to Mr. Farrow, of the Custom Department.
The answer was: "No official information." It is his son-in-law, he was unknown to him.
Now, let me tell you what these gentlemen have received: On April 1, 1918, Mr. Veit's salary was $1,550; on April 1, 1919, it was increased to $1,680; on April 1, 1920, increased to $1,800; on April 1,
1921,	increased to $2,400 and on April 1,
1922,	it reached $2,520. Moreover he received, I believe, as back pay $363.35. In regard to Mr. Bland, here is his salary: in 1918, he only drew his military salary; in 1919, $3,060; in 1920, $3,240; in 1921, $3,660 and in 1922, $3,840. In 1919-20, he drew as back pay $960; in 1920-21, $355, which makes a total of $1,315 as back pay. All this, as a result of the family compact of the secretary of the Civil Service Commission. I shall draw the attention of the Government, who at this moment, are requesting us to approve the estimates in regard to the Civil Service Commission, to the fact that these votes have been prepared by the men whose names appear in my statements, by the people who, without any scruple, recommended one another for back pay of salary and who agreed between themselves on scandalous increases. I might say that no where else is the old English saying better put into practice: "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." For the honour of this House and that of the ministry, which were insulted by the false information given by the said employees,-independent, if you wish, of Parliament, but who nevertheless must come to the representatives of the people when it is a case of being paid,-I believe that before passing the present estimates of the Civil Service Commission we should use the power we have, and I suggest that Parliament should object, and, that we make these people wait a little. I mean those who perpetrated injustice in all the departments, who have everywhere violated equity and who laugh at the present Ministers of the Crown and representatives of the people. For my part, conscious of the mandate which my electors have given me, I demand once more the re-establishment of the principle of ministerial responsibility, a principle which is consigned to the back-ground by the acts of this commission. Before passing these estimates, I would ask the Government and the House to institute a parliamentary enquiry so as to discover the vultures that prey on the people's money, the parasites
Supply-Civil Service

that devour our public treasury and to furnish us the means to destroy them. At a time when economy is preached over the whole world, we have no right to vote these items and I for one set my foot squarely against it. It is a duty incumbent on us to start this parliamentary enquiry and to stop the salaries and especially curtail the powers of this organization committee of the Civil Service Commission.


William Duff: I am sure I shall be pardoned, Mr. Chairman, if for a few moments I take up the time of the committee, although the hour is late, in answering a few of the arguments made by certain hon. gentlemen sitting diagonally opposite to me.


An hon. MEMBER:: Angularly opposite.


William Duff: Angularly opposite, yes. It is remarkable, Sir, for one of my political experience to listen to-night to the innocent young member from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) in his effort to impress upon us the fact that he had never recommended, during his brief political career, any one for appointment in the government service. Of course, that may be quite true, but you will remember, Sir, that in the next breath he told us that every Liberal member who had represented the constituency before him had been deluged with applications for positions and that his Liberal friends had always been appointed. It might be interesting if the hon. gentleman had told us why this change came over the constituency of Fort William and Rainy River immediately after he was elected; because the hon. member said that from that day henceforth there was no political appointments in that county, nor was he bothered by either his political friends or his political enemies. We had a sort of experience meeting on the part of my hon. friends who comprise the National Liberal and Conservative party; every minute or two they were jumping up here and there and denying assertions made by hon. gentlemen on this side. When the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) stated that after the election of 1911 wholesale dismissals were made in this country, these hon. members, one after the other, got up and denied that there had been any dismissals in their constituencies. It will go down in history, Sir, that when the Tory government came into power there 
were in this country, in the rural districts, in the urban districts, even in the city of Ottawa-scattered all over the Dominion, there was a total number of some 14,000 officials. It is well known that practically the whole of these 14,000 were dismissed within a year after the Tories came into power, and in their place were put, not
14,000	Conservatives, though personally I would have no objection to their replacing the Liberals who had been dismissed with their political friends. But what did they do? They dismissed 14,000, and they appointed 26,000 to do the same work. Of course, everybody knows that the men who were dismissed must have been so superior to the ones appointed in their place that it took two of the new men to do one man's work. It is a well known fact that these dismissals were wholesale in character. In the county of Guysborough, in the province of Nova Scotia, a letter came one day to the postmaster in one of the country districts telling him he had been dismissed from his office and that another person had been appointed in hi3 stead. He read the letter and said to himself, "I do not know anybody of that name around here." So he consulted his wife, and they held a council of war and called in the neighbours. The postmaster, of course, from his position, knew everybody in the district, but neither he nor his wife nor any of the neighbours could remember any person by that name. At last the lady of the house had a very bright idea. "I do remember a man of that name," she said "who died about nine years ago." The postmaster, who was a bit of a wag, said, "Well then, the best thing we can do is to gather up the stamps and the rest of the paraphernalia, bundle it up and take it out to the graveyard and leave the bundle on his grave," and they did that. That is the way the Tories dismissed officials in 1912. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River said that there were no dismissals in his section of the country by the Tory government, and the hon. member for South Simcoe also said the same thing with respect to his riding. Why Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand Hansard of session of 1912-1913, and if you will turn to page XIV of the index you will find five columns referring to questions put on the Order Paper that session by members of Parliament with regard to dismissals by the Tory government. Yet they say they did not dismiss anybody. Here are five whole columns, I presume about three or four hundred ques-

Supply-Civil Service
tions relating to dismissals by the Tory government, and that would be only a very small proportion of the total number of dismissals.


Mr. GRAHAM:: That is only one volume.


William Duff: Yes, they kept on dismissing officials in 1913, 1914, 1915 and other years. To show the variety of dismissals, I see they dismissed light keepers, the Aldershot camp caretaker, and the man in charge of the experimental farm at Nappan, Nova Scotia. Yet the hon. ex-Minister of Agriculture stood up in his place just now and said that nobody in the Department of Agriculture had been dismissed. Why, it is a well known fact that fruit inspectors all over the country were dismissed. My hon. friend the member for Mississquoi told me a few moments ago that every official, fruit inspectors, postmasters, and everybody else in his county were dismissed in 1912. Yet the ex-Minister of Agriculture says there were no dismissals. Fisheries inspectors, immigration inspectors, land agents, engineers, superintendent of Dominion parks-I could go right down five whole columns of the index and show that officials were dismissed from every kind of position. They even went as far as the Yukon to fire officials, and yet they get up here and try and tell us they did not dismiss anybody.


William Irvine: Do I understand the hon. member to be opposed to that kind of dismissal?


William Duff: Wholesale dismissals, yes, but if there is good reason why certain officials should be dismissed, it is a different matter. In the last election for instance some civil servants acted as Tory agents in the polling booths, or took the stump against the Liberal and Progressive candidates and did several other things of a partisan nature that I could mention. A shipping-master in my county has talked nothing else but politics for the last ten years, and his wife was worse than he was in the last election and yet I am in the humiliating position to-day of having to see that man kept in office against my wishes and the wishes of the whole community. I say that man should be fired.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Would you punish the man for his wife?


William Duff: I think the husband gets punished enough as it is without my punish, ing him. I have shown conclusively that wholesale dismissals took place under the Tory government.
The question of making appointments to the Civil Service is a very serious one. It is a matter which should not be treated lightly by this Parliament, by the Government or by the Civil Service Com-
12 m. mission. I agree with the hon. member for Marquette that if we are ever to have good government in this country, we must have an efficient Civil Service, and the question is how are we going to bring that about. The hon. member for Marquette did not think it was right for members of Parliament to have anything to say as to appointments. He instanced postmasters in country districts, and he thought that these appointments could better be made by someone else than the member for the county. If I remember correctly, he said that the Post Office inspector would be the best one to make the selection of a country postmaster, but I noticed, before he finished his excellent speech, that he told us of his own business experience and said that he selected his own employees. He did not get the Civil Service Commission to employ men for him in his own business. Oh, no, he selected them himself, and that is the proper way for any business man to select his officials. He also said, and I agree with him, that in order to get an efficient Civil Service we have to have high-priced officials.
Let me give the hon. member for Marquette a few illustrations of how degraded the Civil Service has become, I have no fault to find with the personnel of the Civil Service Commission. I think they are just as good from a personal standpoint as anybody else who might be appointed, but I say that it is absolutely impossible for the commission, no matter how good they may be, to appoint officials outside of the city of Ottawa, and my opinion in that respect is exactly what it was last year and has been for three or four years, ever since I have been a member of this Parliament. I have always taken the ground that the work of the Civil Service Commission should be confined to the inside service, where they would be in a position to decide on the merits of candidates through a system of competitive examination, but I contend as I have always contended, and last year I was backed up by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were sitting on this side of the House supporting the government, men who were known either as Unionists or good straight Conservatives, that the Civil Service Commission cannot make appoint-
Supply-Civil Service

ments satisfactorily to the outside service. If we are ever going to have an efficient outside Civil Service, these appointments cannot be made by the commission. For instance, look at the delay which occurs when they have to make an appointment.


An hon. MEMBER:: A month.


William Duff: Not a month, but six months, or a year, and the commission is not to blame. It is absolutely impossible for them to do better.


Lewis Herbert Martell: They appoint tailors as apple inspectors.


William Duff: They have done worse than that.


Lewis Herbert Martell: They did that in my constituency.


William Duff: We have had an incident mentioned in Nova Scotia of somebody living six hundred miles away from where the appointment was to be made being recommended for the position. Now let us see what happens in the case of these appointments. Let me take the appointment of a rural postmaster first. A postmaster dies, or resigns, and he, or one of his relatives, writes to the Postmaster General and notifies him of the resignation or death. That will take them three or four days. Or, in a country district, it will probably be a week or ten days before the letter reaches Ottawa. The Postmaster General sends a letter to the Civil Service Commission, and I notice that in Ottawa it takes about two or three days for a letter to get from the House of Commons to the Hunter block, or one of the other departments. Consequently it would require the same length of time for the Postmaster General to notify the Civil Service Commission of the vacancy. Now what do the Civil Service Commission do? They have to communicate with, say, the Post Office Inspector in Halifax, and he has to find out, in the best way he can, who will be the most suitable person to fill this office. What does he do? He writes to somebody in the county, which of course is outside the city of Halifax and asks for information. Now in Nova Scotia, Mr. Chairman, the people, are either Grits or Tories-mostly Grits I should say. So the Post Office Inspector when he writes to somebody or goes and visits somebody and asks whom he is to appoint, has to consult either a Grit or a Tory.
Of course that Grit or Tory whom he consults suggests the name of one of his

own friends, and the person suggested to the Post Office Inspector is also a Grit or a Tory. How are you going to eliminate the political element in the matter? It cannot be done. Then the Post Office Inspector's report has to come back to Ottawa and the Civil Service Commission being very busy, having thousands of applications to deal with, after a certain time decide to make the appointment. For instance I had a case in my own county-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Will my hon. friend
permit me a moment? I did not state, nor did I argue, that the Civil Service Commission should have anything to do with such appointments. I do not think it should have. I do not think the recommendation should go to the Civil Service Commission at all, it is not necessary to have such appointments rest in their hands. What I was pointing out was that there Should be some official in the Post Office Department -taking the case that my hon. friend cites -who should carry the responsibility of recommending an appointment to that position rather than have the member of Parliament carry it.


William Duff: That is exactly what I am coming to. What I was trying to prove was that the Post Office Inspector living in Halifax would have to make an appointment to a post office-say down in Neill's Harbour which is at the extreme end of Cape Breton or in some small section outside of Yarmouth near Cape Sable at the other end of the province-and I say that is impracticable; it is not right either to the community concerned or to anybody else. And it must be borne in mind that the Post Office Inspector has two thousand offices in the province to look after. What I say should be done is this: There is a good deal of trouble about the appointment of officials. No member really wants to be bothered with it and perhaps would be glad to be clear of it, but this is my opinion. With all respect to my fellow members- of course they can choose themselves whether they will do this work or not-but I never had the reputation of being a coward and I think that I am the right and proper person-although this involves a lot of trouble and I would rather be without it; goodness knows I have enough to do when I am home-if a death or resignation occurs in a post office in my own constituency they usually notify me anyway. I say that I am the right and proper person to make the recom-

Supply-Civil Service
mendation. I know the people in the district, I know who is best qualified for the position, and I am the right and proper person to telegraph to Ottawa within twenty-four hours after the vacancy occurs and have the appointment made, if it is to be made by the Postmaster General, within forty-eight hours. In my opinion that is the businesslike way in which to do it. If I make a mistake in an appointment I have to take the full responsibility and should the people in the district have any fault to find with me, they know what to do and how to punish me for my action when an election comes on.


William Alves Boys: May I ask a question.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would like to ask
my hon. friend a question.


William Alves Boys: "After you, Alphonse".


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend is
arguing that that should apply to the rural postmasters I do not know that I would take issue to any great extent with him; but would he have that system apply to the appointment of postmasters, say, in a town of more than five thousand people?


William Duff: Does my hon. friend refer
to a post office in my own constituency serving, say, five thousand people?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


William Duff: I certainly think that I
am the right and proper man to recommend that appointment. I have a better knowledge than any other man outside of my own constituents. I will make that reservation as to my own constituents. I say that I am in a better position to make a better recommendation than the Post Office Inspector, the Civil Service Commission or the Postmaster General and my recommendation should be taken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask my
hon. friend-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say this-


William Duff: One at a time please.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Might it not be possible
that in such a case the second in charge of the staff of such a post office would be suitable for promotion, and that the Post Office Inspector, having the supervision of that person's work, yyould know better whether he was or was not qualified for promotion than even the member for the constituency?


William Duff: That might apply in the
case of large cities where perhaps a member for a district is not, and could not be, in close touch with the officials; but in a small constituency like mine I think that I know whether the postmaster, or his deputy, or any other official, is qualified or not. I would have no objection to promoting his deputy, if he were efficient, but I say that responsibility should be left to me. I am the right and proper person to decide whether the deputy should be promoted or whether a new man should be appointed.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Would you promote
a deputy if he was a Tory?


William Duff: If he was a good man and
a Presbyterian I might.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If my hon. friend contends that the election of a man to Parliament is the qualification for him to decide as to who will be best for any public position of that kind, may I ask whether the hon. member would extend that privilege to all on this side of the House?


William Duff: I would have no objection so long as I was satisfied that my hon. friend was a fit and proper person to make such a recommendation.


Robert James Manion: How about hon. members on this side?


William Duff: As long as I felt hon. gentlemen were fit and proper persons to make an appointment, and I had confidence in them, I certainly would be glad to have them do so.
Now I want to speak of the appointment of other public employees. This difficulty arises not only in regard to rural postmasters, but also in regard to our fishery overseers. Last year-or perhaps it is two years ago-the fishery overseer in my county resigned and a new one had to be appointed. The Civil Service Commission proceeded to make appointment on the request, I presume, of the Fisheries Department. Posters were put up in conspicuous places and applications were received. The posters stated that applications would be received by a certain gentleman, a very respectable gentleman, who happened to be a good Conservative. The applications were to go to him and he was to hold a competitive examination. Mark that, a competitive examination for a fishery overseer! Now although I profess to remember a little of what I learned at school and also pretend to have a little information with
Supply-Civil Service

regard to the fisheries, the examination paper was such that I could not have answered one of the questions myself. They were the most foolish questions ever asked any individual since the world began -absolutely ridiculous. In appointing a fishery overseer, you require a practical man. As long as he can read and write, you need not care whether he has an education or not. For a position of that kind, probably the man with the least education has the most brains, and can do the best work. But this examination was held before this good Tory, and I had no objection to it at all. After the examination was over, I found that three candidates retired from the room where the examination was being held, simply because, after looking at the papers, they found they could not answer the questions. The other two made answers, hit or miss, and the highest man received 28 points out of a possible 100. That shows how foolish the whole thing is. The three best men retired from the contest, and left the other two to take the examination. The report of the examination came to Ottawa, and, I think, it was about four months before a decision was reached by the Civil Service Commission, because they were loaded up with applications, had not time to look after it, and they gave the job to the man who made the 28 points. He was not a bad sort of fellow, but, I say, the proper way to appoint a fishery overseer is to have some practical men go out and pick a man. I know a lot of Tories in my county who could pick out decent, respectable men, who know something about the business, but the man they asked to hold the examination was a schoolmaster. He decided who was to fill the very important position of fishery overseer in my constituency. Take the case (pf a lighthouse keeper. Imagine appointing a lighthouse keeper by competitive examination, and having the commission in Ottawa bother with the appointment of lighthouse keepers ten miles from land in the Atlantic ocean.


William Alves Boys: Who, do you suggest,
should make the appointment-the Civil Service Commission or the minister?


William Duff: The Minister, of course. I certainly say that appointments such as those of lighthouse keepers, rural postmasters, official overseers, and charwomen 

in fact, all the outside service-should not be made by the Civil Service Commission. I think the Civil Service Commission

can do a good work in appointing to the inside service, but that is all they can do.


William Alves Boys: The hon. member suggests these appointments should be made by the minister of the department affected?


William Duff: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Would you be satisfied, in that event, that the appointment should be made upon the recommendation of the sitting member.


William Duff: Yes, I think I would. It would not make a great deal of difference on which side of politics the sitting member was; he would be responsible, and I think it would be right and proper. In the past, appointments were made on the recommendation of the defeated candidate. That is a mistake, because the defeated candidate has no interest in the matter. He is usually full of spite and spleen, as I have known in my experience, and does not care whether a good appointment is made or not, but if the member had to make the appointment, he would be responsible to Parliament and would have to answer questions with regard to the appointment on the floor of the House. I think the act should be amended, so that the outside civil servants would be appointed by the minister on the recommendation of the member for the constituency. It would work out all right in the long run, because the Liberals will be in power for the next fifty years, and then the Tories would have a chance after that.


William Alves Boys: That would not be the sitting member.


William Duff: An hon. member has stated that, since the Civil Service Commission was appointed, everything was done through that commission,, that no appointments were made outside of it, that it did not make any difference whether applicants were Liberal or Conservative, the appointments were always made by the commission. Now, I say that hundreds of appointments, which, under the law, should be made by the Civil Service Commission, were made without recourse to that body. For instance, we have an inspector of fisheries in my province, a very desirable gentleman. Before he went into politics he was a clergyman.


William Alves Boys: Presbyterian?


William Duff: Why no, he was a Baptist. That is the reason they made him fishery inspector. This gentleman was appointed

Supply-Civil Service
for the service, at a good salary, without asking the Civil Service Commission to make the appointment, and now, although he is a clergyman, with very little experience in fishery matters, he is chief inspector for the three maritime provinces, and has his office in the city of Halifax. Yet, my hon. friends will rise to their feet with a straight and long face, and tell us they had nothing to do with patronage at all, did not make appointments, and that it was all done by the Civil Service Commission. I would not blame the commission for something I do myself. I would be proud to say I made certain appointments, if such were the case. In my county, a customs officer resigned about two years ago, and I recommended the name of a retired sea captain, who had two sons overseas, and who had fallen down and hurt himself very badly, and had to retire from the seas. He was a good man, had been going to sea for thirty years and had a family. I recommended him. Shortly afterwards I heard a good Conservative had been appointed, a man who had always worked for his party, and deserved anything his party could give him, but he was not appointed by the Civil Service Commission. He was appointed temporarily, to get over the objection which I would raise, and was kept on temporarily, until six months after, when they thought I would forget all about it. But when I came to Ottawa I found his appointment had been made permanent, without any reference to the Civil Service Commission. Yet these gentlemen sitting angularly opposite say they never made any dismissals or appointments. In Nova Scotia, out of
1,000	appointments made, even by the commission, within the last five years, I doubt very much if two Liberals have been appointed, and there is reason for it. I can understand it, and if I were on the commission, perhaps, I would do the same thing, but the fact is that, although I have nothing against the commission, there is no question that, in Nova Scotia, influences were brought to bear on the commission, or on one of the members of the commission, with the result that the Tories all got jobs.	_	_
In conclusion, my candid opinion is that, in order to get an efficient Civil Service, there must be a housecleaning. I am told there are some 52,000 civil servants all over Canada. In 1911 there were 14,000 and these 52,000 are doing the same work now which the 14,000 did formerly, or very little more work. Everybody knows, whether it is here in Ottawa or out in the country
districts, there are too many officials altogether. We must have rural postmasters, and certain officials, but everybody knows that, in most of the offices, instead of having one man to do the work they have two, and sometimes three or four. We know they may get small salaries, and, as the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said, it would be far better to arrange to give one man a good salary to do the work, and let the other two or three go on a farm, or on a fishing boat, or wherever they could get employment.
We must have a house-cleaning. After looking over the Estimates and seeing the very large amount of money-I think it is some $120,000,000-paid to officials, I think it is about time this Government did better than the late government did. They have a great work to do if they will properly rearrange matters as regards the Civil Service and public employees. Millions of dollars can be saved by this Government if the ministers and their deputies have a housecleaning. They should do that, and they should pay men properly for their services. I also say that the Civil Service Commission should be allowed to fill appointments in the inside service, because they are qualified to do that. They are here on the spot; they can hold examinations; they can find out about a person's character and all his qualifications, and I am quite sure that that should be done. With regard to the outside service, as the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) says, it is both expensive and not the right and proper way to fill such vacancies, because there is a delay, a great delay in some cases, the public interest suffers in the meantime, and after somebody recommends a candidate to the Civil Service Commission, neither the Civil Service Commission nor the Government know whether that person is suitable for the position or not. Therefore, I say that putting politics aside-and as I said before, I do not want to have the appointment of these officials-I feel, as a member of Parliament, it is my duty to help the Government to get an efficient service, and that I should not shirk my duty, but should endeavour to give my knowledge of matters ir. my constituency and any information which I May have to the minister or his deputy. Therefore, in the best interest of the country, from a business standpoint, the right and proper thing to do is for the Civil Service Commission or the Government to divorce themselves from the outside service and to give to
Supply-Civil Service

members of Parliament the right to appointments in the outside service in all the constituencies. As a result members will feel that they have some responsibility, and whether appointments be Liberal or Conservative, I feel quite sure that, realizing their responsibility, the members, in every case, or in nearly every case, will appoint good men who will give good service to the country, and who will be satisfactory to the department.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) remarked that in 1911, 1 think he said, 14,000 civil servants had been dismissed and 25,000 or 26,000 had taken their places. The percentage in my district was greater than that. I have in recollection a man who was a civil servant and he resigned in 1912. The gentleman who took his place is getting 65 per cent more salary than he got; he has two assistants; there is less work, and it is being worse done. Whether it was in gratitude for that beneficence or on account of the idle time that he had, that gentleman was able to devote a great deal of time and misspent energy to boosting the candidature of the gentleman who was the candidate for the late government in the last election. I have no doubt that, under existing conditions, he will make it his business to do so in the next election.
I think the rest of my contribution to this debate might be put in the form of a little parable. Sometimes a homely truth can be brought home in that way better than by hours of argument and debate. The debate that has gone on this evening on this question reminds me very much of the story of Tom Smith's wagon. Tom Smith went to town with a team and a wagon. This was in British Columbia, and he visited the government "booze-joint" as we call it. It has some particular name, but I forget it.


William Duff: They call it "speak-easy."


Alan Webster Neill: Dispensary. He got a few shots andJ he was going home, his head nodding and his team travelling along at an easy pace. The king pin that holds the trees on to the tongue of the wagon came out-the farmers will understand this-and consequently the horses went on ahead and they pulled the reins through his hands. Tom was left sitting in the wagon; the team went home, and, of course, they stopped when they reached home. Tom sat there the whole night still, he thought, hanging on to the reins and thinking that

it was taking the team a long time to get home. Next morning the neighbours turned out to see what was the matter when they saw the team standing at the barn. They found Tom along the road still hanging on, as he thought, to the reins; they stirred him up and said: "What's the matter?" Tom looked around and scratched his head, and said: "If I am Tom Smith, I have lost a team and if I am somebody else, I have found a wagon. That is the situation here to-day. If we are Tom Smith, we have lost a team, and if we are not Tom Smith, we have found a wagon.


Lewis Herbert Martell: In the course of his remarks the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie), paid some attention to something I had said concerning the Marine Department. The hour is late and I am rather in the position of an Irishman who was called in to clean out a parson's cellar. It was a bright morning and the parson was walking in his garden when the Irishman held up some bottles which he was taking from the cellar to the light in the hope that he might extract from them a sufficient quantity for an eye opener. The parson observed this and yelled to him: " Pat, they are all dead soldiers." To which the son of Erin's isle replied:	" Begorrah, your
riverence, I'm glad they had the parson with them in their dying hours." I am glad to be in this House in the dying hours of this debate.
It is not my purpose to make any observations concerning the personnel of the Civil Service Commission. I had some experience in the department, and just to show you how there is a tendency for a department to become overmanned, I am going to give an illustration of something that I know something about. I am not blaming any particular political party for this; I am blaming simply the system. Applications were called for a particular position; it was stated that the person should have a knowledge of law and a practical knowledge of the fisheries. The person whom the department had sent them by the Civil Service Commission happened to be a lawyer. He was found not to be fit for the particular work which he was called upon to discharge, and you would naturally think that when he was found unfit, he would be discharged or told to go. Instead of doing that, they placed him in the department stamping lobster labels-a lawyer, at $2,600 a year! That was work that should have beer

Supply-Civil Service
done by a boy for about $500 a year. Then they went down to the constituency of Queen's and Shelburne; they took a clergyman minister who had no practical knowledge of the fisheries, and they placed him in the department at a salary of about $3,000 a year, so that where the work was being done for $1,800 they were paying about $5,600 for the same work.
The think that I object to as regards the present Civil Service Act is the fact that it does not afford any scope for recommendation for promotion on account of efficiency. There is in every business concern in the country power, at least impliedly, in the manager, to pick out his good men and to recognize their efficiency by promotion. That is not the case in the Civil Service at the present time. It is absolutely impossible for the deputy minister or the minister to recognize ability or efficiency in the department. There is a certain position; a certain person is placed in that position, and no matter how great his ability may be there is no chance for him to get an increase of salary or to be promoted to a better position. Naturally he loses all ambition, becomes stagnant, so to speak, and incapable of evolving new ideas, and there is a tendency for him to " loaf on the job Consequently he gets behind with his work, the department has to make application to the Civil Service Commission for further help, and another person is appointed to assist the loafer; thus two men are paid to do one man's work.


Mr. BAXTER:: When was my friend fired from the department?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I was not fired, I resigned of my own volition to drive out some scalawags of the Tory party who were bungling the affairs of the country. But the point I am trying to make is that there will be no efficiency in the service so long as the deputy ministers and ministers are not in a position to recognize ability in their staff. My hon, friend from St. John has interpolated a political and personal note. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that my remarks do not afford him the slightest justification. I was simply blaming the system which has obtained for some considerable length of time. But politics- mean, low, personal politics, is so much akin to the nature of my hon. friend from St. John that he cannot give one credit for a sincere desire to advance the best interests of the country. I would like also
to inform the hon. gentleman that if he wishes to discuss political issues I am prepared to meet him, for I am ashamed neither of my own political record nor of my party's. As he is so curious, I may inform him that I was in the department, but I defy him to get any minister .who presided over the department during the time I was an official in it to state that I did not perform my duty diligently and efficiently.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I asked my hon. friend how long he was in the service. The House has heard a great many times about his having been in the department. He might now give us some details of his service there, for it is early in the morning yet.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If my hon. friend would possess his soul in patience I might recite to him a tale which he will not like to hear. However, I am not going to pay any more attention to my hon. friend's interruptions. So long, Mr. Chairman, as you keep from the heads of departments the right to recognize efficiency and ability in their staff, just so long are you putting a damper upon ambition, which must inevitably be followed by indifference and lack of efficiency, which in turn will necessitate the appointment of more officials to carry on the work.
What about the Civil Service Commission's method of ascertaining the qualifications of a person for a particular position? Some few years ago the late Union Government, so called, required in the Department of Agriculture-I do not know whether the ex-minister (Mr. Tolmie) was then presiding over it-an apple inspector for the county of Hants, and advertised for applicants. Several returned soldiers applied, but the commission appointed a custom tailor in the town of Windsor, although he did not know a Gravenstein from a Russet. When that man found what were the duties of an apple inspector he wrote to the department that he was not qualified to discharge the duties-and that after the Civil Service Commission had deemed him qualified! I am not advocating a return to political patronage, because I know that where a member recommends someone for a particular job he disappoints probably ten or twelve others who are also seeking it. But I claim the system is wrong. We must evolve a system which will give to the people better qualified officials who will render efficient service, and to this end the deputy ministers and ministers of de-

Supply-Civil Service
partments should have some measure of control at least over their staff.


Mr. COPP:: The present administration
is not claiming any credit for the Civil Service Commission; at the same time it is not assuming any blame. I am standing as a sort of godfather to the estimates now before the committee, we having had nothing whatever to do with their preparation. We are asking for quite a large sum of money to carry on the work of the Civil Service Commission during the ensuing year, for which work this Administration is prepared to assume responsibility. I feel sure that both the members of the Government and of the Civil Service Commission will co-operate to secure the fullest efficiency of the public service. I do not think that the commissioners themselves feel they have realized the ideal efficiency which we all desire to see in the departments. I do not suppose it was really the intention when the first Civil Service Act was passed that the control of the Outside Service should be so suddenly forced upon the Commission, but naturally during the war period a great deal of extra responsibility had to be assumed by it. This has been a very valuable discussion and I am sure the commission will be very glad to receive the suggestions made by hon. members to-night. I sincerely trust that with the appropriation we are asking for the coming year a great deal of splendid work will be accomplished towards increasing the efficiency of the public service throughout the Dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the adjournment of the House:
Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentlemen please tell us, with some definiteness, what the business to-morrow is to be?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To-morrow the Finance Minister proposes to go on with some of his budget resolutions. I think it is probable that we shall also take up one or two of the bills and resolutions that still stand under Government Orders. There are not many of them, but such as there are will be taken up. I am glad to be able to inform hon. members that we

have completed the passing of the main estimates. Of course, there will still be some supplementary estimates, but I think it will be a source of satisfaction to hon. members to know that we have got that far. May I take advantage of this moment to congratulate my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition on having attained his forty-eighth birthday, and to wish him many happy returns?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I have to thank my hon. friend-even though I do feel this is driving it home a little-as well as the rest of the House; I appreciate their congratulations very much. Will the right hon. gentleman be good enough to say what budget resolutions it is proposed to take up? A very wide field is covered in the term "budget resolutions." The Finance Minister said yesterday there were certain items he did not propose to take up to-day; I do not know myself what they were. It would be of great value if we knew just what ones it was proposed to take up first. As far as the motions on the Order Paper are concerned, I am not particular, but I would like to know whether it is proposed to go on with the wheat board resolution? ,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, we will not take the wheat board resolution tomorrow. As to the particular budget resolutions, I am sorry I cannot give my right hon. friend the information, but I am sure the Finance Minister will endeavour to meet the wishes of the House if there are any particular resolutions that the House should not wish to debate to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: Could the Prime Minister say whether it is proposed to go on with the specific tariff resolutions, with the resolutions as regards depreciated currency, the dumping clause, the marking act, and those in that category-outside of the customs resolutions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The three
that my right hon. friend has just mentioned are the three which the Minister of Finance said would not be taken up today.


Arthur Meighen: And therefore not tomorrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is the wish of my right hon. friend that they should not be taken up to-morrow, I am sure that they will not be proceeded with.

Business of the House


Arthur Meighen: I have no wish in the matter; I just want to know whether they will be or not.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; I could not say what the intention of the Minister of Finance was on that point but if there is any expression of a desire not to take up these particular resolutions, I am sure-


Robert James Manion: With regard to the resolution respecting depreciated currency, I believe the Minister of Finance had promised the member for Vancouver not to take it up to-day.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; I asked the Minister of Finance whether that applied to to-morrow-speaking of Saturday as tomorrow-and he said that his intention had been as regards Friday. I have no doubt, however, that he will so treat it as regards Saturday as well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 12.48 a.m., Saturday.
Saturday, June 17. 1922