Let us see what happened in 1917 during the election. I am sure that other constituencies, like mine, were invaded by a flow of oratory and eloquence from one end to the other. The principal claim advanced for the support of the electorate was based on the issue of winning the war, and the Unionist party brought the gallant colonel, who was my opponent, all the way from France to win the war in South Renfrew. Among other things it was contended that there would be no more political parties in the future, that henceforward members would all belong to one party, that there was going to be a love feast down here at Ottawa after the election, and that there would not be any more patronage. As I have already stated that is one of the reasons why I, for one, have been besieged with requests for the nomination of parties to do the work of . taking the census in the south riding of Renfrew. Before proceeding further with this branch of the subject I would like to draw attention to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on Saturday, August 14, 1920. In that article I find the following :
Mr. Mackenzie King in his speech at Paisley asked what constructive legislation Union Government had passed.
The Journal says:
That is an easy question. No Canadian Government ever passed so much advanced legislation. Here are four examples: The abolition of patronageand so on.
I would like to show the House further what, according to my experience, actually happened in connection with the abolition of patronage, and I am going to quote from some correspondence that I had with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) in his concluding remarks wondered what the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) would do if they had been requested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to name a fit and proper person to oversee the taking of the census in their respective constituencies. No SHch request was made to them, I understand, by the minister. Had the member for Quebec East been asked to make such an appoint-
ment he would doubtless have replied that it would be impossible for him to find anybody in his constituency but a Liberal to appoint to such a position; and I am sure the member for Shelburne and Queen's could have made a suitable appointment from his constituency. But I have here a letter from the Minister of Trade and Commerce asking me to nominate a person for the position of returning officer in the forthcoming referendum in South Renfrew. The letter which is dated July 15,1920, is as follows:
Dear Sir:- It is necessary to have an appointment made of a returning officer for the prohibition referendum which is soon to be held in the Province of Ontario. It has been usual,
I think, to appoint the Sheriff or Registrar of the County and, failing these, a good and capable man.
Dr. Reid has had matter more in charge but has just left for British Columbia. He has sent me in a list of persons recommended and I find that your riding is vacant. I therefore take it that you have not recommended anyone. Would you kindly attend to this matter at once as the Secretary of State is anxious to get the names in hand. It will prevent further correspondence and much trouble will be saved 4 if you will send in the full name of the man you recommend, his occupation, address, and the locality or building in which he will sum up the votes.
-that the Government were really sincere up to that time. On July 17th, I replied to the right hon. gentleman as follows:
Dear Sir,-Your favor of the 15th, Inst, is the first intimation I have had that I was expected to name a suitable person for the position of returning officer for the prohibition referendum for the South Riding of the county of Renfrew.
I have, however, very great pleasure In recommending Albert Edwin Bradwin, Editor and Proprietor, "The Watchman" newspaper, Arnprior, Ont., as a suitable person for this appointment. The votes will be summed up in the Town Hall Arnprior.
The sheriff or registrar of the county, resides in the North Riding of the County of Renfrew, consequently, I do not consider either of these officials eligible for the position, and this Is the reason why I am submitting the above named gentleman, who, I feel confident, will fill the position satisfactorily.
The balance of the correspondence will show what happened if my hon. friend will possess his soul in patience. Nine days later I was informed that the communication of July 15th, was sent me in error, and that it should have been sent to Lieutenant Colonel Martin, who was the defeated candidate in South Renfrew in the 1917 election.
this communication I called up the secretary of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was in charge of the office during the Minister's absence, and explained to him the unfortunate position in which I had been placed at the time, because I had informed Mr. Bradwin that I had recommended him for the appointment, and he in turn had told his friends of it and it had become public property. Therefore I asked that the nomination which I had made should be confirmed. The secretary of the Minister of Trade and Commerce assured me that he would look into the matter and see if the nomination I had made could be confirmed. He promised to write me, but from that day to this I have not heard anything further from him in regard to the subject. I then called the Prime Minister up on the phone. He too undertook to make inquiries into the matter and see 9 p.m. if it were not possible to have the gentleman nominated by me appointed to the position. He likewise was to have written me but did not do so. I therefore wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
Renfrew, Ont., August, 3, 1920.
Dear Mr. Meighen,-Following our phone conversation of 27th inst. regarding the appointment of returning officer in South Renfrew, for the Prohibition Referendum; I have been expecting a communication from you as a result of the investigation you promised me you would make at that time, and considering that such has not been received up to the present date, I am taking the liberty of writing to remind you of your promise, and I sincerely trust, if not asking too much, you will take time to let me know the result of your investigation under that subject. .
In reply I received the following:
Ottawa, Ont., August 5, 1920.
Dear Mr. Pedlow,-I duly received your letter of 3rd, August. I looked into the matter about which you telephoned me and found that Mr. Payne, Sir George Foster's Secretary, had written you already a full explanation and that really there were no facts, so far as I know, uncommunicated to you.
I am sure you understand there was no desire on anyone's part to make difficulty for you of any kind. Under the circumstances, I do not think you have just ground of complaint that your recommendation was not accepted.
(Sgd.) Akthur Meighen.
I replied to that as follows:
Renfrew, Ont., August 6th, 1920.
Dear Mr. Meighen,-It is not my desire to prolong this correspondence unnecessarily, but in acknowledging your esteemed favour of August 5th, in answer to mine of the 3rd, I desire you to understand that the information given you, "that Mr. Payne, Sir George Poster's secretary, had written me already a full explanation" of the subject under consideration is not correct.
On receiving Mr. Payne's letter of July 26 I phoned him, protesting against the change indicated, and he promised then to write me that evening fully on the subject, with particular reference as to whehter the appointment of John Brennan, of Arnprior, had been finally confirmed or not.
John Brennan, I understand, was named by the defeated candidate in South Renfrew in 1917.
Not hearing from him as promised, I called him up again at ten o'clock a.m. on Thursday, July 29th, and was told by whoever answered the phone that he had gone away on his holidays. I have heard nothing further from him since that date, so the information given to you in this instance is certainly not in accordance with the facts, and although it is only a trifling matter, still, I know you have been misinformed, and should know It.
I also wrote to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) on August 3rd, 1920, as follows:
Dear Sir,-On Tuesday, July 27th, I received a communication from your office in reply to my letter of July 17th, in which I named Albert Edwin Bradwin, of Arnprior, as a fit and proper person for the position of returning officer for the prohibition referendum for South Renfrew, and immediately on receipt of that communication in your absence I took up the subject matter with your private secretary, and he promised during the course of our phone conversation to make investigation regarding this appointment along the line of my suggestions and write me without fail that evening. So far I have not received the promised communication. I am therefore taking the matter up with you.
For your information I will recall briefly the position in which this matter is at the present time. On July 16th I received from your office a communication asking me to name a suitable person for the position of Returning Officer in South Renfrew for the prohibition referendum, and I replied to that request the following day, July 17th, naming a gentleman that I know would be entirely satisfactory to all parties concerned in this riding, and one entirely capable of filling the position satisfactorily. On July 27th I was informed that the letter of July 16th asking me to name a fit and proper person for the work was intended for Lt.-Col. Martin.
In view of this situation you can easily understand the unpleasant position I am placed in at the moment, for my choice has already been announced, and for that selection to be ignored, for reasons that are obvious, is neither fair to me, nor is it, I submit, good politics from the Government party point of view. I accepted the intimation in good faith and made the nomination in the same spirit, and for me to be told now practically that the elected candidate of this riding is not capable of making a selection of this kind is not an evidence of the claims made by the Government during the past three years, namely, that party patronage was completely done away with.
Lt.-Col. Martin, in my judgment, has no more right to name the officer for the above position than any man on the street. The fact that he is the defeated candidate in the election of 1917 should not, in view of the protestations of the Union Government then and since, entitle him to any say in a matter of this kind, and I sincerely trust you will not allow the nomination made by me in this instance to be overruled by the exigencies of party politics.
Eleven days later I received this communication from the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, dated August 14, 1920:
Dear Mr. Pedlow,-
Yours of August 3rd was handed to me by my secretary, on my return to Ottawa.
I should have considered it sooner but for a rather pressing engagement I have had with an old enemy, Mr. Lumbago, to wit, I thought one enemy enough at a time, and now come to you, more friendly and, I hope, by no means so relentless as the other.
The double notification was due to a mistake of my secretary in mailing the letter to you instead of to Lt-Col. Martin, as has been explained by him. In asking Lt.-Col. Martin, who had been a candidate for the riding and is a returned soldier, for the name of a suitable person to act as returning officer, the custom which has prevailed hitherto under all governments was followed. It is difficult, as you know, at once to get rid of old customs, even if they may be susceptible
I trust that no very great inconvenience will arise from the little misunderstanding that has taken place. Meanwhile you will have noticed that the referendum has been postponed. Anyway, I do not suppose that your nominee has, taken any responsible steps consequent upon>
the sending in of his name. It is also to be remembered that though a nomination was asked for there was no implication that the name sent in would result in a final appointment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have occupied a considerable time in reading this extensive correspondence, but I think it is only right that it should be placed on Hansard, for it
is quite in keeping with the spirit that has prevailed in the discussion this afternoon on the resolution now before the House. This brings me to these conclusions. Why not quit this pretending and this humbug? Why not put into practice the spirit of the claims and protestations made by the Government on this subject? Why not give heed to the demands of the people who themselves are most interested,-the civil servants? Why not listen to the appeal of all right thinking people everywhere? Why not follow the example of the Mother of Parliaments as well as the example of the Government of the great Republic to the south of us and decide for all time to do away with this evil thing, this custom that is so unbusinesslike and so unfair?
vice; no man will want to work for the Government if he knows that the merit system is not in force. It will be needless for him to take a position in the Civil Service and try to rise to any higher position, because it will be political pull and not the merit of the man that will govern the conditions of his employment.
Reference has been made to the Old Country system of Civil Service. I have lived in the Old Country, and I know a little about how smoothly the Civil Service runs there. The Civil Service there knows not of a change of government. Everything goes along smoothly just the same as if no change of government had taken place. But what were the conditions in Canada a few years ago, for instance, away back in the early eighties? I have seen Tories discharged to make room for Grits and Grits discharged to make room for Tories in Civil Service offices out in the West. Such a condition should not prevail, and it certainly will prevail if we go back to the old patronage system, but I again express the hope that this Government will see to it that we do not go back.
As regards the present system, I must say, in my constituency I have no fault to find with the appointments. I was asked in certain cases if certain men were qualified, and if I considered they were, I certainly said so. It is true, I did not have the honour of recommending the census commissioner, but the appointment that has been made is, in my opinion, quite satisfactory. I again express the hope that if this resolution comes to a vote it will be voted down. I trust this Government will see to it that it is their duty to continue in force the Civil Service system that we have now.
which involves efficiency in public business and the public good, and from that point of view, I cannot support the resolution now before the House, although I am bound to say that I do not entirely agree with certain aspects of the present situation. As regards the Outside Service, I feel the same difficulty that other hon. gentlemen have found in understanding how it is possible for the Civil Service Commission to make a proper selection at great distances from Ottawa and if, as a matter of fact, they consult with the local personages, then I think it is due to the members of the House and the public generally that we should know who those personages are
and their standing in the community. As regards the Inside Civil Service, I think good work is being done. By far the largest part of the Civil Service is agreed that the system prevailing under the Commission is infinitely better than the patronage system. If they think well of the present system-and they do-then we should hope for better things and give to the commission a reasonable opportunity to carry on and work out their problems to a successful conclusion.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), who spoke in this House to-day and who took the view that patronage has not been in fact abolished, but that the patronage formerly exercised by members has been passed on to others who now exercise the same patronage. I cannot agree with that for this reason. I define patronage, as we understand it in this connection, as the power of app .nt-ment exercised by political personages with a view to political results. People cannot be born into the Civil Service; some persons must make appointments. If those persons, not being political personages, having no political results in view, and being honest and efficient themselves, proceed in a proper manner in making those appointments, nothing better can be done, and that particular method is away ahead of the system which formerly prevailed.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. In the old days, under the old system of patronage, upon a change of Government taking place, appointments were confined to the dominant party. Members of the Civil Service previously appointed kept quiet, attended to their work, did their best; members recently appointed were at liberty to go to their member of Parliament or to the defeated candidate with their grievances and, generally speaking, the Civil Service was satisfied with its job and loyal to the Government, and loyal to the State. Under the commission system of Government a new feature has been introduced, I regret to say, by a small number of civil servants. As I said a moment ago, for the most part, civil servants are perfectly satisfied with what is attempted to be done and they hope for better things in the future; but a small body of civil servants are dissatisfied, and they have introduced a new feature into the Civil Service of this country.
That feature is this: They have introduced the sentiment which is said to exist as between capital and labour. They have introduced that idea which is fathered by
the I.W.W. and the O.B.U., that there exists a continual state of warfare between employer and employee, which can only be cured by constant agitation and perhaps, ultimately, by direct action. That particular body is confined to Ottawa and is known as Local Union No. 66. The members of this House have received its publications, and are in a position to form their own conclusions as to what sort of men these are. Now we do not want that spirit in the Civil Service of Canada. We want a service that will be loyal to the state, a service that will be the backbone of our state. We do not want our Civil Service to acquire the attitude I have mentioned, which is deplored everywhere, and is particularly to be deplored between the state and its employees. I have just this to say in conclusion. I would like to see the Government take power to itself at an early date to put itself in a position to dismiss the whole lot of that Union, and to fill their places from the ranks of returned men, of whom there are thousands in this country fitted for this particular kind of employment, and extremely anxious to get it.
I have but few remarks to make, Mr. Speaker, and were it not for my desire to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) who has introduced this resolution, I should perhaps, not take part in this debate at all. I wish to congratulate him upon having brought this matter up, although I am not in a position to vote for his resolution as drawn. I am sure that we are all sorry to observe some impairment of the old-time physical strength of the good man he has always shown himself to be, but we still appreciate his many fine qualities of heart and mind, and hope that his vigour will be restored, and that he will be spared for many years to this Parliament and to his thousands of friends in this country. I cannot vote for the resolution as drawn because it affects both the Inside and the Outside Service, and there is not the least question that it is only through such a body as the Civil Service Commission that we shall be able to command ultimately in this country a Civil Service that will have the respect of the people of Canada, and will give that efficient service which the people have a right to expect. I do not mean to depreciate in any way what the Civil Service Commission have already done, for I believe that when they were appointed they found appointees in the
service of both political patties. I believe the Commission are doing their best, and the only serious criticism that can be made of them is their bringing in foreigners to reclassify the Civil Service instead of having the work done by Canadians. Both the Civil Service Commission and the Government have accepted the responsibility for engaging these men. I think it is to be regretted, particularly at a time when the members of the Government one after another have been telling this Parliament that we have reached the status of a great independent nation, able to take part in world affairs, that in a matter of purely domestic concern and of no great significance they have themselves gone outside of Canada to find men able to make a classification of the Civil Service of a country with a population of eight millions. I believe that the Civil Service Commission is necessary in connection with the Inside Service, because candidates for appointments can best have their education and efficiency tested by examinations. Even after they have passed an examination and a certificate has been issued as to their qualifications, the new appointees have to serve under a deputy or branch chief who, if he finds they are not qualified in other ways, that they lack tact, for instance, judgment or integrity, may have them censured or transferred to an inferior position in some other department. I do not consider the Outside Service is in the same position. For many positions in the Outside Service a slight education may be sufficient. What is required in that service more particularly is tact and judgment, integrity, and devotion to duty. While I do not wish to attach any blame to the members of the Civil Service Commission I must say that during the last year or two they have made appointments for which had I been responsible, I would not have dared to put my foot in my constituency again. It is only recently we have been witnesses to cases of neglect of duty and defalcations which have shocked society. Men appointed by the commission a few months ago have had to be dismissed and replaced by new appointees, under exactly the same conditions, and with no more knowledge of the tact, devotion to duty, and integrity required than those who preceded them.
My hon. friend the ex-Postmaster-General (Mr. Lemieux) emphasized this afternoon that we the representatives of the people should be given all possible time and opportunity for the study of great nation-
al questions. I thoroughly agree with him. I have rejoiced on many occasions during the last few years since I have been on this side of the House, that I have lost the opportunity of exercising patronage in my county. I have had more leisure than heretofore. When I was able to exercise patronage my house was invaded at 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning and up till 11 o'clock at night; and when I travelled through my county I would be stopped for half a day to listen to the complaints of those in the service or the aspirations of those desiring to get in. It has been a different life for me during the last few years. To show what little effect patronage has on winning elections I may say that when I had the responsibility of making appointments for my county I was always returned by majorities running from 1,000 to 1,500, but when my opponents enjoyed the exercise of patronage, as was their right until the last election, they were reduced to the impossibility of keeping a candidate in the field and I was elected bv acclamation.
It is only by raising the standard of the Outside Service, as well as of the Inside, so that it may command the respect of the people of Canada that we shall discharge our duty fully by the electorate. In the light of my experience of public affairs in this country, and particularly in my own county, I am forced to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of the public service of Canada that all appointments, to the Outside Service at least, should again be made on the recommendation of the members elected to Parliament by the people. I do not, in this statement, anticipate any personal advantage; I advocate the reversion to the control of members of Parliament of appointments to the Outside Service purely and simply because I believe that it is the only judicious method that can be followed. Members of the Civil Service Commission, sitting in their offices in Ottawa, cannot possibly have the personal and local knowledge of applicants and conditions in any county which the member representing that county would possess.
Take the position of Collector of Customs, which involves the handling of large funds that might possibly hold out a serious temptation to any young man. The member in the constituency where a vacancy for such a position occurred, would be in a position to recommend the appointment of a thoroughly competent, responsible, and trustworthy man. He is personally acquainted with numerous men
fitted in every way for such a post, and I see no reason why his recommendation should not be accepted. The same thing applies to such a position as that of Fisheries Officer. I think we should adopt the method followed for many years in France, where the member for an electoral division is charged with the responsibility of making such appointments as shall be in the interest of the whole constituency irrespective of political considerations. In this Parliament we have now three or four different classes of citizens represented. Besides Liberals and Conservatives, we have representatives of Labour and Agriculture, and what I contend, Mr. Speaker, is that every member of Parliament should have the responsibility-because it is, or ought to be essentially, a matter of responsibility and not of privilege-of recommending appointments. It does not matter whether a man belongs to one party or another, whether he is a supporter of the Government in power or a member of the Opposition. The fact that he has been returned to Parliament by a majority of his constituents is evidence that he enjoys their confidence and is entitled to express their views; and this is one of the most important matters on which they could express any desire. I have no very great desire to return to the old conditions, and certainly I have no desire to do so because of any personal considerations. But when the time comes, I shall be quite willing to shoulder my share of responsibility in the recommending of appointments, as I did for years in the past.
The Government of to-day claims to have abolished patronage; but in view of events which have been referred to in this debate, I do not think the people place any credence in this profession, for, since coming into power, the Government have thrown out practically every Liberal officer in the country and have brought in all their own friends. Customs officers, postmasters, and other officials, appointed under the Liberal regime, have been cast aside and their places filled by candidates approved of by the party authorities. While there may be a show of genuineness about the appointments made by the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the supporters of the Government can allay the suspicion of the people in regard to what must strike them as a most remarkable accident, that appointees selected by the commission have so frequently been Conservatives. In my county I have recommended hundreds of men whom I know personally-for I have
been travelling throughout that county for the last thirty years and more, and know every child that has been born there during that period, having followed the career of every one with paternal interest-and I am still to see one recommendation I have made accepted. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of members of Parliament to make appointments, and their sense of responsibility to the people will influence them in making proper appointments; for they know that if their judgment is faulty, they will suffer in consequence. I agree with the remarks that have been made by many of the speakers who have preceded me, and I trust that the suggestion I have offered will appeal to the Government.
While I do not propose to vote for the resolution before the House, I believe that if the abuses under the present system were tabulated they would lead one to the conclusion that they form the general rule and not the exception in the administration of affairs by the Civil Service Commission as it is constituted to-day. It appears to me that, in effect, patronage has been taken from the hands of the individual member and placed in the hands of deputy ministers, post office inspectors, post masters, and various menial employees of the Dominion Government. It is unfortunate that all members are not prepared to lay their complaints before the House and establish the fact that this substitution in the bestowal of patronage has really been made. The crux of the Civil Service Act lies in section 45. If-there is any merit at all in the Act, it is to be found particularly in that section. Promotion, and promotion upon merit, is the basis of the Civil Service Act. Otherwise members might as well go back to the old system, and appoint those whom they thought best regardless of whether or not there might be a better person in the field. Section 45 of the Act says: Promotions
(1) Promotion is a change from one class to another class with a higher maximum compensation, and vacancies shall be filled, as far as is consistent with the best interests of the civil service, by promotion.
(2) Promotion shall be made for merit by the Commission upon such examination as the Commission may by regulation prescribe. The Commission may by such regulation restrict the competition at such examinations to employees or to employees of a certain class or classes of a specified seniority, and may prescribe what marks may be obtained by such employees for efficiency and seniority. Such marks shall not, however, exceed one-half of the total marks that can be obtained at the examination.
Now, Sir, I have a case in point which I brought to the attention of the House last session and which in set out at page 4,518 and following pages of Hansard. I thought when I brought this matter before the House last session, that the undertaking given to me by the Minister in charge of this Act would have led the Civil Service Commission to remedy the injury which had been done us in the province of Alberta in this particular instance, but we are yet waiting any redress. In that particular case three men made application for the position of assistant Postmaster in the city of Edmonton. The three men were Clendenning, Thompson and Cryderman. Notwithstanding the fact that these three men had made application in writing to the Civil Service Commission, notwithstanding the fact that they were supposed to pass an examination and to receive marks in competition with each other, the Superintendent, Mr. Ross, the Deputy Postmaster General, and the members of the Civil Service Commission arranged it among themselves so that a man by the name of Rutledge, of Winnipeg, would be transferred to the position of Assistant Postmaster in Edmonton and the men in that city had the satisfaction merely of receiving a letter from the Civil Service Commission that the appointment had been made. Now there is a distinct breach of the Civil Service Act in that instance, and that is not the only case which I have tabulated, but as to which I shall not bother the House. If this was done over the Dominion of Canada, as I have reason to believe that it is to a fair extent, then the usefulness of the Civil Service Commission has ceased.
On the left of the Speaker a number of jocular references have been made to the appointment of the census commissioners. Well, perhaps that is not entirely as it should have been; but the complaint that they make in that respect is the complaint that I make in another respect. Where inspectors of post offices, for instance, who belong to the political persuasion to which my hon. friends opposite adhere, go about the country and appoint, whether things are equal or not, men of their political persuasion, then I say that they are also violating the principles of the Civil Service Act in that they are exercising a patronage that they ought not to exercise because they are really taking it out of my own hands to make our own appointments and making appointments of people of their own political persuasion. If that condition of things
exists, I say, Sir, that I feel quite as capable so long as I represent East Edmonton, of making the appointments myself. I think it is well that there should be some appointments made such as I have in my mind, and for this reason. Up at Lake LaBiche, in Alberta, the appointee is of the Liberal persuasion, and he is active at the present time in making accusations -both against this Government and against myself-sweeping accusations that cannot he substantiated. I am perfectly willing that he should keep on doing that because it will be easier for me to destroy him and his friends when I get started.
I was in favour of the abolition of patronage in 1917, I am in favour of the abolition of patronage now; but I was not in favour of the transfer of patronage from members to deputy heads, and other officials in 1917; neither am I at the present time. I submit that while I cannot vote for the resolution before the House when it comes to a vote, it is urgent upon this Government to see that there is some remedy under this Act whereby patronage if not under the members of Parliament throughout Canada, that there will be a cessation of patronage dispensation within the public departments whether it is at Ottawa or elsewhere.
I wish to call attention to another point before I resume my seat, and it is in anticipation of an argument which may be made against me-that if appointments are made of politicians who use their positions for political purposes it is possible to remove them under section 32 of the Civil Service Act. That section which is headed "Political Partisanship" and reads as follows:
No deputy head, officer, clerk or employee in the Civil Service shall be debarred from voting at any Dominion or provincial election if, under the laws governing the said election, he has the right to vote; but no such deputy head, officer, clerk or employee shall engage in partisan work in connection with any such election, or contribute, receive or in any way deal with any money for any party funds.
You will see from what I have read that there is only one condition under which a remedy can be given to a member who feels that he is aggrieved by
10 p.m. a person who is a partisan, and it is that this person must be a partisan during election time. So that the party complained of has five years or four years, as the case may be, during which he can carry on political propaganda against the employer, and the member has no remedy unless the offender continues
that attitude during the time there is an election. I submit there should be some remedy in this respect also. I have no objection to any man having his political opinions; this is a free country and he should have the liberty to exercise those opinions as he sees fit. But I also believe that there should be some recognition of the respective positions of employer and employee; and it is undignified, if not disloyal for a person to accept a position from the employer and then contrive all he can against him. If that is true in the case of the particular individual it is also true of the state. I submit, therefore, that the state should be in a position to see that the employees who do not behave themselves and who do not care to serve loyally, at all times and not merely when there is an election, shall be dismissed from the service.
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend participating in this debate, but I notice a document here containing the names of the census commissioners for the various counties throughout the province of Quebec, and I find that the Tories of the county of Pontiac have been slighted by the present Government. The address of the first commissioner for the county of Pontiac is given here as , 71 Spadina Ave., Ottawa. Now, Sir, the Tories are a bad lot anywhere, but I do not believe that they are any worse in Pontiac county than they are in Carleton county, and I think this appointment, since it was to be a Tory party appointment, should have been made from the county of Pontiac and not from the city of Ottawa.
I was asked by the Chief Commissioner of the Census for suggestions as to taking the census in the' county of Pontiac which is one of the largest in the Dominion. I advised that he should have three commissioners for the three main divisions of the county. As I pointed out in a previous debate, I am as a rule careful not to make suggestions to this Government, because the best suggestion in the world would be so badly managed by them that it would have been better never to have made it. Apparently the Government followed my advice to some extent; at any rate, they appointed three commissioners. With two of them I have no quarrel, for they are from the county of Pontiac. But why the third appointee should be a man residing in the city of Ottawa is beyond my reasoning powers and is, I think, incapable of
[DOT]explanation by the Government. The older section of the constituency commences within thirty-five miles of the city of Ottawa, and for that district they have appointed Mr. Barry at Campbell's Bay. The second district, the Temiskaming, is about 300 miles from the main or older portion of the constituency, and apparently there is no person appointed there. The third is known as the Abitibi district, and there the Government have appointed Mr. Lucien Ladouceur of Amos, Que. When I was indiscreet enough to suggest a third commissioner I suppose they thought they had better have a good Tory friend who had been assisting them here, so they appointed a man from Ottawa. But they have not taken care of the Temiskaming or Ville Marie district by any one of these appointments, and it will cost the Government more to have either of these commissioners go to that district than to appoint a local man.
I suppose this debate will serve the purpose of leading some people in the country to believe that patronage has been abolished, for I do not know any other good Government purpose that it could serve. Of course, it will have no effect upon me because, since I became a member of this House, I have failed to see that political patronage has been abolished in any appointments that were of a nature to be useful to the party in power. Why, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) this afternoon in answering some criticisms from this side of the House treated the good faith of the Government in this matter as more or less of a joke. Apparently he thought it was quite a joke that any person should take the contention seriously that the Government were living up to their promises of 1917. He may think the Government is more or less of a joke, Mr. Speaker, but the great bulk of the people of this country do not; they consider the Government is a tragedy.