Mr. CURRIE:

The hon. gentleman at one time had charge of a department, and I never heard a word against the administration of patronage during his regime. Does he remember the case of the Toronto post office? There was an attempt to have the minister set aside an old civil servant there because he happened to be opposed to the minister in politics, and he refused to do it. He proceeded in a manner which resulted in benefit to the service; he appointed a Tory there against the views of the Liberals of West Ontario. I would far

rather leave the administration of patronage to an hon. gentleman such as the hon. member for Maisonneuve than to such an organization as the Civil Service Commission. There never was as much trouble in connection with the Toronto post office during his regime, when it was a matter of dealing largely with Tories, as there is at the present time.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

My hon. friend knows that my hair turned grey during that regime-I was between the devil and the deep sea all the time. If my hon. friend has any regard for a reasonably long tenure of life on my part he will let the Civil Service Commission continue to operate- because I am quite confident that within a few months we Liberals will be called upon to manage the affairs of the country. First, then, I say: Do not tamper with

this Act. The operations of the Civil Service Commission involve the payment of a very large sum of money-some $67,000,000 a year. In the case of the banking institutions of the country we do not revise the laws and regulations except every ten years. In the case of the tariff we make no revision until after a certain time has elapsed; it is too important a matter to be tampered with every year. I would do the same with the Civil Service Commission. I am opposed to this Bill because that commission is composed of men as independent as the judges who administer our laws. The merit system which has been introduced into this country, and which found no stronger and more eloquent advocate than the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) who is now leading the House, should be given a chance. It is a new departure in Canada. Let us live up to the promises, aye the sacred pledges made by gentlemen on both sides of the House when through the leg-islation_in this respect adopted two years ago we declared this country virtuous. I believe in the merit system. This Bill is opposed, by the commission, by the independent press of Canada, and generally by public opinion. The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) stated, when he introduced the Bill the other day, that the commission had had an enormous task to perform. That is true, and it is because of the very extent of the task that there may have been some disappointments in the administration of the Act. The reclassification in itself was a tremendous task, and although some mistakes were made we must give the commission credit for having accomplished it. It is evident that if

they had not had the task of reclassifying the whole service we would not hear to-day the complaints that are made against them. It is natural that in connection with the reclassifying of thousands of civil servants all over Canada there should be some complaints. We have great problems to deal with, and having regard to the present financial commitments of our country why should we subject members of the House to the temptations which go with the exercise of political patronage? The saner portion of public opinion is not in favour of any such revision of the Act as is contemplated. We should give it a chance to be administered during a certain number of years. Sir, I know what a part politics plays in the matter of patronage. We are fresh from an election in the county of Yamaska. I took part in that election, and I will tell the House what is the honest truth. I myself saw, and the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) saw, electors in the possession of telegrams signed by party heelers inviting them to go to the nearest town and get a job in the dredging works of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I do not say that the Minister of Marine was responsible for it; I am quite sure that he will not foot the bill when it is presented to him. But I know that in one instance Mr. Lacouture, who is agent of the department at Sorel, received instructions-not officially from the department, but from another gentleman, my hon. friend's colleague the Postmaster General, who was in the county-to give jobs on the dredging plant to fifteen men from Pierreville, one of the chief localities in that county. I do not say that it is a crime. Both parties in days gone by probably did the same thing at election time.

Mr. BALLANTYNE:

I know nothing whatever about the matter.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

I do not charge the hon. gentleman.

Mr. BALLANTYNE:

The dredging is being carried on in the usual way.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Yes, and I dare say, when bills are presented to my hon. friend, he will not accept them, because I do not believe he ever gave such instructions. But my hon. friend can take my word that they were given. I have seen people who received the telegrams, who -also have copies of the telephonic messages ordering Mr. Lacouture to take electors for a week preceding polling day on the dredging plant. Is there any hon. member on this 2841

side or on that side who wishes to revert to that devilish system of political patronage, especially during election time? Let us get free from that system and give the commission an opportunity to exercise its full authority under the protection of Parliament. Let that commission administer the Act free from all influences. I was not a political friend of Dr. Roche nor of Mr. Jameson when they sat in this House. They were, however, both personal friends, but as a Liberal, dyed-in-the-wool,

I have the utmost confidence in the honour of Dr. Roche and Mr. Jameson; I fully trust their integrity, and Parliament should support them and Mr. LaRochelle as well.

Mr. CALDER:

Might I have the attention of the House for only a minute or two? We shall not be able to finish with the Bill until after eight o'clock. There is just one point that I desire to make at the present time, and that is that my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) has not dealt with the main question contained in this Bill, that is, whether or not there should be any exemptions under the law. The question is whether or not the Civil Service Commission should have entire jurisdiction over all persons appointed in any branch of the service in any part of Canada. There is no use in our spending hours discussing the question of political patronage; that is not the question. I thoroughly agree, and I dare say that every member of the House agrees, as regards the question of promotions being made on merit and so on. But the main question is whether or not we should require the Civil Service Commission to deal with all questions of appointment in every branch of the Civil Service throughout the whole of Canada. Let us see what the commission itself said as regards that point at the very end of the evidence and not at the beginning.

This will take only a minute or two, because I propose at this time to make only two quotations. Mr. Foran and Dr. Roche came as two of the chief witnesses of the commission. This is what was said by Mr. Foran on May 16 when the inquiry was practically completed. As reported on page 360 of the evidence, he was asked [DOT] this question:

Would you say. In the light of all the evidence that we have had-you have heard most of it and I dare say you have read what you have not heard-that it would he advisable for the Civil Service Commission itself to take into consideration the whole situation in that regard-

We were talking of the question of exemptions.

-and come to a conclusion as to the classes of employees that might very well in the public interest be taken from the operation of the Civil Service Act?

His reply is this:

X am in a position to say this: That the commission have from time to time considered the advisability of preparing their exemption list, because in every Civil Service jurisdiction in the world there are exemption lists. We have never had time to devote to that work, which is important, and the necessity of it is impressed upon us from time to time by appointments which have come before us to which we did not consider it was practical to apply the Civil Service Act, and if it had not been as I pointed out this morning, that we had this reclassification problem on our hands, I have no doubt the exemptions lists would have been in existence some time ago.

Mr. EULER:

Does that not show that

he felt that he had power to grant exemption under the Act as it stood?

Mr. CALDER:

We threshed out with

the commission the importance of effect or value of the word "practical," and no person is better acquainted with the evidence than my hon. friend is.

Mr. EULER:

His mere statement that

they were considering drawing up lists shows that they thought they had the power to do that under the Act of 1918.

Mr. CALDER:

That may be. I will

not discuss that phase of the matter just now.

Mr. EULER:

That is the vital part of

it.

Mr. CALDER:

This is another ques->

tion which was asked Mr. Foran:

To put the case a little more concretely- and I am not going to ask you to reach a decision-take the case of those light-houses at isolated places where there can be no real competition, don't you think the commission should consider whether people of that class should be exempted?-A. Dr. Roche can tell you that he practically decided, as far as such appointments are concerned, that they should be exempt, because it is impossible for us to handle them in any efficient way. It is a case where you have got to look up the men. You cannot have any competition for positions of that kind. The point which the commission is very anxious to make clear is this: we have had this work imposed upon us. We have adopted the most practical and business-like methods, the most inexpensive methods of dealing with these appointments.

Only one other quotation and I am through. This was a series of questions asked by the member for Edmonton West, of Dr. Roche:

Mr. Griesbach: You have sat at all the

meetings of the committee and have heard all

['Mr. Ca.lder.]

the evidence. Has your mind moved along the road to the point where you think that in the public interest some of these classes of employees might in the public interest be removed from the operation of the Civil Service Act?

Not because it was practicable

the hon. member asks if, in the public interest, they should be removed from the operation of the Act. Dr. Roche's answer was "Yes."

Mr. Griesbach: Your mind has moved along that line?

Hon. Mr. Roche: In fact, I do not know that I could not go a little further and say that so drastic a measure at one step, such as taken in taking in the whole service was too big an undertaking, and in view of my desire to have and maintain the best Civil Service Act in the world, I would not like to have any retrograde step unless an assurance is forthcoming that it is absolutely necessary. I know that we have a Civil Service Act that is more advanced than that in the United States, in England, or in any other country; but I am anxious to see the commission given time to work it out, and we will have more time in future to pay attention to the provisions of the Act when we get this huge undertaking of classification out of our way, as we will have it cleared up before next session.

My main point is this-and it goes right to the crux of the whole Bill;-it is not a question of appointing a wharfinger, or a labourer in some lumber camp or survey party, or a clerk at Ottawa or a lighthouse-keeper on the sea-coast; the whole question is, taking the entire Civil Service throughout Canada, whether it is advisable, in the public interest, to provide that the Civil Service Commission should not exempt all the Cases which we have required. Dr. Roche, as well as Mr. Foran, the secretary, state, not only in the quotations that I have given, but in others that they deem it is in the public interest that they should have that power. Where does the power rest? It is not with the Government. The Civil Service Commission must decide what classes shall be exempt, and they must have clear reasons for those exemptions. If we add to the Bill a clause that they shall report to Parliament every exemption they make and if, further, they have to state the reasons for the exemptions they make, I think Parliament and the people are well protected. After hearing all the evidence, and knowing the manner in which the Civil Service has been operated during the last two years, I maintain it is in the interest of the public and of the Civil Service that there should be certain exemptions.

"As I said the other day, no one is more opposed to patronage than I am, but I want to see the public business of this country run properly, and I claim there are certain powers that have 'been handed over to that commission that are operating in the other

direction, and the public service is suffering as a consequence. \* -

At Six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at Eight o'clock.

DIVORCE-ALPHONSE LeMOYNE de MARTIGNY

On the Order: House again in committee on Bill No. 120, for the relief of Alphonse LeMoyne de Martigny.-Mr. Ross.

Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. King, that this Order be discharged from the Order Paper.

Motion agreed to and Order discharged.

The CHAIRMAN:

When the committee rose, clause 1 of the Bill was under consideration, with the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Euler. Mr. Euler had moved to amend the clause by striking out from line 14, on page 1 of the Bill, the words "nor in the public interest."

Mr. CALDER:

We have had a fairly lengthy discussion on this Bill, and when it was before the House the other day a suggestion was made to the effect that an amendment should be made providing that an annual report should be submitted to Parliament by the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Who made that suggestion?

Mr. CALDER:

It was made by the

leader of the Opposition. The suggestion was that an annual report should be made to Parliament by the Civil Service Commission, setting forth all exemptions made under this proposed section, and also the reasons for such exemptions. The report, it was stated, should contain the regulations passed by the commission and approved by the Governor in Council, for dealing with any positions that were exempted, in whole or in part, from the operation of the law. That matter has since been considered, and I understand that the minister in charge of the Bill is prepared to move that amendment. Probably, under the circumstances, the member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler) might be willing

to let his amendment go for the time being. Parliament will have an opportunity to consider the whole situation another year from now. In any event we have had a very full discussion, and I doubt very much whether anything would be gained by discussing the matter at further length. After all, it turns largely on one point, and that is as to whether or not the Civil Service Commission should be given power to exempt certain classes from the operation of the law on the ground of public interest. When you boil it down, that is the main contention between the parties who have spoken to the Bill, and it seems to me that we might let the law, as proposed, operate for at least one year, and Parliament will then have an opportunity, knowing exactly from the report of the commission what action is taken, to consider the whole question at the next session. Personally, I am strongly inclined to the view, from the attitude of the commission itself, that they will exercise that power with very great discretion, because the commission, I feel confident, is very anxious that what is ordinarily known as political patronage should not again enter into the administration of the public service. There is no one more anxious than they are to see that the principle embodied in the law of 1918 is carried out, and during this year, and until Parliament meets again, the matter might very well be left to the commission.