Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):

Before the orders of the day are called I should

like to direct a matter to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). In explanation of the question which I intend to ask, may I say that it has come to my attention that not only my own municipality but others are finding difficulty in getting statistical returns from the bureau of statistics in connection with applications for old age and blind pensions. I have in my hand requests for information that go back as far as January 13. I am advised that this delay is probably due to lack of temporary assistance to take care of the unusual amount of work pertaining to blind pensions and other matters. Would the minister be good enough to check up on this situation and consider the providing of temporary assistance in the department to ensure the sending forward of this statistical information to the several municipalities concerned.

Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

I shall be very glad to inquire into the matter.

Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):

Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct the attention of the government to an injustice which has been done to certain ex-service men. It has been protested through the usual channels but without securing redress, and I bring it to the attention of the house on this occasion because to some extent it touches upon the honour of the house, or at least upon the privileges and rights conferred upon the members of this house by established custom. I find it necessary to bring this matter before the house

Dismissals in Prince Edward Island

because after perusal of the correspondence in the case I find that it is only upon action by the house, upon a recommendation of the governor in council, that the wrong which I submit has been done may be righted in respect to the individuals in question.

I refer, Mr. Speaker, specifically to the dismissal of Edward E. Jay and certain other ex-service men from the staff of the Department of Agriculture in the province of Prince Edward Island during August 1936. The facts are contained in sessional paper 243A of last session, a return to an order of the house dated January 27, 1937. The essential facts as contained in that sessional paper and set forth by me appear in Hansard of April 7, 1937, at page 2691. I shall not repeat the facts which were then placed on the records of the house, except to say that these ex-service men, after being employed for periods ranging from five to thirteen years, were dismissed, without due notice and without inquiry, by reason of action begun by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant). The hon. member made his complaint with reference to Mr. Jay in the following terms in a letter to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner):

To my personal knowledge, Mr. Edward E. Jay, seed potato inspector, Peake's Station, R.R. No. 1, Kings county, P.E.I., was guilty of political partisanship at the last federal election and I recommend that he be dismissed from the service.

Yours respectfully,

Thos. V. Grant,

M.P. for Kings, P.E.I.

Mr. Jay was dismissed under authority of order in council P.C. 2156, dated August 26, 1936. Others were dismissed by order of the minister, some of them by telegram. I would ask the house to note that this was done without any further inquiry or any detailed statement of the alleged offences in any instance. In every instance considerable evidence was subsequently produced to show that these men had not been guilty of the alleged offences. This evidence submitted by the men on their own behalf was corroborated, as the sessional paper will indicate, by a number of responsible bodies of citizens, but as far as I am aware no action was taken to grant them the hearing requested. All of the men had enjoyed excellent records of service not only in the Canadian forces overseas but subsequently in the Department of Agriculture, and I submit that by reason of the action taken not only were they deprived of their livelihood but their employment opportunities for the future have been blighted. My point is that they were denied recourse to any procedure that would ensure observance of the elementary principles of British justice.

The justification for these dismissals was based on a custom that has been tolerated in this house for years. I consider that this custom should no longer be tolerated, because in application it is grossly unjust and open to vicious practice. It now becomes apparent upon further investigation that the custom as originally agreed upon has been violated and given an unwarranted application. The Minister of Agriculture referred to the custom in correspondence that was exchanged. I quote from page 2699 of Hansard of April 7, 1937, where the hon. Minister of Agriculture is reported as having said:

I can only say that the action was taken under the practice which has prevailed for a number of years in connection with such matters. The practice followed is that where a member, on his own responsibility, states in writing that a man has been politically active, his word is taken on the ground that he is in a position to be called upon to answer for his action on the floor of the house. Where anyone else makes complaint, a full investigation is held.

As to whether the hon. member for Kings feels disposed to answer on the floor of the House of Commons for his action in accordance with this custom, I leave to his own conscience. I would, however, bespeak his cooperation to secure a full investigation into the matter, that any injustice done may be rectified.

I would ask hon. members to note that this special practice, authorized by an understanding between the political parties years ago, has not in this instance been carried out in accordance with the terms of the original agreement. I refer to the remarks made by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking on a former occasion in this house. Sir Wilfrid Laurier is reported in Hansard of December 6, 1911, at page 894, as follows:

I beg my hon. friend's pardon. We said in 1896 that no man should be dismissed unless he was first given the opportunity of being heard. But I said also that we would accept the written statement of a member of parliament, giving the facts and asking for the dismissal. This is the rule we laid down and we have lived up to it. I am told by hon. gentlemen opposite that rve did not live up to that rule. I do not admit the charge. I think we did, but even if we were deficient I would expect that the hon. gentlemen who are on the treasury benches at present would at least act according to their own doctrines. Are they going to throw over their own doctrine and institute dismissals right and left without giving any man the opportunity of defending himself or without any member of parliament taking the responsibility of placing on record a charge against the man whose dismissal he seeks? I would insist on the leader of the government that he should enforce the rule that no man should be deprived of office without being given the opportunity of defending

Dismissals in Prince Edward Island

himself or at least unless the member of parliament who asks for his dismissal has the courage to put on record the reasons why he demands it.

Again, in Hansard of February 15, 1923, the present Prime Minister is reported as follows:

In some cases charges have been preferred against certain officials by hon. members of this house. Where an hon. member has been prepared to state to the house that of his own knowledge an offence contravening the provisions of the Civil Service Act respecting political partisanship has been committed, the government has. acted under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, which provide that a civil servant guilty of political partisanship shall not be retained in the service. I think that list will cover any of the dismissals to which my right hon. friend has referred.

Mr. Meighen: I presume that that list would cover practically every case, because the statement from any member that a man has been guilty of political partisanship is not very hard to secure from a partisan supporter.

Mr. Mackenzie King: I did not say a statement from any member. I said a statement from an hon. member of this house that of his own knowledge a civil servant has been guilty of a certain offence which was in the opinion of the government sufficient to warrant his dismissal under the provisions of the Civil Service Act.

The clear intention was that before carrying out such dismissals under this custom, on the written word of a member of parliament, details of the alleged offence would be specifically set out. This contention is borne out by the terms of order in council P.C. 1467, dated October 16, 1922, which I quote:

The committee of the privy council have had before them a report from the right honourable the Prime Minister, representing that, in view of the large number of charges of political partisanship which have been made against government officials in different parts of the country, whose dismissal is asked for by the complainant, it is advisable in the public interest that a course of procedure should be defined for dealing with such charges, in a manner which, whilst giving effect to the intent of the existing legislation respecting political partisanship, will, at the same time, avoid the possibility of injustice being done any member of the public service.

The Prime Minister, therefore, recommends that the following procedure be adopted, viz.:

1. That only such charges of political partisanship as may be made specifically in writing against an official of the government shall be deemed deserving of consideration.

2. That without in any way superseding or suspending the power conferred by existing legislation, when a specific charge of political partisanship is made in writing against an official of the government, if the act complained of is, in the opinion of the minister, of a character to constitute "engaging in partisan work" within the meaning of section 32, chapter 12, George V, 1918, an Act respecting the

Civil Service of Canada, such charge may be referred by the minister of the department in which such official is employed, to a commissioner for investigation and report.

3. That for the purpose of such investigation and report, should the number of complaints so warrant, one or more commissioners may be appointed in each of the several provinces under the provisions of part I of the Inquiries Act, chapter 104, revised statutes, 1906.

(Signed) H. W. Lothrop, Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council.

It should be noted that this order in council does not distinguish between a member of parliament and any other person, and this is as it should be. It seems to me unthinkable that a member of this house should be privileged under the protection of his position to initiate action that would deprive the victim of that action of recourse to the elementary procedure of law and justice. If this practice is condoned, nothing would more seriously demoralize the efficiency of the public service or work greater hardship to civil servants affected. The house will note that in the cases mentioned and referred to in sessional paper 243A, the Minister of Agriculture did not adhere to the terms of the order in council. The order in council requires that the charges be specified in writing and in such terms as to enable the minister to form an opinion as to whether or not the act complained of is of a character to constitute engaging in partisan work within the meaning of the act. In these cases the details of the charges were not specified, and subsequently evidence in support of the affidavits furnished by the men in question was not given consideration. The minister was never in a position, in the light of the evidence on his file, to form the required opinion. In no instance were the charges made the subject of an inquiry or an investigation as required under the order in council. I submit that these men were wrongfully, perhaps mistakenly, dismissed. The procedure followed in the cases cited does not appear to coincide with the intent either of the order in council or of the House of Commons as expressed in the quotations I have laid before the house.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this mistake should not deprive the men affected of the right to appeal for justice and redress. I appeal to the government to institute an investigation with the object of reinstating men who have been dismissed upon insufficient evidence. That is the first point. I think the house owes it to the men in question because of the procedure followed. Secondly, I would urge the government to give this house an assurance that in future insistence will be made upon a procedure which works full

Dismissals in Prince Edward Island

justice to all men concerned, namely, that within the terms of the order in council, details of such charges made by members of this house shall be set forth specifically, and that, when deemed worthy of consideration, proper inquiry shall be made as authorized under the terms of the order in council.

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :

One year ago, when the house was in session, I was notified by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) that it was his intention to bring this matter up on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture; but at a later date, and I must say after the hon. member had informed me of his intention to change the procedure, the matter was brought up on the estimates of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power). I am not certain as to why the change was made. When my estimates were up I had all the information here with which to answer any questions with regard to the dismissal of these particular persons; the question however was not discussed on my estimates last session but upon the estimates of the minister of pensions.

When the matter came before the house I did not happen to be in my seat, as I had another appointment and was not able to be here. But on that occasion the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) addressed the house and stated what I assume would be taken to be the view of those who had previously served in governments in Canada on a matter of this kind. At page 2703 of Hansard the hon. member for Kootenay East used these words;

When I first came to parliament twenty-six years ago, a member of parliament had the right to say that of his own personal knowledge someone was guilty of partisanship, and that person would be dismissed; more than that, when I first came to the house, any employee of the government would be dismissed at the mere request of a member. That was the system then in vogue, the old patronage system. We have gone a long way from that, fortunately.

Further down the column on the same page the hon. member for Kootenay East used these words;

As regards these ten veterans-

In the first place, there were only four veterans; the ten who were dismissed in that particular constituency were not all veterans.

As regards these ten veterans, however, it appears that four of them were appointed under the regime of the present party prior to 1930, and they are dismissed at the request of a member, without a hearing, and without being apprised of the specific offences of which they are accused. The statement is simply made that the member knew that they were partisan and that they should be dismissed. That is a retrograde step; it is something that has not

been sanctioned in this house in recent years. True it is that Sir Wilfrid Laurier laid down a dictum that has been frequently quoted, to the effect that if a member seriously stated on his own responsibility as a member that he had personal knowledge that the person complained of had been guilty of partisanship, that person should be dismissed.

What I wish to call attention to is the fact that apparently in the mind of at least one hon. member who had served in governments previously, this was considered a custom which had not been followed by governments in recent years. The hon. member for Vancouver North, in the speech he has just made, has taken exactly the same position, that this is something which was practised some years ago but has not been practised in recent years by governments in Canada; and he has quoted remarks made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in dealing with this situation following the election Of 1911.'

The question was discussed in 1911, again in 1923, and again in 1928 on the floor of the house, and so far as I have been able to follow those discussions it was admitted from all sides of the house on each of those occasions that it had been the general practice to act upon the word of a member who has a seat in this house and who can, because of that fact, answer for his recommendations upon the floor of the house. When, two years ago, I became a member of the government and recommendations of this kind were brought to my attention, I took the trouble to check back and find what the practice was, and determined to follow the practice exactly as it had been followed previously in the Department of Agriculture and other departments, at least until some change was announced in connection with the policy having to do with dismissals of this kind. And when representations were made to the department, by a member of the house, to the effect that to his own personal knowledge an employee of the department had been politically active, action was taken automatically by the departmental officials to dismiss him. I did not change the practice in any particular; I gave no instructions to them to make any change, but simply informed them they were to follow the practice that had been followed and that they should do so until such time as they received instructions to do otherwise. So far as these individual cases are concerned, they did not come to my personal attention as individual cases to be acted upon by the minister, but were acted upon in the ordinary course of events in the department as cases had been acted upon previously.

Lest there should be any question in that regard, I should like to read to the house

Dismissals in Prince Edward Island

two or three letters that went out following the election of 1930-in the years 1930 and

1931-because they bear out the contention I am putting forward at the moment. On November 3, 1930, a letter was addressed to Paul Caldwell, potato inspector in the province of New Brunswick, in these terms:

Dear Sir:

The Civil Service Act states that no government employee shall engage in partisan work in connection with any dominion or provincial election, and it provides that any person who is guilty of political partisanship shall be dismissed from the civil service.

Information has been received in the department to the effect that you engaged in partisan activities, and if this statement is correct, the department is giving you an opportunity to submit your resignation; otherwise, there will be no alternative but to proceed with your dismissal from the service.

Please be good enough to let me know at the earliest possible moment, as if no reply is received from you within a reasonable time the department conclude that the information which it received is correct, and that you were guilty of political partisanship and will proceed accordingly.

The following letter was addressed to the minister of the department on July 30, 1931:

This is_ to certify that charges have been made against Russell Nicholson, Hunter River, Prince Edward Island, who is engaged as fruit and vegetable inspector in Queens county, Prince Edward Island, that he was guilty of political partisanship in the recent dominion election. We personally accept the responsibility that these allegations are true and beg to ask for his immediate dismissal.

This is signed by the two members for that constituency, and action was taken upon their recommendation. There were sixteen letters signed by the members of the two constituencies dealing with eight different employees in the constituency of Queens, in Prince Edward Island, and eight also in a constituency in New Brunswick, after the same election. And they were acted upon. I did not go any further than to check these two constituencies, but I found sixteen on all fours with the four that are here brought before the house. They were in two constituencies, one in Prince Edward Island, and one in New Brunswick, and I think they justify me in saying that at least until the time of the last government, governments in Canada had followed the practice that had been pursued back in 1911, whether those governments were Liberal or Conservative.

I make this statement merely in order to make it clear to the house that any action which was taken in relation to the four men in question was in accordance with the practice that has been followed, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that it

has been followed in all the departments of government right down to the present time. I am not arguing that it is the proper practice; I am simply saying it is the practice that has been followed in dealing with matters of this kind. Where a member states in this house that, of his own personal knowledge, someone has been active politically, then automatically the department concerned has acted upon the recommendation of the member and has removed from office the particular person concerned.

With regard to any steps that have been taken following such action on the part of the department, I examined the records still further and found that without exception-if there were any exceptions they were very few-the person concerned, did by some method or other deny that he had taken political action after having secured the position he then occupied. On one occasion one of these individuals-one of the eight in New Brunswick to whom I referred-declared that he had never done anything of a political nature while he was in the employ of the government. That brings up another point which I shall discuss in a moment with reference to these particular persons.

On the declarations with reference to the four individuals whose names are now before the house, there are some of the same names as appeared on the declarations on behalf of the other officials in 1931, indicating that they had given good service and that they should be allowed to continue in office. The records show that some of the same concerns that made representations on behalf of these four men, also made representations on behalf of those who were removed in 1931. But I am not submitting these facts to use them as an argument that the practice is a proper one; I am simply showing that it has been the practice.

One investigation was held as a result of the protests made in 1931. It had reference to the dismissal of one returned soldier. Some of the others in the group that were dismissed, following 1930 as well as 1935, were returned soldiers, but theiv, was one investigation that was held into the dismissal of a returned soldier. During the investigation, so far as I have been able to read the evidence, it appeared that the son, or, I believe, a nephew of the member who bad made the statement that he, of his personal knowledge, knew that this man had been politically active, gave evidence to the effect that he had seen this particular employee go into a hall where a public political meeting w.as being held and had seen him come out again. To show the effectiveness of in investigation of that kind

Dismissals in Prince Edward Island

the individual's dismissal was confirmed on the word of the son of the member in the same way as he had been dismissed previously on the word of the member himself. That was in 1931, following the election of 1930.

The record right through indicates that this sort of thing has been the practice down to the present time, and that is the only reason that I make these statements. I make them because of the very definite assertion of the hon. member for Kootenay East and of the hon. member for Vancouver North, that while this was the practice back in 1911 it has not been carried on recently and should not be revived.

Mr. STEVENS:

I think the minister is stretching the meaning of what I said regarding 1911. What I said regarding 1911 was that it was the common practice to remove employees of the government on the word of the member. I did not say that that was the practice that was defined by Sir Wilfrid Laurier or Sir Robert Borden, and others.

I said it was the common practice, and I added that in recent years the custom had been a little more rigid-at any rate, that is what I intended to imply-in that it was required that there should be a written statement by the member. If the minister will do me the courtesy to read my remarks more carefully he will see that I did not wish to suggest for a moment that the practice had been abandoned. Everyone knows it has not.

Mr. GARDINER:

I am pleased to have that explanation from the hon. member for Kootenay East, because it makes it unnecessary for me to proceed any further with an argument to convince the house that it has been the practice -right down to the present time.

In dealing with the individuals in question I stated a moment ago that the hon. member for Kootenay East in referring to the matter mentioned ten returned soldiers, and I indicated that these persons who were dismissed in that constituency were not all returned soldiers. Only four of them were, I call attention to that only in order to point out that what the minister of pensions said a year ago regarding the matter is true, that this particular question does not concern returned soldiers as -opposed to any other individuals in the employ of the government of Canada. If a man has been politically active and the proof which in the past has been accepted with regard to his activity is presented, action results from that, whether the man is a returned soldier or is not. In other words, being a returned soldier does not excuse a man for being politically active.

There is another -point in connection with these four men that I would like to place on the record. Only one of the four had what might be called a permanent job. Mr. Jay, I think, had a job which entitled him to draw pay from the government throughout the entire year. The other men had only part time jobs. Mr. Edward Cairns, who came into the employ of the government in 1928, drew from the government the following amounts

omitting cents:

1928- 29 $3271929- 30

5551930- 31

5141931- 32

4641932- 33

3121933- 34

6831934- 35

4611935- 36

4261936- 37

189

So it will be seen that these were all part time men working at so much a day or month.

Mr. MacNEIL:

Were they not employed each season-seasonal men?

Mr. GARDINER:

Yes, they were seasonal men, employed each season while inspecting a crop of either vegetables or fruit. Then Mr. Edmund P. Donnelly received the following amounts:

1931- 32.. ..

1932- 33.. ..

1933- 34.. ..

1934- 35.. ..

1935- 36.. ..

1936- 37.. ..

Mr. Charles MacLeod amounts:

1931- 32

1932- 33

1933- 34

1934- 35

1935- 36

1936- 37

drew the following

These men were all employed by the day and for so many days. _

Mr. Edward Earl Jay was employed in 1924 and again in 1925. In 1926-27 he was employed from July 5 to January 5. In 1927-28 he was employed from July 11 to January 11. For 1928 to 1930 he was employed from February 15, 1928 to August 19, 1930. On August 20, 1930 he was made permanent, and from that -time on drew pay for the entire year. _

I state these facts in order to bring out the point that some of the men who declared that they were not politically active during the time they were in the employ of the government made a distinction between the time they were actually working for the government and the time they were not. This raises a question to which I think hon. mem-

Use of Canada's Financial Resources

bers might give some consideration when dealing with a matter of this kind, as to whether or not the employment of a man by the government during two or three months of the year on some particular work deprives him of the right to take any part whatsoever in politics during the remainder of the year. Some of the men dismissed seem to think it should not deprive them of that right, and have made declarations to the effect that they have not been politically active while in the employ of the government. But so far as this one man was concerned, he was in the constant employ of the government, and he was dismissed on the word of the member to the effect that he had been politically active.

Mr. HEAPS:

What was the nature of the charges against the persons dismissed?

Mr. GARDIXER:

There were no definite charges. These letters in 1931, and all the letters right back over the years, indicate that the member did not make any specific charge, but simply said that the individual to his personal knowledge had been politically active.

Mr. COLD WELL:

May we have the

declarations that these men made in refuting the charges?

Mr. GARDINER:

They are all on the records of last session. There were three returns brought down in reply to an order of the house: one dealing with the constituency I have been speaking of in New Brunswick, one with the constituency of Queens, Prince Edward Island, and another with these four cases in the constituency of Kings. I think most of the records will be found in those returns.

Mr. MacNEIL:

I direct the attention of the minister to the fact that declaration was made that they had never been politically active and never attended political meetings.

Mr. GARDINER:

There were declarations of that same kind in other cases, all the way back, and still the word of the member was taken.