Are there ever two men of exactly equal ability and devotion to duty? In an examination, is it not always the case of someone exercising his discretion to select the better of two men to discharge the position?
Even the judgment of his superiors may be wrong, and the man with lesser ability may be appointed. It is the same way with the selection of judges. So many factors enter into the selection, intangibles that depend upon the likes and dislikes of those making the appointment. I am not finding fault with the minister or his department. I am merely showing that our arrangements in the matter are purely arbitrary and, in their operation, quite discriminatory. They do not do fairness as between individuals or groups. I am satisfied that if we are to have a well ordered society we shall have to find some way by which we can put people on a more equal basis than is achieved by these arbitrary decisions.
Far be it from me to try to make a case against human nature. But human nature is not a static thing. Human
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
nature reacts according to its environment. In one environment the same individual reacts one way, and in another environment he reacts another way. I am not finding fault with the minister. I am merely trying to show the flaws in our ways of doing things. A place of rank and position carries with it implications that give the children and grandchildren of the individual occupying that position certain advantages which other people have not, regardless of their ability or their service to the community. When the minister gets more time to think over what I have said I am sure he will agree with me.
there is no service in which luck plays a greater part than it does in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. For instance, two constables go out to two different detachments. A crime is committed in one of these detachments and no crime is committed in the other. The constable who has had several crimes committed in his detachment is, of course, brought to the notice of his superior officers, whereas the other poor man merely puts in his weekly and monthly reports. While he does his work conscientiously, he does not enjoy the same opportunities which the constable had whose good fortune it was to be in a detachment where a certain amount of crime was committed.
Might I ask how many constables and non-commissioned officers have been promoted to commissioned rank during the past year?
for entering the force? Are they higher or lower than pre-war? I have a particular reason for asking, because I have been led to believe that the qualifications have been lowered. That may not be true. Have the qualifications been lowered physically or from the point of view of scholastic attainments?
I cannot refrain from rising to make one comment on the remarks of the hon. member 83166-307
for Vancouver Bast. Like the minister, I find myself in agreement with the hon. member often, sometimes more often than I should like to admit. But tonight I suggest that the minister has given a complete answer by saying that what the hon. member is complaining against is human nature. At the end of his speech I could not see that we got anywhere except that either we should promote nobody or we should promote everybody.
of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario leaves a little to be desired. I can see the minister's point of view and the difficulties that his officials would have in trying to administer things to suit all human beings in the force or out of it. But I believe one thing that can be given consideration is this. After all, the elements of luck and ability have entered into the active service of the constable. When the time for his retirement or superannuation comes, one thing about human nature that is pretty generally true of all people is that they all need the same to live on. Suppose a man has served well and honourably as a constable and perhaps, through that element of luck which the hon. member for Nanaimo mentioned, has gained a substantial promotion because he was fortunate enough to be in a detachment where crime was committed, and that another man lias given good service, done a good job but did not have that chance of promotion. Nevertheless, when the latter retires he needs just as much to live on as the other fellow that got promoted. So why should their superannuation not be equalized upon their retiremenlt from the force? .