June 16, 1922 (14th Parliament, 1st Session)


Hermas Deslauriers


Mr. DESLAURIERS (Translation) :

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.

Topic:   EDITION
Full View