Mr. MEIGHEN:

That is not my point. I know that was in the bill, but the government in presenting the measure to the House stated that it was quite prepared to allow the bill to go to a committee without any restraint, restriction, or specification whatsoever, and that the committee should be sole judge as to how the act should be amended.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Is not that exactly what I have suggested? What objection can there be to my suggestion?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

As the act was amended there is ample liberty for exemptions from its provisions so there is no further object in submitting it now to a special committee.

Mr. EULER:

In reply to the leader of the Opposition I would say there must have been in the minds of the government something very closely approaching what I am arguing; otherwise, why insert these words in what my hon. friend is pleased to term a blank bill, or why, indeed, introduce an amending bill at all? On the face of it, it was an indication on the part of the government that they felt that the law which they themselves had brought into existence was, in its working out, found to be impracticable and undesirable in certain directions. However, the bill was referred to the committee. It was very clear proof- proof at least to my mind-that the intention of the bill was, to some extent at least, to

The Civil Service

reintroduce the practice of political patronage. I was not at all alone in that impression because throughout the length and breadth of Canada the press took alarm and viewed it in the same way; so much so that protests were made, and these grew so extensive and vigorous that we had not been in session very often in that committee before the words which I have quoted were eliminated from the bill. But the majority of the members of that committee devised something else and I speak deliberately when 1 say, that, in my opinion, the changes which were made in the bill, even after the elimination of the words which I have quoted, while not apparently alarming in themselves, were, according to the wording, intended to carry out exactly the ideas which were first in. the minds of the government when they did insert the original words. Clause 38 of the Civil Service Act, 1918, read as follows:

Provided, however, that in any case where the commission decides that it is not practicable. . .

And I would draw your attention to the word " practicable "-

... to apply this act to any position or positions, the commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council may make such regulations as are deemed advisable prescribing how such position or positions are to be dealt with.

If it was not practicable, the clause stated the commission could, in effect, exempt those particular classes from the operation of the bill and, I presume, such classes as it might think it was not practicable any longer to control by the commission should be placed back into the hands of the government and thus, to that extent, restore patronage. And the change that was made was this:

In any case where the commission decides that it is not practicable or in the public interest. . .

And then the rest of the clause reads very much as it did before. The only change made was to insert the words "in the public interest.' Now hon. members may judge for themselves whether the addition of these words "in the public interest" widens the power or whether it does not. The vice-chairman of that committee, the Hon. Mr. Calder, a member of the Cabinet, stated that he thought the power wider than if those original classes-the professional, technical and other classes which I have spoken about before-had been included. But that was passed in the House. Now the point I desire to make is this: The previous government drew up what they thought was a perfect act in 1918. They either found that it was not practicable, that it was not workable, that it was not for the advantage of the public service, or else the pressure upon the government for the return of patronage by their followers was so great that they found it could no longer be resisted. The evidence, as shown in that committee by the actual introduction of that bill, was at least as strong an indication of the desire on the part of the then government to return to patronage as is indicated by any remarks made this evening by the Prime Minister.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a further suggestion. The hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) has stated, I think, his opposition to the appointment of a committee. I should like to see him alter that attitude, for this reason: it is amply shown, I think, both by the action of the previous government, and by the instances which have been quoted by hon. gentlemen who have spoken before me, that there are conditions in the operation of the Civil Service Act which might very well be improved. What then is the natural and logical thing to do? Instead of debating the matter here, instead of examining instances, which we cannot do in any great number on the floor of the House, is it not the most natural thing that representatives of all the groups in the House should gather together, take evidence, satisfy themselves of weaknesses in the present act, and make such recommendations as they may see fit to make?

I think that is perfectly logical. I would add to that the statement that during the meeting of the committee, when it was finally decided to add these words "in the public interest," I know as a matter of fact the chairman of the Civil Service Commission was very much opposed to it. He would have preferred to wait a year-these are his own words-to see how the act would work out. My own impression was that it might very well go on for some time longer, and then the commission itself, and the various officials of the department, including the deputy heads, might very well make the recommendations to the government as to what remedy might be applied to make the act more workable. We have now waited two years more. It is time to review the whole situation.

A statement has been made that by order in council some ten thousand employees have been exempted from the operation of the act. I do not know whether that number is correct or not. I believe that there were certain classes of employees that could very well, and with public advantage, be exempted from the operation of the act; for example, such as country postmasters, who, I believe, are now exempt. I do not think hon. gentlemen will argue with any great force or conviction that

The Civil Service

a body of men sitting in Ottawa will know more about the qualifications of a man out in a little place in British Columbia, or in the northern part of Ontario, or Nova Scotia, for the position of postmaster than the men who come directly from these places. If this means consulting the member of parliament, and to that extent a return to patronage, I am quite willing to say that I would be in favour of it. If ten thousand have been restored, and if as the leader of the Opposition says, that was done with exceeding promptness, I would merely like to say that, if that were done in June, I think the very same thing would have been done in 1921, after the change was made in the act. The change was made in the act enabling the commission to divest themselves of these powers in June of 1921. I think it was about the month of September when the leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, made the announcement that he was about to make an appeal to the country, and he had not very much time, and the commission had not very much time, to deal with matters of that kind; so that to my mind that is no reflection on the good faith of the government in the matter.

I would in conclusion make an appeal to the Progressives that it is perfectly reasonable and logical that a committee of this House composed of members of all the parties get together, review the whole situation and honestly and fairly make their recommendations to this House on the whole question.

Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):

If it is perfectly logical and natural for the members of this group to whom the last speaker appealed to agree to the appointment of the committee that has been suggested by the right hon. the Prime Minister, is it not just as logical and just as natural, and far more in accord with parliamentary practice, that the government itself should submit certain proposals, if they feel those proposals to be in the public interest, to this House, and then have us consider these proposals, instead of the general question as to whether these proposals should be made or not? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that would be more in accord with parliamentary practice in this House than the procedure which they are taking. I must confess that it was with a good deal of surprise that I saw this resolution on the order paper, and with a good deal of surprise that I saw coupled with this resolution the name of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), because I was of the opinion that not long ago he was very much opposed to any change being made in the Civil Service Act. He admits that two

years ago he was very much opposed to any change in the Civil Service Act, and he is quite frank in saying that he opposed the change at that time because he did not trust the Tories. I might just say to the hon. gentleman that there is a large body of public opinion in this country which, in respect of the appointment to the public positions, has a very profound distrust of both Grits and Tories, and why should the public trust either Grits or Tories, or Progressives for that matter, in regard to making public appointments.

The people of Canada desire to see an efficient Civil Service. They desire to see the administration of our public affairs carried out not only economically but proficiently and in the best possible manner, and, recalling what was said by the hon. gentleman from Brandon (Mr. Forke) about patronage being the system that was in use in this country in making public appointments for a good many years, the struggle that there was in this House to get away from the evils of patronage, and the impossibility under either political party of any substantial measure of civil service reform being enacted which would absolutely get away from party patronage, I cannot help thinking that if we go back in the very slightest degree towards that old system and recognize party patronage at all in the making of public appointments, it will be a very grave mistake for this House, it will be a grave mistake for the members of this parliament, and it will be only getting ourselves into difficulty and will not lend itself to efficiency in public administration.

Mr. PUTNAM:

Is the hon. gentleman opposed to the government in power making the appointment of Superior Court judges, or would he like that to go to the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):

Whether I would be in favour of the appointment by the Civil Service Commission of Supreme Court judges and that kind of thing, or whether I would not, is a question I am not prepared to answer offhand. I am quite frank in answering my hon. friend in that way. But I think it has been generally recognized in this country, even in days of patronage, that appointments to the Supreme Court should not be regarded as patronage, and should be above patronage. Whether that has been true in practice or not I am not prepared to say. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. gentleman from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), whilst stating that there were some phases of the Civil Service Act that might require change and improvement,

The Civil Service

admit that he would not be alarmed even if a little element of patronage entered into the changing or amending of that act. I quite clearly recall that two years ago in speaking on this same question, while protesting against the very slight change that was made at that time, my hon. friend said that he was afraid that that slight change would do away with the vital principle of the Civil Service Act, which was the abolition of political patronage. Evidently, he is of the same mind as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power); he is not afraid of political patronage. But he instances the case of country post offices, small unimportant positions in outlying districts, and he contends that the member for that constituency, who knows his constituency and the conditions surrounding his locality, is in a much better position to choose the proper man for a position of that kind than is the Civil Service Commission sitting here at Ottawa. That may be true and it may not; but we have the evidence of men in the Post Office Department, for instance, evidence which was given under oath two years ago before the special committee, going to show that the system now in vogue of making those appointments by the Civil Service Commission is working out fairly well.

Mr. CARROLL:

That is not in vogue now.

Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):

The post office inspectors say that they are getting good appointees and good service under the present system.

Mr. CARROLL:

Does the hon. member say that appointments to small country post offices are to-day under the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):

Of course, there are a few of the very small ones that are not, but very many of them are. It is a small post office, indeed, that does not give a remuneration of $200 or more.

Mr. CARROLL:

There are many.

Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):

I am speaking only for my constituency and I know that to be the case there. I do not know that there is in my constituency one that is in the category of which the hon. member speaks.

The outstanding feature, to my mind, of the discussion this evening was brought out by the hon. member who just preceded me (Mr. Euler). He said that two years ago, when the bill which is commonly known as the Spinney bill, was introduced in this House, it was done because such pressure was brought to bear upon the administration of that day by

many of their prominent supporters in this House, that the government submitted a bill. Is that not the situation that we have here to-day? I suspect that to be the situation, that such pressure is now being brought to bear upon the administration, and has beeD for the last year, that they are feeling their way as to whether it will be wise to bring in a bill to amend the Civil Servica

11 p.m. Act or not. That is why I am taking the ground that I am opposed to the suggestion that a committee of this House should be appointed. I was rather surprised to hear some prominent members across the floor state that the Civil Service Commission were an autocratic body; that they had power without responsibility, and that the government, who shoulder the responsibiltiy, should have the power. The present administration have not shown until the present time any particular anxiety to assume responsibility. If they are willing to assume responsibility, why not submit a measure for our consideration?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

A good deal has been said by my hon. friend and his friends as to the desirability of the government consulting parliament or a committee of parliament before taking matters into their hands. I have intimated, on behalf of the government, that we desire to do that, to as large an extent as possible. Would we not be proceeding more in accord with that spirit if we asked parliament or a committee of parliament, after examining the whole situation, to give us the benefit of their views, and then acted upon their views, rather than if we took the matter into our hands, making an arbitrary suggestion and leaving it to parliament to decide?

Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):

I can see

there are many cases in which the Prime Minister is correct. I agree in general with the principle that he has laid down, and I think it is quite proper for the government to consult this House on many questions. But it is not two years since we had an investigation of a similar nature, an investigation as wide as one could possibly make it, by a special committee appointed for this very purpose. All the information that was collected by that committee is available for the present administration.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

A very different parliament.

Mr. EULER:

Does the hon. member not think that an additional experience of two years in the working out of that act would tend to throw light on it?

The Civil Service

Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):

I have no doubt an additional experience of two years would throw more light on the attitude of many members in this House towards that act.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The hon. gentleman, I hope, remembers that even that investigation was opposed by the present Prime Minister.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I said that it was a very different parliament.