Mr. MEIGHEN:

You have let the cat out of the bag.

Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):

It is quite true that it was a very different parliament, but there were on that committee many members who are sitting in this parliament. The hon. member for North Waterloo was on that committee, and had the privilege of asking any questions he chose to ask. We had the privilege of summoning all witnesses we chose from amongst the civil servants, deputy ministers, heads of branches and other officers from the different departments. No effort was made to circumscribe the inquiry or to deny information, and the information laid before that committee, which that committee elicited from men who know that service from top to bottom, is sufficient ground on which to base any recommendations for a change in the act. It would be more in accord with parliamentary practice for this administration to make their proposals on the information thus gathered and then to bring down to the House a bill for our consideration.

Mr. EULER:

Is the hon. member in favour of the action taken by the Civil Service Commission in the exemptions which they have already made? Does he approve those exemptions or does he not?

Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):

I think, in the main, the exemptions made by the Civil Service Commission are proper exemptions to make from the operation of the act. A few of them may not be. I am not just familiar with all the exemptions that have been made; but I quite remember that according to the information which we elicited from the chairman and secretary of the Civil Service Commission two years ago, they thought the act would be made more workable and more efficient in the public interest by making some of these exemptions which have already been made.

Mr. EULER:

Does the hon. member know that they include those postmasters in favour of whose exemption I spoke this evening and FMr. Euler.]

also two years ago? I am glad to hear that my hon. friend is also in favour of exempting them.

Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa):

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up the time of the House. My hon. friend and colleague from Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) has gone into this question very fully, and I wish to associate myself with him in the statements he has made in support of the proposal that the Civil Service Act shall go before a committee. I spoke on this subject last year, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to repeat what I said then, that I stand for civil service reform. Civil service legislation was first introduced in 1908 by the Laurier government. I had my experience from 1908 to 1911 under the act as it then was administered for what is known as the inside service at Ottawa. That act was founded on the British Civil Service Act. The idea of civil service reform is that you must have an honest competitive examination for entrance to the Civil Service. If you do not, then you must have influence. That is the point. If you are going to have influence of some kind without responsibility in the making of appointments to the service I would prefer the responsibility to rest with the administration.

Mr. CALDWELL:

May I ask the hon. gentlemen if he is suggesting that the Civil Service Commission does not prescribe honest, competitive examinations?

Mr. McGIVERIN:

No, certainly not. But I say that one of the reasons given here for the appointment of a committee is that in very many cases the Civil Service Commission cannot possibly prescribe a competitive examination. Take the classes of appointments lately withdrawn from the operation of the act at the request of the commission itself, no competitive examination is possible. For instance, what competitive examination can you set for charwomen? Are they to be required to measure their mops, and so forth? The same condition applies to lots of other appointments. What is the result? It is left to certain men to advise the Civil Service Commission as to who should be appointed to such positions. I submit that the responsibility of making these appointments should rest with the minister or the deputy minister, for it is doing harm to civil service reform to have the commission in charge of appointments which it cannot justify.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the personnel of the Civil Service

The Civil Service

Commission. As a matter of fact two of the commissioners were formerly members of this House and my personal friends; but I do object to the act, and I think a committee should be appointed to investigate not only the making of appointments but the principles governing promotions, transfers, etc.

In the debate last year my hon. friend, the former leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar)-and I sincerely hope he will soon be in his seat again-made it very plain that he was against political patronage. After stating that the Civil Service Commission should be entrusted with the duty and responsibility of seeing that any person coming into the service possessed the necessary qualifications, he went on to say:

But after that is done it seems to me that on the whole we would perhaps get better results if ministers and deputy ministers in charge of the various departments had greater latitude in control of the services than they have at the present time. If a minister or a deputy minister in a department wishes to promote some one in his department, if he wishes to transfer him from one branch of his department to another, that should certainly rest in his hands.

In other words, the responsibility of administration should rest with the minister or his deputy and not with the commission. My hon. friend continued on the same lines as regards the right of appeal from the decision of a deputy minister. While I believe that the administration should absolutely be in the hands of the minister or the deputy minister or of the heads of branches, I would still leave to the individual civil servant the right of appeal, but not to the Civil Service Commission. Rather I would propose the adoption of the practice followed in Australia and New Zealand. I would have a civil service judge, equivalent to a judge of the Exchequer Court, a man of the highest character, to deal with appeals. I would further protect the civil servant by introducing in the various departments what the civil service organizations have asked for, namely, Whitley Councils in each department and inter-departmental councils. Then any civil servant who feels aggrieved in regard to promotion or otherwise submits his grievances to his fellow civil servants composing the council, and if they think he has a just case against the head of his branch or against his deputy minister they take it before the judge.

Frankly, I want to see the most efficient and the most satisfied Civil Service that we can have, and I believe that it is the honest intent of every hon. member, but if the bogey of political patronage is to be trotted ouc every time any attempt is made to correct what we believe to be faulty in the act, then we might as well not attempt any improvement. I think my hon. friend and colleague, (Mr. Chevrier) made out a splendid case, and I strongly support the question being taken up by a committee. Let us try to make progress. There are other very serious questions in connection with the Civil Service that later on can be taken up, but in the meantime the law governing the Civil Service Commission needs amending. Mr. Speaker, I shall have much pleasure in voting to have this matter referred to a committee.

Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (Sainte-Marie) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to strongly support the motion proposed by my hon. colleague of Quebec South (Mr. Power). Those were precisely my sentiments last year, and I have no fear to state this evening that my views have not since changed. I wish to congratulate the member for Quebec South on the initiative, courage and talent which he displayed in asserting his contention. This act, as draughted and applied, of which he urges the repeal, is certainly an arbitrary and unconstitutional measure. Such legislation belongs to ancient history, and to find its parallel, one must go back almost a hundred years, when the governors of Canada, at the helm of public affairs, ruled through an executive power irresponsible to the people and also had the privilege of voting themselves salaries and dividing among themselves the public funds. This kind of administration brought on those times of crises of which history still vividly reminds us. During that period we witnessed individuals living in London, rendering no services to Canada, not having even set foot in this country, drawing fabulous salaries. As the same thing is happening here, at present, although on a smaller scale, I shall have the opportunity in the course of my remarks, to ask the Civil Service Commission, who has the care of watching over the interests of the country, why they are paying out salaries to persons who are not even in the country's service. Those powers conferred on the Civil Service Commission, remind us of the times when the country was governed by a group of friends or a Family Compact. At the time, a few persons were allowed to distribute all public offices amongst friends and relatives, claiming salaries to their hearts' content without any compunction, exactly as the thing is practised to-day. This I stated and proved last year, on the floor of this House.

Of all these independent commissions, the Civil Service Commission is certainly the most arbitrary and unconstitutional, owing to its extensive powers. However, the principle which places the administration of the country un-

The Civil Service

his time, with the exception of his monthly visits to the department to draw his cheque.

I am convinced, Sir, that none amongst us who have private business to look after would wish to have such a system perpetuated. So far as I am concerned, nothing in the world could induce me to connive at such a state of affairs.

To my mind, it behooves the government to bring on a change in the administration of the country. With this system of independent commissioners, the representatives of the people are but honourable messengers in touch with a receiving and transmitting instrument, which is the Cabinet, and which in turn is powerless and has but to transmit requests and recommend the disposal of public funds at random to unchecked officials which are uncontrollable under the law. I urged before the electors of my county, a return to responsible government, and, I urge it again to-night. In my county I was listened to and understood; I hope to be equally understood here and that my request will be given due consideration. I will admit that a commission may at times be necessary, but only when it is entirely under the jurisdiction of parliament and not when it creates a system of administration obliging the representatives of the people to vote public money blindly. For my part, I refuse to be dragged into the current, dead fish only are swept away by the current and I am not one of them. I protest against my colleagues being considered as parliamentary pedlers promenading through the country, and held responsible for other people's doings.

I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to abuse the patience of the House, but I think I have sufficiently stated in a few words what I think of these independent commissioners and so long as you have not acceded to the request made last year, to have a parliamentary commission verify the charges which I brought forward and that cannot be contradicted, I shall maintain the same stand. It gives me pleasure, this evening, to support the resolution of my hon. friend, the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), even though the resolution is somewhat of a sweeping nature, however, I believe in applying the hot iron to all evils.

Mr. SHAW moved the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Unless there is really a desire to have the debate go over I hope my hon. friend will find it possible to continue to-night.

Mr. SHAW:

I would very gladly indeed accede to the wishes of the Prime Minister, but it is a matter of some importance and I see no objection to the debate going over unless there is some special reason for continuing the discussion to-night.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

We have no objection to having the debate adjourned, but I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that there is a great demand for economy and the duration of the session is one of the factors in that regard. If we can expedite business we are ready to go on. However, we will not insist if hon. gentlemen opposite wish the debate adjourned.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

We are now half an hour past the regulation hour so long promised by the government before it came into power.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Very well.