The records show that it did not. I know every official always wants to have the say as to who is under him. There is something to be said for that. In private business it is the right thing, but in government business it is impossible because of other elements that enter into the situation that cannot enter into private business where profit is the object. The hon. member says that we lose men who are almost indispensable to the grain, trade. That is the case throughout the whole service, and it is bound to be so as long as government service exists. If the hon,. member thinks that any board that is .paying out public money is to be allowed to pay out just as high salaries as are necessary to keep the men it wants to keep, my eyes weep for the taxpayers of Canada. That is impossible; if the hon. member had charge of a department for a short time, he would soon see the impossibility of it. You cannot keep the best by .paying them salaries equal to those which a private business will pay. We have a certain structure built up. We have already started nibbling at it in various ways, and if we keep on we shall find more and more .precedents to follow until the whole structure falls down. We builit n.p this great structure under cover of professions of desire to abandon patronage for good, and now we are pleading for it after knowing what it has performed.
In the Agriculture committee we were given to understand that the Grain Act was self-sustaining. If that is the case. I think it would be rather far-fetched to say that tjie Civil Service Commission should control the appointments.
The whole Weights and Measures service is self-sustaining; the Post Office Department is self-sustaining; the Department of Customs and Excise is selfsustaining; the Income Tax branch is seAf-sus-taining. That is the 'case, not in every part of the service, but instances can .be found all through the service. The .principle that has been advocated would destroy all that has been done.
There is a difference in that. In many of these, technical or educational training or special training along certain lines is required, but in this case possibly a farmer who would be handling grain would be better for the work than a technical man. Therefore, it looks to the outside observer as if it would not be necessary to have competitive examinations; but I think, when this is purely a farmers' organization and they are paying for the work, it would be quite within their rights to have the Board of Grain Commissioners appoint the men to do the work.
I have another amendment to move to subsection (2) of section 9. I move that the words "Governor in Council" in the twelfth line be struck out and the words "Civil Service Commission" be substituted therefor so that the subsection will read:
Notwithstanding anything in any other act contained, inspectors, .inspecting officers, weighmasters and their ass 'slants shall be paid such compensation as is determined by the Civil Service Commission upon the recommendation of the board.
I attended the sessions of the agricultural committee on many occasions and I did hear evidence with regard to the question of salaries for technical men under the board. But I never heard any member of the board or even the chief inspector make the statement that they had not been able to obtain from the Civil Service Commission all increases they had asked for. That being the case, I see no reason why the Civil Service Commission should not have control in this matter. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee further and I now move the amendment I propose.
for this section? It declares that certain technical officers may be appointed "in the manner authorized by law." Unless there is something in this section that does not appear on the surface it is pure surplusage.
The note of explanation to section 9 states that that section-
-corresponds to section 8 of the act of 1912, but is drafted to conform to the requirements of the Civil Service Act.
And the note that explains this section, 12 declares that the section corresponds to section 11 of the act of 1912 but is drafted in accordance with the Civil Service Act. Unless this section is meant to get around the Civil Service Act it has no meaning because the same matters would come under section 9. What has the minister to say in explanation of it?
I do not think I can add anything to the explanatory note. Section 11 of the act of 1912 provides that the board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, appoint any person having special or technical knowledge of the subject in question to assist in an advisory capacity on any matter before the board. That is substantially the same as the clause now before us.
arising for the board to send to any of the terminal elevators in any part of the country some man having technical knowledge of his subject, and in that case I should think this provision would be necessary.