Mr. VENIOT:

Not dismissing.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

Of refusing to accept them; it is the same thing exactly All I am going to do at this stage is to ask the minister in charge to consider favourably the introduction next session of an amendment to the Civil Service Act which would provide for a fair trial before dismissal, in order that this injustice may not occur again. I went to the trouble of drafting an amendment which I now put on Hansard for the minister's guidance. Section 24 would be amended to read as follows:

24. The deputy head may, at any time before tho expiration of six months, reject any person assigned or appointed to any position under his control or direction, provided such person has been given a fair trial therein, or he may

extend the period of probation within which such

person may be rejected for another six months, and the cause of rejection, or the reason for extending the period of probation, shall be reported by the deputy head to the commission. Provided further that, the commission may. at any time before the expiration of six months.. cancel the appointment of any person who has; been assigned or appointed, if it be discovered that such appointment was made without a full ' knowledge of the essential facts, or under circumstances which involved misrepresentation*

I put in the proviso in order to protect against the possibility of misrepresentation by the applicant, or the possibility of facts arising which would justify dismissal; for example, it mdght be discovered after appointment that the appointee had a criminal

3760 COMMONS

Supply-Civil Service Commission

record. I do not wish to press the matter at this stage, but I am going to ask the minister to take into his favourable consideration the introduction of an amendment to meet certain of the objections that were raised this year.

Mr. ADSHEAD:

Does the hon. member suggest that if a man had a criminal record he would not give him a second chance?

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

No, I would not go that far.

Mr. RINFRET:

I promise my hon. friend the very best consideration of his amendment.

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

I would call the attention of the government to the very severe indictment of some of the departments as found in the unanimous report of the three civil service commissioners. I had proposed to deal with this at some length, but I shall reserve the right to take it up next session. I hope that amending legislation will be brought down, and that in the meantime conditions will be very much improved.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

It was brought out plainly in the house this session that when returns from the Civil Service Commission are ordered by t'he house the officers of the commission decide what papers shall be sent down to the House of Commons. My own feeling is that that is entirely improper. I do not propose to discuss it here, but next session I am hoping that the matter will be brought up so that we may be sure that when the House of Commons passes an order for the return of certain papers from the Civil Service Commission, those papers will be brought down.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

I wish very strongly to support the position taken by the hon. member for Argenteuil and to point out specifically that in the returns made by the Civil Service Commission this year with respect to the Post Office Department there was held back from the file in almost every case the form which I hold in my hand, and which is essential to a full and proper understanding of the cases. This form is C.S.C, 240 -Application for the position of postmaster. From most of the files that was withhold. The other form which should be included is C.S.C. 71-the report on applicants for a postmastership. Without these two forms a clear understanding of the ease is obviously impossible, and I think provision should be made that in the future, irrespective of what may be the opinion of one or two commissioners, these public documents should be at-

tached. I understand that in this particular case the chairman of the commission was quite willing and urged that the documents in question be included in every file, but the other two commissioners refused to approve the suggestion. That should not be the case.

Mr. RINFRET:

I will take the matter up with the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. ADSHEAD:

What is the meaning of the phrase "official public business"? Does that mean public business in connection with their work in the House of Commons, or public business that they may have in the cities where they reside?

Mr. ROBB:

It is a phrase that has been used for many years in the estimates. Generally speaking, it applies to ministers who may be absent from the country on public duty. The ministers in the administration of their departments may be absent from Ottawa.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

Does it include such public business as attending elections in other parts of Canada?

Mr. ROBB:

So far as this government is

concerned that is not the case.

Mr. ADSHEAD:

A number of members, I do not wish to mention any specifically, absent themselves from this house on the plea, I suppose, that they have personal business at home. That is what I was told by one member. He said he had paired with another member. I said, "Well, you are going to support blindly what your party proposes, and the other member will oppose blindly, for that is the effect of your pair." They draw their full indemnity.

Mr. ROBB:

They do not come under

this.

Mr. GARDINER:

Are there many cases

where members of the House of Commons and the Senate do not draw the full indemnity?

Mr. ROBB:

I must refer my hon. friend

to the Auditor General's report.

Mr. MANION:

They all take the oath.