Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Why did you not take action in that regard yourself?

Mr. POWER:

If the hon. gentleman will look up Hansard of 1923 he will find that a resolution to that effect was placed on the order paper and debated. If at that time we had had the support of hon. gentlemen opposite who to-day would be quite willing to abolish the commission, this infamous commission, composed of imbeciles, would long ago have been abolished. The question is a live one before the public. If the Prime Minister will not give an answer, the Postmaster General should give one. If he will not do so, the Solicitor General should, and if the Solicitor General will not, his deputy, the hon. member for Dorchester, ought to do this.

Mr. BENNETT:

Probably no other member of the committee knows better than the hon. member for Quebec South who has just taken his seat, that even observations that are made with respect to items under consideration in the estimates, should be relevant to the question raised. If there is any information which the hon. gentleman desires, or which any hon. gentleman desires, with respect to this item, I shall regard it as my privilege and duty to furnish it to the extent of my ability, but I share to the full the observations with which the hon. gentleman commenced his remarks. He said that he did not know whether this was the appropriate place to discuss the matter or not. I think, being a member of the legal profession as he is, he will agree that neither is this the

Supply-Civil Service Commission

appropriate place, nor yet can the observations be said to be relevant because they should be directed to the obtaining of information with respect to an expenditure which has been made, and regarding which we shall have something to say later as to the desirability or not of absolutely restricting expenditures to the estimates except there be cases where governor general's warrants may be issued. So far as that is concerned, anything the hon. gentleman asks shall be at once furnished him. As regards discussing the Civil Service Commission, my hon. friend can do that to his heart's content by placing a resolution on the order paper, and I look in vain to find that he has placed on the order paper a motion to have the Civil Service Commission abolished. On going into supply he has, of course, ample opportunity to mow an amendment that the house regrets that the Civil Service Commission continues to exist. All those are avenues that are open to him, but no one knows better than he that this is not thie appropriate time for such a discussion, and in the best of good nature let me say to my hon. friend that his efforts to draw his compatriots of Quebec will fail.

Mr. POWER:

May I say that many of them will not be pleased to be called my compatriots. As to the appropriateness of the time, I am not disposed to enter into a discussion with the Prime Minister. He knows very well that if his prominent supporters wish to abolish the Civil Service Commission, they are quite competent to put a motion on the order paper. They could also, on the house going into committee of supply, move that the Civil Service Commission be abolished. They could, even at the present moment-and I realize I could do this myself if I so desired-follow the constitutional practice which obtains in England and with which, no doubt, the Prime Minister is familiar, of moving to reduce the estimates by one dollar. That could be done; I am glad the Prime Minister brought that matter up.

Mr. BENNETT:

This item does not include salaries.

Mr. POWER:

That does not matter.

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes, it does a great deal.

Mr. POWER:

I very rarely differ from the Prime Minister on constitutional matters, but it seems to me, unless I am much mistaken, that a motion could be made to reduce this item by one dollar-to one dollar.

Mr. BENNETT:

Oh, to one dollar!

Mr. POWER:

I am glad the Prime Minister indicated that method of procedure. Now I ask the hon. member for Dorchester to follow it. The Prime Minister has said just what he should do. The hon. member should do it before he returns to Quebec over the holidays, or I am sure he will have to find some explanation to give to the people of Quebec why he did not follow his own leader's advice and move a reduction in these estimates. It is no longer a matter of great interest to me: it is of purely academic interest to me whether the Civil Service Commission continues in existence or not. In the better days when we sat on the opposite side, I was in the habit of saying to my hon. friends that the Civil Service Commission appeared to have been created for the Tories and the Liberal back-benchers. I believe in all probability it is now created for the Tory backbenchers and the Liberals. Nobody else that I know ever seems to suffer. If the backbenchers desire to be rid of this institution, they have only to follow the method and advice laid down by the Prime Minister, and for once we promise them our hearty cooperation.

Sir EUGENE FISET:

Mr. Chairman, in order to elucidate the point raised by the Prime Minister, I should like to have your ruling on the subject matter that can be discussed. I should like to call your attention first to the fact that this is the only item in these supplementary estimates where the name "Civil Service Commission" is mentioned. In the past it has been the rule of the house that when any general estimates of any department came under discussion, hon. members had the right to discuss anything that pertained to that department. I should like your ruling on the matter.

Mr. POULIOT:

While you are considering your ruling, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Prime Minister whether or not his government has reached a decision regarding a reorganization of several departments, and whether it is true that many employees of the civil service will lose their jobs within a short time?

The CHAIRMAN:

In answer to the hon. member for Rimouski, I am not here to explain the rules of the house, but if the hon. member wishes to raise a point of order, I will give him my ruling.

Mr. POULIOT:

Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that my question was not put politely? I was speaking in my mildest and sweetest tones to the right hon. gentleman. If there was something offensive in what I said, I have not the slightest idea what it was. I

402 COMMONS

Supply-Civil Service Commission

should appreciate highly receiving an answer from the right hon. gentleman, even if it means nothing.

Sir EUGENE FISET:

I think, Mr. Chairman, that you have given a ruling already. The very fact that you have given that answer enables any hon. member to go on with the discussion. I am quite satisfied.

Mr. POULIOT:

The satisfactory thing about your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is that no one has to pay the costs, and in that respect it is unlike a legal ruling. May I ask the Prime Minister once more, with all the suavity I possess, if he will be good enough to give me an answer to my question. So many civil servants and their families are very anxious to know what is going to happen with respect to their jobs, especially in these hard times. No answer? If there was something wrong with my question, I would ask the Prime Minister to tell me what it was. I cannot answer myself. Will you, Mr. Chairman, please let me know if there is no answer to my question. I am not deaf but I did not hear any answer.

Mr. GOTT:

The question is a joke.

Mr. POULIOT:

It is no joke. This is a very serious matter to the civil service. We are here representing the people. We have two members in this house representing the city of Ottawa, and every other hon. member represents the country at large. We are all interested in this question. It is no good for the government to say: We are going to do this and we are going to do that; and then do nothing at all; and when something is done, it is most often wrong. I wish to be nice to the right hon. gentleman, but if he does not intend to answer me, I shall have to drop my sweet tones and speak roughly.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

The hon. gentleman-

Mr. POULIOT:

I think I know why the hon. gentleman is so cross. It is because a dark horse has won the international Bennett race for the ministry. It is very sad, Mr. Chairman. We are travelling on a mystery ship to treasure island. We know nothing, and nothing is told us. The government asks us to vote these items blindly. According to parliamentary institutions that date back to Magna Charta, the representatives of the people are entitled to know what is the policy of the government. Here we are ready to cooperate with the government in all good measures. We on this side of the house are not narrow-minded; we are broad-minded. I have sat in this house for several years on the

opposite side, and when hon. gentlemen opposite were sitting over here, never did I see a Liberal minister refuse to give them any information they desired. Very often indeed Liberal ministers have supplied Conservative members with confidential information, trusting them to keep it confidential. The Liberal ministers treated all members of the house fairly, without any distinction of party. The fiscal year ends to-morrow, Mr. Chairman, and there are many people who are anxious to know what is the policy of the government with respect to the civil service. Is the government going to give its policy to the press before advising members of the house. I would not be surprised at that at all. Am I to receive no answer? I wish to be courteous to the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues and supporters in this house, but I say that in this request for information I am backed up by all the electors of my constituency irrespective of political affiliations. Once more I ask the Prime Minister if he has anything to say regarding his policy with respect to the civil service.