Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) advise the house how long the dismissals of employees is to continue in

Department oj Interior-Retiring Employees

the Department of the Interior, and what progress has been made, if any, in the way of reestablishing those who have been let out?

Hon. THOMAS G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior): Mr. Speaker, it would be

manifestly impossible to answer the first part of the question put by the hon. member, but with regard to the second portion of his question, namely, as to what steps have been taken by the government to provide for these employees, I would say that that has been more or less answered already.

Possibly it might not be out of place at this time to say something in regard to this matter. The former Minister of the Interior has put certain questions to the house in regard to it and has expressed his solicitude for these employees. Pie feels that the government should make certain provision for these civil servants who have been retired or who have received notice of dismissal. It is not a pleasant position in which I find myself at this time. Because of the transfer of the natural resources to the prairie provinces many people have for the last eight or nine months found themselves to be without a position. However, that is not a matter for which I can accept full responsibility because these resources were returned to the western provinces before this government assumed office or before I had the honour of administering the affaire of this department. It is a little unusual to hear the ex-minister express such solicitude in view of the fact that no provision to take care of any of these employees was made in the agreements transferring the natural resources to the western provinces, or in the legislation confirming those agreements. It might well have been made the subject of more than discussion; some steps might have been taken to see that these employees were looked after. However, a search of the agreements and legislation discloses nothing providing for these people.

The services of some 591 employees formerly employed in what might be termed the outside services have been dispensed with. Some of them have been taken over by the provinces but there is nothing in the records to show that the former government attempted in any manner to provide for any of them The only thing on the files is a letter written by the former minister expressing the hope that something might be done. [DOT]

Owing to this transfer there is no work for those previously employed in many of the branches of the department. Speaking on this very question on May 1, 1930, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said:

I might answer my hon. friend as to the reasons why the government did decide not to

await the answers by the courts before transferring the resources. It was perfectly apparent to the government that the agreements with Manitoba and Alberta would pass, which would mean that so far as the Department of the Interior was concerned that department would more or less pass out of existence.

Mr. Bennett: Functus officio.

Mr. Mackenzie King: Yes, it would practically pass out of existence, t%vo-thirds of it at any rate, and we would be keeping on a department of the government, simply for the purpose of awaiting the answer by the courts. That was one reason.

On May 2, 1930, in replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), the hon. leader of the opposition said:

I think I can promise my hon. friend that the number will not be increased. As he is aware, in this house we have passed to-day enactments under which the natural resources of the three western provinces must be transferred to those provinces, as well as certain lands to the province of British Columbia. When that transfer is effected it should be possible to do away entirely with the ministry of the interior. Some reorganization and consolidation will be effected as respects the Department of Immigration, the Department of Indian Affairs, the forestry service and allied branches of the public service.

Those remarks would show that there existed in the minds of the then government an intention to curtail to a great extent the activities of this department. As I stated before, having that in mind, they took no steps whatever to make any provision for these employees.

When the present" government took office this was the first question brought to my attention. Knowing that a great many of these employees would find themselves without employment when the reorganization took place, I addressed a letter to each of my colleagues in the cabinet, asking them and their departments to take care of as many as possible of those employees of the Department of the Interior who might be retired. This letter is dated October 2, 1930, and reads as follows: My dear colleague:

The transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces will render surplus to the future requirements of this department a large number of well-trained and highly skilled officials of extensive departmental experience.

All of these employees have confidently expected to work out their full period of service with the federal government, and have predicated their domestic arrangements on this understanding. If no place can be found for these in the federal public service, the Dominion is obligated to grant pensions or whatever other consideration has been earned under the act under which the employees have been contributing. Those affected have already filed a petition asking for consideration beyond that provided in the existing Superannuation or Retirement Acts.

718 COMMONS

Department of Interior-Retiring Employees

From this you will see that it is distinctly good business to give precedence to those employees when assistance is required. New work is being undertaken by certain branches of the public service, and in some cases the permanent positions have not been provided in the estimates so there is no vacancy in the establishment to which permanent employees could be transferred. In order to overcome this difficulty I am prepared to authorize a loan of surplus permanent employees of the Department of the Interior up to the end of the present fiscal year, that is until the 31st of March, 1931, the date to which their salaries have been voted, provided, of course, your department undertakes to create positions for their retention after that date. The Civil Service Commission is aware of this and is ready and willing to facilitate such transfers.

If your department needs any assistance might I suggest that you nominate an official to confer with a representative of this department in order that the situation may be carefully analyzed with a view to promoting the transfer of suitably qualified employees from the Department of the Interior.

I have not had a great deal of experience in the public service of Canada, but I find that it is not easy to transfer an employee from one department of the government to another. Many things militate against this being done. First, there is the natural ambition of individuals in other departments; if a position becomes vacant and they are in line for promotion, naturally they wish to secure that position. That applies right down the line until the lowest paid position is the only one available, and an employee, say in the Department of the Interior, who has been receiving a certain salary, is a little loathe to accept so great a reduction. I am not arguing that should a vacancy occur in a department, an employee losing his position in another department should as a matter of course be put into that vacant position, but at least it might fairly be claimed that he should have an equal right to compete for that position with others in the other departments. That would put them on an equal basis, but the departments-and no government is to blame for this-are apparently run as closed institutions or, as one might say, closed competitive institutions so far as the employees are concerned. They are not willing to allow an employee from one department to transfer to another. Further, in many cases an employee in a department such as the Interior department, knowing of a vacancy in another department, prefers tc remain in his own department and to take his chance, rather than to transfer to the other.

This is not a new situation. In the Department of the Interior it had been known for some four years that this reorganization was

bound to occur, and the matter has been very much to the fore this year. I do not suppose any employee in any of the branches of the Department of the Interior has not been for the last year or for at least ten months, fully cognizant that this reorganization was coming.

I have given to the house the events as they have transpired until the present time. We have now entered a new fiscal year and the estimates of the department show that the appropriations are much less. Accordingly, we have to meet that situation. Certain criticisms have been levelled against the department to the effect that these employees have been dismissed in a very cruel manner. They received their notices, it is true. How else could the dismissals have been made except by giving notice to them? The Civil Service Act provides that when an employee's position is abolished or when his services are no longer required, he shall be given a certain leave of absence. Under the present situation in the Department of the Interior, that period of time will extend from two to six months. They are not cut off at a moment's notice; rather, they are given that two to six months' notice during which time their full salary will be paid. The following instructions were given to the various heads of branches of the department when this reorganization was to take place:

In effecting staff reductions to bring the salary list within the limits of the figure set by Treasury Board, the department will work m cooperation with the Civil Service Commission.

In the matter of retention on the staff, regard will then be had for preference in the following order, provided always that no employee will be retained unless efficient to perform the service required,-

That is, efficiency is the first test.

1. Those w'ho enlisted in Canada and saw active service in any theatre of war and who have now domestic responsibilities.

2. Other employees with domestic responsibilities.

3. Those who enlisted in Canada and saw active service in any theatre of war and who have no dependents.

4. Others with no dependents.

Generally speaking it will not be possible to retain any employee who has reached the age of sixty-five years or who has put in the full thirty-five years of service unless such retention is a matter of special necessity to the department.

Following that, conferences were arranged with the heads of the various services, and the matter was fully explained to them. Further, the names of those employees who have been retired or -who have received their notice of dismissal, are listed with the Civil Service Commission for reassignment to any other branch of the government when vacancies

Department oj Interior-Retiring Employees

occur. This is carrying out the law as I understand it and as it is laid down in the Civil Service Act, chapter 22, section 54, which reads:

Any employee holding a permanent position that is to be abolished, or which is no longer required, shall be laid off and his salary discontinued but his name shall be placed, in the order provided by the regulations of the commission. on the list of persons eligible for the class of positions from which he was laid off or for any other position for which he may have qualified.

That has been done in the case of each of the employees who have lost their positions.

I do not think I can add anything further at the present time, but if the question should arise again I am willing to make my position as clear as possible to the house.

Hon. CHARLES MARCEL (Bonaventure):

Will the minister allow me to ask him a question in regard to this matter?

I am glad to be interrupted at this moment by the entrance to the chamber of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) with whom I have had the honour of sitting in the house for many years. I am glad to see him restored to health and strength.

I was about to ask the minister whether it is true that in certain branches of his department which remain under the control of the Dominion, a number of officials have been dismissed.

Mr. MURPHY:

I do not get the full purport of the question.

Mr. MiARCIL: A morning paper states that in certain branches of the Department of the Interior which remain under the control of the Dominion government, a number of officials have been dismissed. I refer to the hydrographic survey, geodetic survey and parks survey.

Mr. MURPHY:

The hydrographic survey does not come under the Department of the Interior; that is under the Department of Marine. The other surveys, such as the geodetic, topographic and international boundary surveys are still under the department, but all branches of the Department of the Interior are to a certain extent affected.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):

I refrained from interrupting the hon. Minister of the Interior while he was speaking, because, in common with other members of the house, I felt it was a privilege to have an opportunity to listen to him and to hear what he had to say on this important matter.

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :

My right hon. friend will pardon me. On the orders of the day when a question is

asked and a reply made, that is the end of the incident.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That is the very point to which I was coming. I did not interrupt my hon. friend when he was speaking, though I might have done so on a question of privilege. My hon. [DOT] friend in speaking, whether consciously or unconsciously, did not confine himself to answering the question asked but entered into an argument in answer to a question on the orders of the day. That was wholly irregular, and I am going to ask the permission of you, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed the same latitude in making reply to one contention which was made by the minister- your honour may put it on the ground of privilege, if you will-but which I think ought to be answered immediately. Out of courtesy,

I did not interrupt the minister though I knew he was out of order at the time. I believe the house will take no exception to what I have to say when hon. members hear what it is.

Perhaps the acting leader of the government will not find fault if I venture at once to express our congratulations to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) upon his return to the house, and particularly upon his looking so well and strong. We all hope that he has completely recovered from the very serious illness through which he has recently passed.

The point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is this: My hon. friend the Minister of the

Interior (Mr. Murphy) in speaking, whether unintentionally or otherwise I cannot say, did seek to leave the impression by his remarks that this present situation with respect to employees of the Interior department had arisen out of some neglect by the previous administration.

Order.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

If that was

the minister's intention I rise to a question of privilege, and I have the right to speak. I repeat, I do not say that the minister's inference was intentional. I wish to state the facts correctly, if I may be permitted so to do. What I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and of other hon. members is this: The legislation respecting the transfer

of the resources to the provinces was not actually assented to until the day of dissolution of parliament itself and the time fixed for the transfer was still considerably in advance of that date. Obviously under the circumstances, no arrangement could have been made either at the time or prior thereto for the transfer of persons or their accommodation in other ways with respect to positions which were still necessary and which of

720 COMMONS

Department of Interior-Retiring Employees

necessity had to be continued for some little time to come. As a matter of fact, the resources were, I believe, not transferred finally, until the month of October, at least in the case of those of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and it was therefore absolutely necessary that clerks should be kept on until the actual transfer was made.

As to provision in advance, may I say that I recall that as early as 1926 the government of the day believed that it had made an arrangement with the province of Alberta for the transfer of its resources, but we found later on that for some reason the Alberta government did not desire to proceed with the transfer at that date, and it was some four years later that the ultimate transfer was made. We had at the last session of the last parliament reason to assume that all negotiations would work out satisfactorily so as to permit of the transfer but no guarantee that this would be effected the moment that parliament dissolved. Therefore the government of the day was restricted and very much restricted in attempting to make arrangements for the provision that might became necessary for those employees of the public service who might find themselves adversely affected by the transfer when it might actually take place. I want to make clear, that it was actually the month of October before the resources in the case at least of two provinces were transferred.

This fact also I think should be borne in mind. In the interval there was the period of a general election. In the nature of things it was inadvisable if not impossible, immediately prior to the election, for the government of the day to anticipate its result and make provision for employees in their positions as they might be after the election. I think that is quite clear. If, for example, the government of the day had provided for these civil sen-ants prior to the general election, it would immediately have been stated that the provision thus made had been made in the light of the forthcoming election, and very strong exception would have been taken to the making of such provision by the hon. gentlemen who are now objecting to our having refrained from making every provision. What we did was to go as far in the matter as we could go at the time, intending, immediately the elections were over to proceed further, if we were returned to office, or have hon. gentlemen opposite assume that responsibility if they were returned.

The exception that is being taken at the moment is not to the fact that many of these employees cannot be continued in their present

positions, but to the summary manner in which many of them have been dismissed, and to the inadequacy of the consideration which has been shown them in the matter of time and in other respects in consequence of the loss of the positions they were holding.

Mr. SPEAKER:

May I say that the same reasons which actuated the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in refraining from interrupting the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) influenced the Speaker in not interrupting the hon. gentleman. Now that great latitude has been allowed to a member of the government in speaking on the orders of the day and similar latitude to the leader of the opposition, I think I cannot do 'better than to draw the attention of the house to the rule in that respect, which I am bound to say has to some extent been evaded at this session. I will read to the house what Bourinot says, as summarized by Beauchesne:

When the orders of the day are called by the Speaker and before they are read by the clerk assistant, it is the practice sanctioned by usage but not by any positive rule, for members to make personal explanations or ask questions of the government, in reference to an inaccurate report of their speeches in the official records, or in the newspapers; or in denial of certain charges made against them in the public prints; or in reference to certain remarks which had been misunderstood on a previous occasion, and which they had not before had an opportunity of explaining; or in respect to delay in obtaining returns or to the incompleteness of certain returns brought down under the order of the house; or relative to the state of public business, or other matters of public interest. But these remarks should be brief as they are only tolerated, there being no question before the Chair when they are made, and no discussion should be allowed when a minister has replied to a question nor after a member has made his personal explanation. In asking a question, a member must not attack the conduct of the government. If a member wishes to make personal explanations in reference to remarks which have fallen from another member, the latter ought to be in his place.

I would also refer to standing order 45, which is explicit:

Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given .... for placing a question on the order paper.

I think members will agree with me that the nature of questions asked on the orders of the day should be something altogether different from questions that might well be put on the order paper, and I would therefore ask the cooperation of the house in future in observing both the rule and custom of the house.

Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):

May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express my pleasure at seeing the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) again in his seat. During the progress of the session members of the house have missed the hon. minister very much indeed. I am sure that we all trust that he has fully recovered and that he will continue in good health. It is a pleasure indeed to see him again in his seat.

Before I commence what I have to say on the subject matter before the house, may I also take advantage of this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) for his very kind remarks with reference to myself when he was addressing the house. May I assure him that they were very much appreciated, and I trust that he will accept my sincere thanks.

The House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, meets at the present time under very adverse circumstances. Not only every hon. member, but I think almost everybody in Canada will admit that we have never within the memory of any person now living had such grave conditions confronting this country as we are faced with to-day. It is quite true that we had a very serious time during the war; it is quite true that we also had a hard time during the deflation period following the year 1920; it is true also that we had certain conditions because of the war which made the deflation period following 1920 almost certain; but after a period of so-called prosperity lasting three or four years we are now suddenly met with conditions such as neither this country nor I believe any other country on the face of the globe ever had the misfortune to meet with before. Because of those circumstances we are not meeting under very happy conditions. Therefore in my judgment it is necessary for every member of the house to give his best attention to the great problems which lie before us. So far as I personally am concerned it is pretty well known in this house that I represent a purely agricultural constituency. With the exception of a small amount of coal mining there are no industries other than that of agriculture in the constituency of Acadia. Because of the nature of my constituency I am here primarily to represent agricultural interests.

During the Easter recess I had the opportunity to return to the west. I went chiefly to learn the conditions there. I must say that I did not expect any improvement because at that particular time no improvement was possible. I was very much surprised however to find that the western farmer had lost his usual optimism. I know of no class of people who during the last few months have lost their morale to such an extent as have the western farmers. The people who went out to develop our great western country were optimists and through all the hard years they have had to meet they have continued to be optimists. At the present time however I must confess they are far from being optimists; they see no lining to the cloud, no ray of hope, nothing to encourage them to expect better times. Western Canada is credited with being that part of our country which always hopes for better things next year. I must confess however that in the west to-day that spirit has gone and unless something turns up in a very short time instead of the optimistic spirit of the people in the west with which we are so familiar we will find that their morale has absolutely vanished.

The chief trouble of the farmer is the price level at which he has to sell his products. If there were a price level in agricultural products higher or equal to the price level of other commodities probably conditions in agricultural circles to-day would not be so bad. However, when we compare the tremendous disparity in price levels between agricultural and other products brought about by an unequal falling off in prices we may understand why agriculture is in such a bad condition. I am not one of those who believe that if price levels of other goods were to come down to equal the price levels of agricultural products as they are to-day a solution would be provided for the problems of the farmers. However, with that subject I shall deal later on.

I have before me a graph taken from the U. F. A., a paper publisher by our organization, showing very clearly the real reason why agriculture is in such a bad condition to-day. The graph describes the price trend and deals with price levels in the month of November in the years 1929 and 1930. In the case of this particular graph the figure of one hundred is taken as a basis of calculation. We find that from the year 1929 to 1930 the drop in the price of iron and steel products was only 4.3 per cent. In the case of certain classes of hardware it was 1.6 per cent. There was no change in the price of wire. The drop in the price of manufactured products was 11.1 per cent. In the case of flour and mill feed products the drop was 34.7 per cent. I would ask hon. members to notice that the greatest drop in commodity prices occurred where the raw material had been supplied by the farmers. Then we come to textiles and fibres. In the

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

case of those commodities the drop has been 13.7 per cent. However, the price of raw cotton has dropped about 37.5 per cent. May I at this time interject a question? Why is it that the price of cotton goods has not dropped to a greater extent? Is it because of the emergency legislation of last session that the price of the raw material has dropped 37.5 per cent but that of the finished product has dropped only 13.7 per cent? We go down the list until we come to farm products. Farm products generally have dropped 34 per cent; field grain show a figure of 47.7 per cent. Then we come to the real problem facing the

western farmer to-day. I refer to the fact that according to this graph the price of western grain has dropped 59.1 per cent.

On the other side of the graph I find a table referring to western grain. It shows the price level of western grains on December 15, 1929 and on the same date in the year 1930. In the year 1929 wheat was selling at $1.32 per bushel whereas on December of last year it sold for only 54 cents per bushel. With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to put this graph on Hansard because. it illustrates exactly the condition of agriculture at the present time.