Mr. SANDERSON:
The minister made
some change in the settlement board within the last year. Previously there was a board of three members.
Mr. GORDON:
I did not make the
change; parliament did.
Mr. SANDERSON:
But the minister must take the responsibility.
Mr. GORDON:
Certainly I do. Originally
there was a board of three, now there is one. It was by reason of that change that the economies to which I have made reference were possible. I shall illustrate, if hon. members wish: Originally there were three members, composed of a chairman and two commissioners.
Mr. SANDERSON:
Were the three all
ex-service men?
Mr. GORDON:
No; two were ex-service
men and one was not. There were nine divisions at head office, each commissioner having three divisions of the service under his jurisdiction. In the field I found that no one of the offices was so organized that it corresponded with head office, and that no two districts seemed to have the same method or system of accounting. I believed that it would be desirable to do away with the board of three and to place one man in charge. That was done, and the nine divisions at head office were reduced to three. Each district office throughout Canada was reorganized so that its business methods would conform to those at head office. We found that irritating delays in answering complaints and requests from settlers were eliminated, because there was very little if any conflict in jurisdiction at head office. From the correspondence I
Private Bills
have reviewed coming from many hundreds of .settlers I think the change was desirable, and I know it is working out very well.
Mr. SANDERSON:
One member now
takes the place of the former three; is that member an ex-service man?
Mr. GORDON:
Yes, and one with a very fine overseas record.
Mr. DUFF:
Which two men were let
out, and what positions did they hold?
Mr. GORDON:
Colonel Rattray, the chairman, and Mr. Maber, one of the commissioners, who was not an ex-service man and who had a substantial superannuation. I am told that his superannuation amounted to about $3,600.
Mr. DUFF:
Why was Colonel Rattray let out when he Had been chairman of the board, and when he had advised that the board be reduced from three to one? Why was he not kept on as the one remaining member, instead of bringing in an outsider?
Mr. GORDON:
I was never advised that
Colonel Rattray suggested the reduction. Certainly he never did so at any time to me.
Mr. DUFF:
I do not suppose he had a
chance, when you fired him.
Mr. GORDON:
Well now-
Mr. DUFF:
Would the minister give us
the reason why Colonel Rattray was let out? He was chairman of the board, an ex-soldier, a good business man, and there were no complaints against him.
Mr. GORDON:
Because I believed I was getting a better man to take charge. I do not make that statement as any reflection upon Colonel Rattray, who I believe was a fine soldier and a gentleman. However, after making a complete survey from coast to coast I concluded that a stranger and an outsider should be. put in charge, and I think the efficiency of the department has amply justified the change.
Mr. DUFF:
Who was the gentleman put
in charge?
Mr. GORDON:
Thomas Magladery.
Mr. DUFF:
Where did he come from?
Mr. GORDON:
Originally he came from
Edmonton, and subsequently lived in New Liskeard. He was appointed in October, 1930, by the old board composed of Colonel Rattray and the other two commissioners, to make a survey on all phases of soldier land settlement.