Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec):

Explain.

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

This is a

very short bill. It asks for the repeal of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, which was passed in 1933, was of a temporary nature, and was never completed. Rules were to have been passed by order in council, but this was not done; no machinery is provided for the operation of the act. It has lent itself to a lot of fraud. A petition is made against a company; the company files a petition to fall under the act, and immediately proceedings in bankruptcy are stopped. No liquidator is appointed, no trustee, no inspector. No examination of the books is made; officers of the company cannot be examined under oath, and nobody knows what is what about the company. Public bodies such as the Montreal board of trade have passed resolutions asking for the repeal of this act, and there is a great deal of protest against it. It will be my intention to ask that the bill be referred to the committee on banking and commerce in order that men from Montreal and other cities may be called who want to come and speak in favour of the repeal of the act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

That a select special committee of the house be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act, and all matters pertaining thereto, with power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time;

And that standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto, and that the select special committee shall consist of twenty-five members and the following be appointed members of the said committee;

Messrs. Beaubien, Betts, Boulanger, Brooks, Clark (York-Sunbury), Cleaver, Deaehman, Donnelly, Elliott (Kindersley), Fournier (Hull), Glen, Golding, Green, Jean, Lacroix (Quebec-Montmoreney), Lawson, Maclnnis, MacNeil, McNiven (Regina City), Mulock, O'Neill, Poole, Pouliot, Stewart, Tomlinson.

He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that at the first session of the present parliament I indicated that the government had the intention of appointing a special select committee to take into consideration the operation of the Civil Service Act. Owing to -the many committees appointed at the first session and the number of matters that came before the house for consideration by a new administration and a new parliament, it was not thought advisable or possible to appoint a committee at that session. Last session, as hon. members will recall, owing ,to the coronation and the imperial conference there was a desire to expedite the business of the house, and it was thought advisable not to appoint a committee at that time. The government is therefore .taking an early opportunity in this session of implementing the promise which was made, that a committee would be appointed in the course of the present parliament.

I believe it is a fact that there have been similar reviews of the operation of the Civil Service Act during most of the parliaments of recent years. One reason for periodic reviews is that the needs and conditions of the public service are continually changing; also, the personnel of the house is continually changing. It is important the service should conform to changing needs. It is moreover an advantage to new members as well as old members to have this opportunity of fully appreciating many of the questions which arise in the conduct of the public service, both from the point of view of the civil servants themselves and from the point of view of those who have to do with their appointment. It is in the public interest also that there should be periodical inquiries into such matters as the efficiency of the public administration, as well as the cost of that administration.

The fact that the government is proposing the appointment of this committee at this time does not mean that the government does not hold strong convictions with respect to the public service and the principles which should govern its status and conduct. It does mean, however, that the government believes it will be helpful alike to the government itself and to the service to have the various duties and obligations of the service carefully reviewed by hon. members of this house, so that their experience may be brought to bear upon the act as it now is, with a view to such revisions or modifications as may seem most advisable. I might add the appointment of this committee should expedite the sessional program through the opportunity it will afford of consideration by the committee of proposals with respect to the civil service already before the house, or ready to be brought up by reference to committee.

I might say that the government intends to recommend the appointment of another committee to deal with the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The superannuation act is more concerned with questions which are immediately financial and which are in part technical. It has therefore been thought advisable to have that act dealt with by a smaller committee. It will be general questions and proposals with respect to the public service that will come up for consideration by the committee now proposed.

As to the personnel of the committee, hon. members will realize that the names as set forth are in alphabetical order. There is no significance as to which name comes first or which comes last. The committee will manage its own affairs, in the selection of a chairman as in other matters, but I would say at once that an effort has been made, through the cooperation of the whips, to have the committee as representative as possible not only of the different parties in the house but of considerations of which a committee of the kind would wish to take account. I need not mention what they are. Inevitably there may be a feeling that some persons ought to be on the committee who are not. All have not been accommodated to the extent that the government would wish to accommodate them. However, this committee will be no different from others in the matter of permitting of changes in personnel in the course of its proceedings if that be thought advisable. I just wished at present to inform hon. members that the names here set forth are those that have been given to the government after consultations between the whips of the different parties. I do not think there is anything further I need say at this stage.

Civil Service-Special Committee

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure every member of this chamber, as well as the country generally, will be pleased with the next to the last observation made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), that from the setting up of this committee there was nothing to be taken that might imply that the government had any doubt as to the necessity of maintaining the merit system and a civil service commission in this dominion at this time. There is no doubt that there has been much discussion, sometimes public and sometimes not, with respect to the civil service commission and its operations; and it is highly desirable, I personally believe, that at least once in the life of every parliament there should be a review of the operations of the act.

The Prime Minister referred to the fact that the proposed committee was not to deal with the financial side of the matter. I observe that that is so, and the only question I had in mind was whether or not under the terms of the reference, namely "to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act," the committee would be competent to inquire into whether or not the departments were under- or over-staffed, or whether public moneys were overexpended in any particular place. As it reads now I doubt whether it would be broad enough for that purpose. The "operation of the act" merely means its administration, how it operates in practice, not the sufficiency or insufficiency of the numbers of employees engaged in the public service. That is a matter which is not settled by the act itself but is determined by the ministers, by what they conceive to be the necessities of the public service and by the appropriation that is made by parliament to defray the cost of such public service. It would therefore seem to me, if it is thought desirable by the government so to do, that the terms of the reference should be modified or expanded; for I submit the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) would say that to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act, when the civil service commission itself has nothing to do with the determining of the numbers of people who are to be employed, would be hardly adequate to meet the situation as a whole. I merely mention this because I thought possibly the government was of the opinion that it was not desirable for this committee to consider such questions as the adequacy or inadequacy of the numbers employed in the departments; that that was a matter which more largely concerned perhaps some other branch of the

public service and which was to be considered from some other angle.

I can only say it is highly desirable that every section of the country and every party in the house should be represented, as it is here, on the committee, and that an endeavour should be made so far as it may be possible to conduct the inquiry into the operations of the act with only one object in mind, namely, the public good and the extent to which, either by amendment or by new legislation, we may be able to improve the efficiency of the civil service. I thought, and I still think, that the language is not broad enough to go beyond the question of mere administration, and that possibly the Prime Minister and his government were of the opinion that it would be desirable to deal with that from another angle altogether, having regard to the report on professional employees made some years ago, and other matters of the kind that should be dealt with in another way, even as superannuation, which is largely a financial matter, should be considered from another angle than that of the operation of the act itself.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Speaker, may I say to my right hon. friend that there was no intention on the part of the government in any way to restrict the scope of the committee's activities in this matter. As a matter of fact, in speaking I think I made direct reference to the cost of services, which of course would include the numbers employed, and the amounts paid to -them. If during the course of its inquiry the committee should feel that there is undue restriction in its scope, it would have power to ask the house to enlarge its authority. I assure the house at once that that concession would be made.

The intention is to -have the scope of the committee's inquiry made as broad as possible, and not to limit it in any particular. The purpose of having the Superannuation Act made the subject of a separate committee was simply to ensure that one particular phase of civil service interest would receive a more detailed and careful examination by a committee appointed with reference thereto than would be possible under the general inquiry.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):

Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are

Fish Trap Licences

called I should like to ask, under standing order 68, that the petition I presented yesterday be read.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Mr. Neill moves, seconded by Mr. Donnelly, that the petition presented yesterday and laid on the table of the house be read. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?