Mr. Knowles:

By leave.

Mr. Garson moved

the third reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of adjourning this debate, with some assistance from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier).

Mr. Knowles:

Assistance?

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

It turned out that we had later a surprise, because this resolution which sounds very interesting and very very innocent in its wording turned out to have more of a sting in the tail of it than was apparent to us or to the Minister of Public Works, who seemed to think right to the end of the interesting debate we had that the purport of the resolution was not quite the same as indicated by the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley).

The resolution reads very briefly:

That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Civil Service Act in respect of the tenure of office and salaries of the commissioners.

When this matter was up before, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) made some comments on the inadequacy of the resolution, which were very pointed, clear and forceful, and I propose to say nothing more on that point. But I wish to refer to what the Secretary of State said in introducing the resolution. He said in part, as reported at page 1500 of Hansard:

The present salaries of the civil service commissioners are greater than those actually specified in the Civil Service Act, the authorization for this being obtained annually by means of a special item in the estimates.

Then he added what I feel expresses very accurately and sincerely what he meant, and what no doubt members of the government often feel. He said this:

It is the purpose of the present amendments to the act to avoid the necessity of having recourse to the estimates . . .

Now, I am sure that idea is very attractive to members of the government, "to avoid having recourse to the estimates." But I go on. The minister said:

... by providing that the salaries of the civil service commissioners shall be set by the governor in council, which may also, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, retain the services of a commissioner beyond the age of 65 years.

The Minister of Public Works seemed to think that the matter was a very simple one, and had to do only with the tenure of office of the commissioners. He says this seems to be the important section. Well, of course, we have not seen the bill and therefore we are not able to judge as between one section and another. But I want to go back-and this is my chief point-to a remark made by the Secretary of State. He said:

It is the purpose of the present amendments to the act to avoid the necessity of having recourse

Civil Service Act

to the estimates by providing that the salaries of the civil service commissioners shall be set by the governor in council.

As I said before, it seems to me we should have further information; because I think it would be difficult to persuade us that these salaries-if I have correctly understood the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley)-should be dealt with in a manner so entirely different from the manner of dealing with other salaries.

We have spent considerable time in this chamber in the last three days settling certain other salaries by statutes. Here however we are not even to have them settled and presented in the estimates. Rather, we are to have them fixed by the governor in council. When we get into committee we will certainly need to have information on that subject because, on the face of it, it is repugnant to the whole idea of the fixing of salaries.

Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this resolution, and would direct my remarks first to the adequacy of it. I do not believe it is necessary to repeat what has already been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). All I will say in that regard is that there is not enough information in the resolution to make it possible for us to judge as to the value or the foolhardiness of the legislation to be introduced. My own feeling is that it will be quite foolhardy.

The information given by the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) does not indicate in any way what will be contained in the bill, other than that there is a desire to get away from the necessity of talking to this house about salaries during discussion of the estimates. As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) has said, it would be desirable to get away from that necessity each year; but there is a suggestion that the salaries will be fixed by orders in council. That is completely contrary to practice, and certainly, as the hon. member for Greenwood has said, it is repugnant to members of the house.

I say that, of all salaries, those of the civil service commissioners ought to be set by statute. They are the body who are supposed to be as far removed as possible from any political influence. The suggestion in the resolution is that the civil service commissioner be brought as closely as possible under the control of the government, not the control of members of the House of Commons. That principle is wrong, completely wrong. Members of the house do not want the

{Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]

government tampering with the civil service commission-and it could tamper with them, through salaries, and do so by order in council and without reference to the House of Commons.

There is also for consideration the matter of the tenure of office. I should like to know what special dispensation ought to be given the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to recommend the extension of service of any man, without reference to the house. Especially is that true in a body like the civil service commission. I am completely opposed to the principle here suggested. I think the recommendation of the Auditor General ought to be implemented, and that is to have the salaries of the civil service commissioners set by statute, after that statute has been brought here, before members of the house. We should not have a condition whereby part of the salaries is set by statute and another part is set by the insertion of an item in the estimates. That is not a good way, nor is the present suggestion a good one.

If I am right in assuming that the intention is to give the governor in council the right to set these salaries and the tenure of office, and to do so by order in council, then I am completely opposed to the resolution, and I shall vote against it.

I strongly urge that the government ought not to proceed in this way. Let us take care of the matter in the ordinary fashion, by bringing in an amendment to the statute stating that these salaries and tenures of office shall be made statutory, subject to change from time to time by reference to the House of Commons. If that is done I shall have no further opposition to it.

Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support what has been said by hon. members who have preceded me in the debate. It would seem to me, from the statement of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), that there are two points to be considered: one is that the salary of the civil service commissioners shall be set by the governor in council, and the other is that the tenure of office of these commissioners, who are generally men advanced in age, may be extended beyond the ordinary retirement age of 65 years, and that this may be done at the wish of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).

It seems to me that this is a backward step. Indeed, both of these suggestions are backward steps. What we want to see in this country is civil service commissioners becoming as independent as the Auditor General, and not being subjected to political influence. In what other way can the public

Civil Service Act

have confidence in the appointment of civil servants? If the salaries and tenure of office of these commissioners are placed directly under the power of the governor in council, then I do not think they could do anything that would have a greater effect in taking away confidence in the civil service commissioners.

We would like to see the civil service commission a body in which the general public would have confidence, and especially one in which members of the civil service would have confidence. But if the civil service commissioners are going to be placed in the hands of the cabinet, then that confidence will be destroyed. Let me repeat my belief that, if this is done, it will be a backward step.

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):

Mr. Speaker, I think before passing the resolution, without giving the details of the bill, I might state that it is a very short one and deals exactly with what is mentioned in the resolution, namely the tenure of office and salaries of the commissioners.

The civil service commissioners are and always have been appointed by order in council. They shall hold office-and this is as it is stated in the old act-during good behaviour, for a period of ten years, from the date of their appointment. That is as it exists right now. In other words, if we withdrew this resolution we would remain in the position where they are appointed for ten years. So I cannot follow the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) that they are not independent of the government. They are in fact appointed during good behaviour.

What does that mean?

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

I do not know.

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

What about the statement of the Secretary of State as it appears at page 1500 of Hansard?

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

You read it carefully, and you will see it is the same thing I am now repeating. They are appointed during good behaviour, for ten years. Other appointments, such as those of judges, on the other hand, are made for life. In this instance I repeat it is for a period of ten years.

What the government is seeking to do is to be able to extend that period of appointment, so that when they have completed ten years the period could be extended for another term of ten years, or for less than that. That is the only amendment suggested as to tenure of office.

Then, as to salaries: actually, the amount of the salaries is stated in the statute. But

with increased salaries in recent years, in order to keep the salaries of the commissioners on the same level as those of other civil servants, the government has had to include an estimate superseding the statute -because the estimate was, in itself, a statute.

We wish to have the commissioners placed on the same footing as other officials such as deputy ministers, so that when increases in salaries are requested the government can increase those salaries.

Mr. Knowles:

What about the Auditor

General?

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

No, I am not going

to start in with the Auditor General who, for decades, has been an official of the House of Commons, or parliament.

I understand you gentlemen would like to have the civil service commissioners employees of parliament. The policy of the different governments since I have been here was not to put them under parliament. Friends of my hon. friends on the other side modified the act and had an inquiry between 1930 and 1935. In their wisdom they did not think that the commissioners should come under parliament; they kept the appointments under the governor in council. If the opposition has changed its policy, I have no objections, but we have not changed ours as yet.

Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) has not done his usual good job because he can generally convince me when he is dealing with his own department. This time he sounded rather apologetic. The resolution before us will eliminate for all time the right of parliament to determine what shall be the salaries of the civil service commissioners, and that is a bad principle. If it was just a matter of letting the cabinet determine what these three persons were going to receive by way of remuneration from time to time, it would not be so bad, but that is not the case.

These three civil service commissioners preside over the destinies of all civil servants. They determine the formulae for the hiring of civil servants, and they determine also the salary ranges. When the Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, think that they should lift the salary range of their employees they must go before the civil service commission and prove that that is necessary. Actually these three men are presiding over all the functions of government outside this house.

I think that this House of Commons should at least keep them coming back here at any 94699-101

Civil Service Act

time they feel that they want increased remuneration. The principle now being established goes a long way toward eliminating control of parliament in the matter of governmental expenditure. Dealing with their own salaries is not important, but these three persons have to do with considerable expenditures outside this house. As I said before, they have to do with practically all the functions of government in the way of remuneration, hiring and so forth.

If there are three people in the civil service who should be tied up closely to this House of Commons in the matter of their own remuneration, it is these three civil service commissioners. If he examines the principle that is being advocated by this resolution I think the Minister of Public Works will realize that the government is taking a step in the direction of giving the governor in council the power of setting the remuneration for every department of government.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

That is what they do.

Mr. Gillis:

No, they do not.