Mr. CURRIE:

The hon. member is in

a very invidious position if he cannot produce the evidence.

Mr. CURRIE:

The hon. gentleman knows very well-

Mr. CURRIE:

Let us go easy on this thing. The witness says that he thinks the Minister of Justice made the recommendation. Let us ask the Minister of Justice who made the recommendation.

Mr. CURRIE:

The hon. gentleman at one time had charge of a department, and I never heard a word against the administration of patronage during his regime. Does he remember the case of the Toronto post office? There was an attempt to have the minister set aside an old civil servant there because he happened to be opposed to the minister in politics, and he refused to do it. He proceeded in a manner which resulted in benefit to the service; he appointed a Tory there against the views of the Liberals of West Ontario. I would far

rather leave the administration of patronage to an hon. gentleman such as the hon. member for Maisonneuve than to such an organization as the Civil Service Commission. There never was as much trouble in connection with the Toronto post office during his regime, when it was a matter of dealing largely with Tories, as there is at the present time.

Mr. CURRIE:

I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on the question whether the hon. member has the right to discuss Griffen-hagen and Associates and their work under this clause.