1926-02-05

CUSTOMS INQUIRY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. GEORGE II. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise):	Mr. Speaker, I crave
the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion, of which I have not given notice, for the appointment of a committee to investigate the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Of course under rule 14
two days' notice is demanded, but if it is by unanimous consent the hon. gentleman may proceed.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Cardin:
That a special committee of this House, consisting of nine members, be appointed forthwith to investigate the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise and alleged serious losses to the public treasury because of inefficiency or corruption on the part of officers of the department and others, and that such investigation extend back over such period of time as the committee may decide and have regard to all matters affecting the prevention of smuggling, the prosecution of offenders, the seizure, storage and disposal of smuggled goods, or goods seized for the purposes of excise or other taxes, the appraisal of goods for revenue purposes, the collection of customs and excise duties, the knowledge of ministers or officials of offences or irregularities affecting the public service in said department, the efficiency of the administration thereof, and the necessity of safeguarding the public revenue and the public treasury, and that such committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place, to print the evidence taken before the committee, and to report from time to time.
I do not intend to offer any extended remarks in connection with the motion. I only desire to thank the right hon. leader of the opposition, and also the hon. member for
Customs Inquiry Committee

Battle River (Mr. Spencer), for the courtesies extended to me in connection with the drafting of the motion and during the negotiations which took place between us concerning the motion which is now before the House.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have
agreed to the terms of the motion as read. There is only one comment which I wish to make, and I make it at the present time because I consider it most appropriate. The committee consists of nine members which necessitates a division of 4-4-1 for the government, this party and the Progressive party. It places the membership representing the government benches on an equality with the membership representing these benches, notwithstanding the fact that we have a substantially larger number in the House. I would have preferred, and indeed was anxious, to secure a membership of ten or of eight, an even number, as a proportion more exactly representing the relative strengths of the parties in the House than has been secured. But the government insisted upon having an equality with ourselves, and this required, of course, an odd number on the committee. I know it is usual that the government have a majority on a committee-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: but in response to the "hear, hear" of the leader of the government I would say it has been very usual also for the government to have a majority in the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the trouble.


Arthur Meighen: I quite admit that is
among the first of the government's troubles. The consequence of the disproportion of the committee is inevitable. It is one of the anomalies which flows from the anomalous situation in which we find ourselves because of the government's tenacity in holding on to office.
I want to make mention of another feature. It was thought, and in this there was no divergence of view, that there should not be restriction upon the committee as to the period over which it might view the Customs department's administration. While the charges are confined to a comparatively limited period1 of time, it is. quite manifest that files may relate back over some considerable period, and that it would be unfair to restrain the committee in respect of time. I know the country will expect, and we will all expect, that the committee will not use this liberty 
to dissipate its energies and to spread thinly over a tremendous period an investigation, which must necessarily be deep and thorough as to the actual facts that are now in question.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I take this opportunity of suggesting to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs and Excise, and to the House, that a series of resolutions under the order of "Notices of motion for the production of papers" relating to the inquiry might also be passed on to it by unanimous consent so that the committee might at least have these papers available at the earliest possible moment.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Speaker, the request
made by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre is a very reasonable one indeed, and I would be disposed to grant it immediately were it not for the fact that it would cause considerable upheaval in the ordinary procedure. I hasten to say to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that all the returns which he has asked for are now being prepared in the department and will be available for the committee as soon as possible after it begins its work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
lion. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House): With the same unanimous consent, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the special committee appointed this day to investigate and report upon the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise be composed of the following members: namely, Messrs. Bell (Hamilton), Bennett, Donaghy, Doucet, Elliott, Kennedy (Peace River), Mercier (St. Henri), St. Pere and Stevens,
Motion agreed to.
REiPORTS AND PAPERS
Report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the year ended September 30, 1925. -Hon. Mr. Lapointe.

Hewitt Bostock: While the House is in good humour, might I refer to a little incident which occurred yesterday when the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) was addressing the House? He spoke of the members of His Majesty's loyal opposition- "and rubber stamps," referring to members of

Pacific Cable
another group. Exception was taken to that appellation, and I ruled and said:
In common parlance we i?ay, "So-and-so is nothing but a rubber stamp", meaning that he is a dummy.
I do not find the term unparliamentary.
I am not an expert in the use of slang, if this be considered, slang. I have hunted up all the dictionaries on slang and I cannot find the expression, but I have heard it quite often. I had heard it in this House and no exception had been taken to the expression. It might be used as an expression of irony or sarcasm, but I do not think it is unparliamentary. The duties of the Speaker are sometimes rather arduous and when matters such as this arise I rely upon Hatsell, a famous authority on the rules and procedure of the House of Commons. I read the following passage for the information of the hon. members:
It is impossible to lay down any specific rules upon this point, or to declare before-hand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; so much depends upon the tone, and manner, and intention of the person speaking-something upon the person to whom they are addressed, whether a minister in a responsible station, or a private member not in office; - whether the words are meant to be applied to his public coonduct, or to his private character;-the degree of provocation which the member speaking had received from the person he alludes to: all these considerations must be attended to at the moment, as they are infinitely various, and cannot possibly be foreseen in such a manner as that precise rules can be adopted with respect to them.
It is therefore rather difficult for me to say whether the intent of the hon. member in using a rather strong and strange expression was to introduce language of a scurrilous or insulting nature. Yesterday I did not find in the expression of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard anything which constituted an attack upon the character of any of his fellow members in the House. The expression appears to have been the hon. member's way of characterizing the attitude of the party to my right. I appeal to the good sense of the House to be as gentle as possible in the use of such expressions during debate.



NOVA SCOTIA COAL MINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (C'ape Breton South):: Will the government tell us what
steps, i'f aniy, have been taken with regard to the trouble ait the Sydney mines? I am informed that the mines in the southern district are at work, but the North Sydney mines are not working. The members of the government will remember that they were given an order for 15,000 tons to be banked at the Sydney mines, but it appears to be impossible
to comply with that order, and we were asking for the special rate given to the Alberta mines. I ask if the government has any information to give as to whether the Alberta rates will be given to the Sydney mines.
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior):	I have no information as
to rates, but I have a letter direct from Mr. Vaughan, the purchasing agent of the Canadian National Railways, stating that he had given instructions that the order for 120,000 tons should be increased to 135,000 tons, the 15,000 tons to be banked at the Princess mine. Since that time I met Mr. Wolvin, who said there would be some difficulty about the matter, but that no doubt it could be adjusted. I have received no further word since.


Finlay MacDonald: Pas the minister made any recommendation to Sir Henry Thornton abgut the rates?


Mr. STEWART (West Edmonton):: No, I do not make any recommendations to the railways about rates. All I can do, as Minister of Mines, is to bring to the attention of the railways any requests that are made, but the rates are a matter of adjustment by the railway board, not by members of this government.



PACIFIC CABLE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders fo the Day:
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Justice- I understand he represents the Post Office Department in this House-to an article which appears this morning on page 3 of the Ottawa Citizen regarding the Pacific cable, and in which it is suggested, or stated, that the Hon. Charles Murphy may possibly recommend the withdrawal of Canada from the Pacific cable. I simply rise to say that I am much interested in this matter and know a good deal about it, and I would urge upon the government that no action of that kind be taken without first submitting the proposal to this House and giving us an opportunity to understand and discuss it.


Ernest Lapointe: All I can say is that negotiations
are still pending between the Postmaster General or this government and the other members of the Pacific cable conference. I have every hope that they will come to an understanding, and that what my hon. friend fears will not happen.
Immigration


George Halsey Perley: May we have an assurance that no withdrawal will be arranged without first bringing the matter to the attention of parliament-


Ernest Lapointe: I will communicate to
the Postmaster General the wish of my hon. friend and I am sure he wi'll attend' to it.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
desire to ask the government, if the Joint Engineering Board appointed last year to investigate the whys and wherefores of the St. Lawrence waterway, has made any report, and if not when the report may be expected?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is referring
to the international board that was appointed for the purpose of investigating the St. Lawrence route? %


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I will
communicate my hon. friend's request and try to have an answer for him on Monday.



IMMIGRATION FROM GREAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles A. Stewart: 

ADJOURNMENT OF 'THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday. February 4, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Lapointe that when the House adjourns immediately after the conclusion of the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, it stand adjourned until March 15, 1926, and the amendment thereto of Hon. Mr. Stevens.
George Halsey Perley: Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I intend to move an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), carrying out the arrangement made in regard to the alteration of thait amendment in connection with the Department of Customs. But before doing so, I would like to say a few words regarding the motion now before the House and proposed by the government for a lengthy adjournment, and to give some reasons why I think it should not carry. Has anyone ever seen a spectacle such as this since parliamentary government came into being in British countries? The government was in power for four years; it had a majority of one of its members, and it carried on during those four years with the co-operation of the Progressive party. Was the government thankful for that co-operation? Certainly not. No one can put this more strongly than my hon. friend the lady member of this House (Miss MacPhail), who criticised the Prime Minister for exhibiting an utter lack of gratitude or graciousness towards that party. Did they translate into legislation during those four years any of the policies that are specially dear to my hon. friends to my left? Certainly not. They Chose their own time for a general election. The Prime Minister went to Richmond Hill where he delivered a speech, carefully prepared, stating his reasons for going to the country, and I want to quote a couple of statements he made at that time. Mr. King said:
Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office, drawing our indemnities and salaries as members and ministers and enjoying the other fruits of office, when great national questions press for solution with which, for want of an adequate majority in parliament, we are unable satisfactorily to cope?

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
A very good reason, in my judgment, and in the judigment of the people for going to the country. Then 'he went on to say:
May I say further. ... I do not believe any one of the four-
That is the important questions to be dealt
with.
-can be dealt with effectively at a last session of parliament. They can only be satisfactorily dealt with by a House of Commons fresh from the people and with a mandate from the people to carry out their will.
I would say further, I do not believe that any one of the four can be dealt with effectively by a government which is not supported by a substantial majority in the House of Commons. Group government and minority government may be inevitable in transitional phases of our political history, but neither is the kind of government wherewith to achieve great reforms.
In other words, he was not satisfied with a majority of one to carry on with the support of the Progressive party in this House. The election took pflace. and after the election the government stilll claim their right to cany on, although 'they came 'back into this House with a minority, the remnant of a government or committee of parliament. So this House met, and on a division this government was sustained, first, by a meagre majority of three, then by a majority of -ten, and finally the other evening by a majority of one. After claiming the right in this way to retain power, although being in a minority in this country and in this House, and after being supported in the way I have mentioned on a division, they bring in this motion for a lengthy adjournment. To me the two things are utterly inconsistent. Either they should not be here claiming to be a government, or they should carry on. Why have they asked for this 'adjournment? For the simple and only reason that they cannot carry on as they are. 'Is it any wonder that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) thought it best not Ito rise the other day to make any remarks in support of this motion far an adjournment? I am not at alii surprised that he did not rise to speak, because he had no real reason to give for an adjournment except the inability of the government to function. When 'he was finally forced to rise in his seat the day before yesterday, what did he say in explanation of this request for an adjournment? He said:
These changes must be made by the present Prime Minister and he asks an adjournment for that purpose. I think it would be only fair on the part of my right hon. friend and of hon. gentlemen opposite to grant what is certainly a reasonable request.
In other words, he calmly tells this House: "We cannot carry on as we are. Let us go away for six weeks and we will try to repair the government and to put it into such 14011-50
shape that it can carry on." In this statement it seems to me the Minister of Justice gives his whole case away. There is no real public reason why this adjournment should be agreed to. The minister referred to what he called precedents for his action in this matter. He referred to the case of 1911 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier went to England and when, with the consent of both parties, an adjournment of this House was agreed to for the purpose of allowing him to proceed to London. My hon. friend had better be careful of these lengthy adjournments taken by Liberal governments, because that one did not end very satisfactorily to hon. gentlemen opposite. I remember very well the occasion on which it was granted in this House, the time when the reciprocity pact was up for discussion. In the result, when the adjournment was over, the government came back into this House and found that the country was against them. They had an election and they were defeated and left at home. Therefore, my hon. friend had better be careful about precedents such as that of 1911. In 1917, the situation was entirely different. We are all agreed that the business of this country should be attended to and that is one reason why we want to have this House continue in session, but in 1917 there had to be attended to in London a matter which was very important for this country. We were in the midst of the Great war and a call had come from London for the meeting of the first imperial war cabinet, when the representatives of the various dominions sat around the table in perfect equality with the representatives of the Mother Country to discuss the numerous phases of the war and the many troublesome problems Which had to be decided at that critical time. I say therefore that the reason for that adjournment was one to which no one could take any objection, and one which we hope may never occur again. It seems to me that neither of the precedents cited applies to this particular case. The Minister of Justice made his ease as strong as he could but there is nothing that can be said to bolster it up.
Then I come to some other reasons why we object to this adjournment. The least important consideration is the convenience to members of this House, and I mention this fact as one of those to whom it would 'be least inconvenient, inasmuch as I live jn the city of Ottawa. But it appeals to me strongly as most unfair and unreasonable to bring members from all parts of Canada to this city and send them away after a session of two or three weeks. They are sufficiently inconvenienced

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
words, the only authority in such eases is this high court, of parliament. Lest some one should make the remark afterwards, Mr. Speaker, I want to say: Let no one suggest that in this ease a similar difficulty is unlikely to arise. It is the very thing we must be prepared to meet. If scoundrels and unscrupulous business men are involved in this investigation, 'as no doubt they will be, they certainly will! stop at nothing to -try to prevent the facts -being brought to light; in other words, they will make every effort to avoid incriminating themselves. Therefore it seems to me that fo-r the honour and dignity of this House we should not grant the long adjournment asked for by the government, but that on the contrary the House should continue in session in order that it may deal with any recalcitrant witnesses.
For these various reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am definitely opposed to the granting of this lengthy adjournment, I say to hon. gentlemen opposite, that in my opinion, if they wish to -remain in power and to retain the respect of the people of this country, they dare not -press -their motion for a lengthy adjournment at this critical time. Therefore I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters), in amendment to the amendment of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre:
That all the words in the amendement after the words "disposed of" be omitted.
Mr. C. H. CAHAiN (St. Lawrence-St. George):	Mr. Speaker, before this amendment is put to the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I will read the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) as i-t will read as amended by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Pertey):
That, all the words after the word "that" be omitted and the following substituted therefor:
this House having been called in session at the instance of the present government, and a number of legislative and other proposals submitted for its consideration by said government in the form of a Speech from the Throne, it is the duty of the House, should the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne be adopted, to proceed with the public business until same is disposed of.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVTN (Minister of Customs and Excise): Mr. Speaker, I have only one word to say on the amendment to the amendment. On behalf of the government I wish to state that we are quite willing

to accept the amendment to the amendment, but I also wish to make it absolutely -dear to the membership on both sides of the House that in accepting the amendment to the amendment we do not accept the amendment as amended.
The hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) when he referred to the meeting of the parliamentary committee while the House might be adjourned gave as a reason for refusing to allow the government to adjourn the House for several weeks to elect its new ministers in by-elections, the necessity of keeping the members of parliament here to discipline recalcitrant witnesses. I agree entirely with what the hon. member has said in go far as the powers of the committee and those of the House are concerned. It must be remembered however, that the inquiry will be so thorough and will extend back over so long a period of time that it will be absolutely impossible to have it completed within the short period of four weeks. For that reason, when the subpoenas are issued, if any witness refuses to obey the order and does not appear before the committee, or if any witness appearing before the committee refuses to answer legitimate questions, it will be quite possible and quite feasible to take up the .examination of other witnesses and appeal for a ruling to the House when it resumes its sittings on or after the 15th day of March. The argument that the House must be kept jn session in order to act as a court of appeal to force witnesses to answer questions, is well worthy of consideration, but it is not an argument sufficiently strong to defeat the motion under debate nor to weigh against the many arguments that the hon. leader of the House gave the other day in favour of an adjournment.
Let me once more assure my hon. friends that in so far as we are concerned, we desire to make the inquiry thorough, and we have no objection to begin the inquiry as soon as possible. It is true that the words "scoundrels" and "dishonest men" were used by the hon. member for Argenteuil. Some-of the witnesses may be scoundrels and dishonest men but I still have faith enough in my country to believe that among the witnesses called there will be enough honest men to keep the committee at work for a period of at least four weeks.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the .minister permit
g question before he concludes? Assume a witness refuses to answer in a critical examination, and that the House is adjourned for four weeks; that witness can take himself off to the other side of the line till this House
7S9

Fas finished 'its business and prorogued in June or July, without any possibility of' retaining him by duress. He is gone; there is no chance of retaining him. The minister's contention in regard to waiting for four weeks seems to me to demolish all reason in his argument.


Georges Henri Boivin: If any witness is summoned
before that parliamentary inquiry who is so dishonest that he will refuse to answer questions legally put to him; if there is a witness who has anything to hide, a witness who is afraid to appear, he will not come here at all whether parliament is in session or not. It may be necessary to take steps to secure his attendance before the committee but that can be done after the 15th of March just as well as it earn be done before.
Mr.	C.	H.	CAHAN	(St. Lawrence-St.
George):	Mr. Speaker, this matter of the
investigation of the Customs and Excise department is one in which the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec are both directly and intimately interested. I listened very carefully to the 4 p.m. statements made by the hon.
member for . Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) the other evening, and I have reflected upon the implications of some of those statements. I regard myself, Sir, as a citizen	of	the	province	of Quebec. As acitizen	of	that	province	I have come into
very intimate relationship and association with my fellow-citizens who are of the French-Canadian race, and with those as well who are English-speaking. I may be permitted, Sir, as a somewhat independent member representing a seat in the city of Montreal in the province of Quebec, to say that throughout that province I am sure that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), for instance, has the esteem and personal confidence of the entire commercial community. The career of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) I have followed for some twenty years, and I have enjoyed somewhat of his personal friendship, and up to the present time I have never had the slightest doubt as to his personal integrity. I have also had the acquaintance of the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), and while his somewhat extreme statements on the public platform during election campaigns remind me of some of the fervent expressions to which I used to give utterance in my early days on the political platform, I can say that he has the confidence of his confreres of the bar of the province of Quebec, and I should hesitate to accept any testimony that reflected upon
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
his personal integrity. I may say the same, although I have not enjoyed the same personal acquaintance, of the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivinj. He is well known to the members of this House, and as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committee of the Whole, the House learned of his impartiality and fairness in dealing with public matters.
I might also say with respect to the- hon. member who sits at his left, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) that while I do not enjoy his personal friendship-, friends of mine have spoken of him in my presence, all giving the highest opinion of his integrity. And yet despite these facts with respect to these individual members who represent the province of Quebec, and who now command a majority in the government of the Right Hon. MacKenzie King, I may say that I have not, my constituents have not, and the majority of the members of this House, I believe, have not any confidence whatever in any government so long as it remains under the direction, and control of that gentleman. The inefficiency of that government in administration, and the vagaries and contradictions which characterize t-he public utterances of the right hon. gentleman on questions of public policy and administration have lost him finally and completely, I believe, the confidence of the people of this country. Therefore, if you view my personal relationship to the province of Quebec, my respect for the individual members who represent that province in the government, you may understand, Sir, that it was with feelings of gratification and approval that I witnessed the Minister of Customs and Excise the other evening, so soon as these statements were made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, rise and declare, on behalf of the government, that there should be the most thorough investigation possible. That statement on his part tended to re-establish confidence in the province of Quebec, and particularly in the city of Montreal.
But I wish to emphasize the statement made by the hon member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), that I do not think it possible for this committee properly to function unless the House is in session, in order to give from day to day substantial support and direction to the committee and its functioning, that this committee may report from time to time as necessary to this House, and that it .may have the authority of the House to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers, and to force recalcitrant witnesses to answer the pertinent -and relevant questions



&quot;92 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
and conduct is above reproach, may have taken from them any stigma which is implied, because it is only implication, in the fact that they were ministers of the government while these gross frauds were being carried on." I appeal to them and I appeal to the leader of the House: Let this House function; let this committee function, and let us, at least, find enough of the ordinary work of the session to take up the time of the House so that this committee may be as thorough and as efficient as possible in carrying out the duties and responsibilities which are placed upon it by the motion which the Minister of Customs has moved and which has been accepted by both sides of the House.
Mr. M ARGIL:: Will the hen member for St. Lawrence-St. George allow me to put a question to him regarding the Mailer case? I was here when it was discussed. Will he tell the House what happened when Miller was put into the Carleton county gaol for his persistence in refusing to answer and where he remained until the end of the session? The House could do no more with him than the committee had done. He refused to answer and the day after *parliament prorogued, he was liberated.


Mr. GAHAN:: The hon. gentleman has
stated the case fairly; but this House will be in session for some months, whether under the leadership of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, or under the equally efficient leadership of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), or possibly under the leadership of the real master of the House, the leader of the Progressive group (Mr. Forke). It as true that if these witnesses refuse to answer w'e can commit them to gaol only until the close of the session; but I expect to see the county gaol of Carleton filled with them while this committee is functioning, and I hope by the dose of the session this committee will have elicited such information as will enable the Minister of Customs to carry out his pledge to this House, to place them under criminal indictment and so take care of them for many years in the penitentiaries of this country. That is my answer. There is no use for me to elaborate the point. Every lawyer in this House knows I am stating fairly the law and the practice of parliament, and I do not wish to take up the time of the House in quoting other authorities.
I wish to say one word to hon. gentlemen who are on my left. I came to this House with a feeling that the Progressive group occupied an entirely independent position here. Being convinced of that, I have stated,

not only in public addresses in the city of Montreal, but elsewhere, that I, as the representative of St. Lawrence-St. George, was quite prepared to meet them half way, to ascertain their views with an open mind, and to assist them in every measure of public interest Which they might introduce into this House, which would tend to conserve the interests of their special geographical section, as long as it did not prove pernicious, injurious and prejudicial to Canada as a whole. But the other day I became somewhat doubtful as to the independence of that party because the leader of the Progressive group stated:
I have before me the returns of the last Dominion election. It shows that 1,467,596 voters in the Dominion voted for the Conservative party. Against that, there were 1,689,975 who voted on the opposite side.
And the leader of the Progressive group seemed to intimate that the votes given for his party were to foe added to those given for Liberal candidates throughout this country.


Mr. FORKE:: Perhaps in making that statement I did not state it just as plainly as I ought to have done. What I really intended to convey was that the party to my right had not a majority of the votes in this House.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I accept that because I had prodded the hon. gentleman in the debate we had, and perhaps I led him into making a broader statement than he really intended to make. But the hon. gentleman proceeded:
I mean there is nothing secret about it.
About the relations between his party and the Liberal leaders.
We shall support this government so long as we think they are bringing forward legislation that is in the best interests of this Dominion.	'
I interrupted the hon. gentleman there. Legislation is important, special measures are important to the whole country. Others are important to certain sections of the country, and it is true that with regard to the functioning of this parliament, legislation is of very great importance, perhaps almost of supreme importance. But a committee of this parliament, responsible to this parliament and to no one else, functions as an administration of the various departments into which the government of the country is divided. This matter is not one of legislation. The statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre iby their implication involve the government and one particular department of government, and those statements must be investigated. Every member of this House by unanimous (Consent to-day agreed that these charges should be investigated at the earliest possible

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
date and in the most efficient manner. Therefore, I ask the leader of the Progressive party, whose independence as stated to-day restores somewhat the confidence which I had in him personally, as an independent member of this parliament to whom this government and this administration is responsible:	Does
he not feel with us that these matters are of sufficient importance to be thoroughly investigated at once? And in view of the fact that it is impossible for that committee to function properly and efficiently when parliament is not in session, does he not agree with us that it is the duty of the independent members of this parliament to vote against a proposed adjournment which, in my opinion, and I am sure in the opinion of every member who looks carefully into the matter, would render this committee utterly impotent and inefficient, and unable to carry out the work which parliament might commit to it. I do not think I need emphasize that point. Picture to yourselves a committee organized and functioning while this House is not in session, unable to compel the production of a single paper from a single recalcitrant witness, unable to force one of the scoundrels who are implicated in these crimes to appear before it.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Could not this House
empower the committee?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have looked into that question and I assure the hon. member that the House could not do so; it could not empower the committee in anticipation. The House could deal with a particular incident only as it occurred; there is no doubt about .that. And suppose some of these witnesses do appear before the committee: they will be represented by the most efficient criminal lawyers we have in the province of Quebec. The Solicitor General, who has been Crown Prosecutor for some time, having won a splendid reputation in the performance of the functions of that office, will agree with me that we have as efficient criminal counsel in Quebec as can be found anywhere, available to any criminal who is prepared to engage them in his defence.


Mr. CANNON:: Why confine this question solely to the province of Quebec? My hon. friend is referring to that province the whole time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I admit that the question is of larger aspect; but certainly the statements made and the implications they convey seem to me at least-I am accepting them only for what they are worth-to reflect on us of the city of Montreal and the province of
Quebec more than they do on any other place, such as Niagara or the Maine frontier, which has been mentioned en passant. When able, efficient and experienced counsel will simply tell them not to answer; they will defy the committee. And the country, whose attention is centred upon the proceedings of the committee from day to day, will see parliament flouted by a number of criminals simiply because parliament has refused to perform its ordinary functions by continuing in session in order to conduct the regular business of parliament. I plead with the leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe), as having the honour of the House now in his keeping, not to allow such a disreputable spectacle as that to be witnessed by the people of this country.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether in all your long and distinguished career as a member of this House you have ever witnessed so flagrant an obstruction of the business of parliament as you have seen in the last few days in this House. My hon. friends know that when the Prime Minister first proposed to call parliament for December 10 it was well understood that a recess would be asked for. I agree with some of the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite when they say that the government should carry on. Certainly the government as constituted to-day is far superior in ability and industry to the administration that was in power during the period from 1917 to 1921. Yet that government carried on. As I say, it was understood at the outset that an adjournment would be asked for on this occasion in order to facilitate the reorganization of the government. A by-election is now in progress in Prince Albert and the candidate of the leader of the opposition is running there.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where do you get
that?


Mr. CAHILL:: An hon. gentleman asks
where I get that. Will the leader of the opposition deny that the gentleman who is opposing the Prime Minister in Prince Albert is his candidate?


Arthur Meighen: I have nothing to do
with him; he is running his own election.


Frank S. Cahill: Is he not my right hon.
friend's supporter?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether
he is or not, but I rather think he will be if he reads the hon. gentleman's speech.
794	COMMONS
.	Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Frank S. Cahill: I expected my right hon.
friend to deny it; he denies everything and everybody and I do not 'blame him. Nevertheless the fact is that that gentleman is his candidate. He is a Tory candidate and presumably is supporting the present leader of the opposition, although we have had evidence from various parts of Canada that the right hon. gentleman's leadership is repudiated.
For the purpose of making political capital my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) now, raises what he believes to be a great scandal, but he does not do so on his responsibility as a member of parliament. The hon. member hides behind the privileges of the House in order to insinuate that certain wrongdoings have been going on with the knowledge of the government. Well, any member could make the same statement to the House, but it seems to me a little beneath the dignity of a former minister of the crown to make such allegations without some proof in substantiation. What did he base his statement upon? It was based upon an investigation which was carried on by this .government for the purpose of prosecuting those who had been engaged in smuggling in this country. That is what the hon. gentleman based his statement upon, coupled with newspaper reports of court proceedings. He did not offer anything new, and when the committee was accepted this afternoon hon. gentlemen opposite resumed their opposition to the adjournment for no other reason than to embarrass the government and thereby obstruct the business of the country. What is the object of their new amendment? They know that there will be an adjournment and they also know that every day the adjournment is delayed the business of the House is retarded to that extent. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Cahan) was apprehensive of what might happen during the interval of the adjournment. But surely it must occur to him that before the committee could start to function properly, before it would be well organized, the House would be in session again. The fact is that hon. gentlemen are simply carrying out Tory tactics in order to secure office so as to have possession of the electoral machinery. That is all they are looking for.


Mr. BENNETT:: Be honest anyway.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend from West Calgary says, "be honest anyway." That is good advice for the hon. gentleman to follow and I shall probably have some reference to make to that later on.

This talk of smuggling, of the abuses of the customs tariff, is largely the product and the outgrowth of the legislation of the Union government. You will remember, Sir, that we had a union of the political office-seekers, the political recanters, the political uplifters and the political-


An hon. MEMBER:: Patriots.


Frank S. Cahill: Yes, that is a good word my hon. friend suggests. The so-called patriots of those days, the political faddists- every one of the different elements of that union had to have its special legislation. The uplifters had to have prohibition; the faddists had to have a Civil Service Commission; the unionists among them, or politicians, had to have the fieshpots. They brought about one Sunday morning in this House the great prohibition legislation that the country has been suffering from ever since. I say, "suffering from" advisedly, Sir. When prohibition was enacted in the way it was, it made criminals of a class of people who had been in the liquor trade for generations, people who had been engaged in an honest industry for generations, and overnight they were told they were criminals. These men were not of the ordinary criminal class that could be held in check by the regular police force. They were a brand new set of people who were accepted in good society everywhere-the people who had been engaged in the liquor traffic of the country- and when that legislation put them out of business they went into the illicit handling of liquor to a large extent, and they followed that up by going into the illicit handling of other goods from across the border. When the government found themselves faced with this brand new condition, a condition in which people of all walks of life were more or less active in illicit business, it became evident that a special police force would be necessary to meet it. The government came to the House for the requisite authority, but they were met by the Civil Service Commission. My hon. friends opposite argued that the Civil Service Commission was the competent body to select men for the special police force to curb this illicit traffic. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition only a day or two ago said that the action of the government was a political move designed to take the appointments out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission
This condition of affairs has been going on for more than five or six years, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it will continue, and that it will take more than a special committee of this House to stop it. It will take

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
the strongest kind of legislation and the strongest kind of organization to stop the illicit traffic that has been developed in this country since prohibition was forced upon the people. My hon. friends opposite make a great cry to-day about the illicit traffic, but they do not want to go back a few years.


Mr. BOYS:: Would my hon. friend give
some indication of the legislation that was passed by the Union government which, he says, brought about the situation he has just referred to?


Frank S. Cahill: The prohibition legislation
that my hon. friend and I stayed up one Sunday morning to pass.
Mr, BOYS: If my hon. friend is referring to Ontario, I would remind him that prohibition in that province was 'brought about
by a vote of the electors under the Doherty Act.


Frank S. Cahill: Does my hon. friend contend that there is no illicit traffic in the province of Ontario to-day?


William Alves Boys: I certainly do not. But does my hon. friend contend that it was brought
about by any legislation of the Union government?


Frank S. Cahill: Certainly it was as part of the price of the support of certain gentlemen in this House. I could name them for my hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name them.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Frank S. Cahill: Which statement, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: That some members of
the House had given their support at a price.


Frank S. Cahill: Some former members of
the House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Which side of the
House?


Frank S. Cahill: At that time they were sitting on this side; they were supporters of the Tory party and the Union government. They were some of the hon. gentlemen who were elected to support the then government during the period of the war.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: Name them.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend1 was not
one of them.


John Wesley Edwards: I was not.


Frank S. Cahill: They resigned when the
war was over, as did my hon. friend's leader at that time, but not the right hon. gentleman who is now his leader.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not think my hon. friend has any good ground to boast about his leader's position during the war. But I do say this, Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: I contend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington)-
I say-


Hewitt Bostock: 
John Wesley Edwards: I want to ask the hon. member this question: if he does not think that in making the statement he has made involving the character of former members of this House, he is hiding behind the privilege of being a member of this House where he cannot be attacked?


Frank S. Cahill: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not hiding behind anything. My hon. friend knows very well what took place between 1917 and 1921. He knows very well that when certain members of the government of that day resigned because they wanted to live up to their pledges to the people of Canada, he succeeded them, and that my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition succeeded the prime minister of that day. The prime minister wanted to live up to the promises and pledges he had made to the electors in 1917.


John Wesley Edwards: What is wrong about that?


Frank S. Cahill: Now, if my hon. friend will keep quite for a minute or two-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Tell us.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friends opposite
are merely trying to obstruct the business of the country in order to gain a point.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


John Wesley Edwards: You have been trying to stop it for six weeks.


Frank S. Cahill: It will be stopped for six
weeks anyway.


John Wesley Edwards: That is not certain yet.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Frank S. Cahill: But now my hon. friends
are making a great ado about little matter. When we were facing them in opposition from 1919 to 1921, when they were, spending millions of dollars of the people's money without a mandate from the country at all, because they were , only substitutes, succeeding a government that had resigned after its mandate had expired-


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is your mandate?


Frank S. Cahill: 
Mr. SUTHERLAND (North Oxford):: May I ask a question?


Frank S. Cahill: Certainly.


Donald Sutherland: Do his Progressive friends support his anti-prohibition ideas?


Frank S. Cahill: My Progressive friends are
perfectly competent to answer for themselves -just as competent as the members of the .opposition. So my hon. friend need have no worry about them; he has plenty of worries right in his own party.


An hon. MEMBER:: Names.


Frank S. Cahill: What names? I want to
say a word or two to my hon. friends from Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher), from Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), from Camrose (Mr. Lucas), from Vegreville (Mr. Boutillier) and from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael)-


Mr. McGIBBON:: Why not the rest of
them?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Frank S. Cahill: I want to say to my hon. friends who were not here previous to 1921 that if they think the pleadings of their friends to their right have any bearing on their attitude or their actions for the future, they are very much mistaken. Let them once get into power, just give them an opportunity to get to the treasury of this country, and they will show you what they will do. I wish
[Mr. Cahill.)
my hon. friends who speak of the programme of the government as good, and want to support it, would think for a moment of the programme of the Tory party when they were in power in this country, and compare the Tory policies with the programme of the Liberal party for the last four years. I think ,they will find their constituents will warn them against any support of the Tory party. If my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition gets into power, what is he pledged to do? He is pledged to have adequate protection, to increase the duty on agricultural implements, to have a prohibitive tariff; that is what he is pledged to do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Frank S. Cahill: My right hon. friend is
sitting in his seat and has a right to deny that if he wishes to. Why do my hon. friends come to his rescue? They were not so ready, some of them, during the last campaign in the province of Quebec; they did not come to his defence there. Why do they come to his defence now when he is here to defend himself and is perfectly competent to do it, more so than any man beside him or behind him? I say to my friends of the Progressive party, if you allow these gentlemen to get into power-


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I rise to a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman has no right to address members of this chamber as "you."


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member who has the floor must address his remarks to the Chair. I have let pass a few infractions by new members, but the hon. member who has the floor is an old member of the House, and I must ask him to address the Chair.


Frank S. Cahill: I think, Mr. Speaker, you
will not have any fault to find with me for not addressing the Chair, as that is one practice I have tried to follow ever since I have been in the House. It was one of the first lessons I learned when I came here. I want to say to my friends of the Progressive party, to those members representing the five constituencies I mentioned a moment ago-


Mr. LUCAS:: I would just like to say that so far as I am concerned-the hon. member has referred to me as one of the five-I require no admonition or advice from him as to the merits of either one party or the other. I was sent down here as an Independent, as a protest against both parties, and I therefore would thank the hon. gentleman if he-would go on with his address without giving: me a lecture at any rate.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Speaker, you know that giving advice is one of the privileges of members of parliament. I am very sorry my hon. friend should resent any suggestion I have made. I am only pointing out to the hon. members of the Progressive party who voted against the government that the alternative to the programme of the government is the policy of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and if their electors sent them here to support that policy, I say frankly they should support it on all occasions in this House; but if their electors sent them here, or if they believe they sent them here, in opposition to the policy of my 5 p.mi. right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, then I say they will be we'll advised mat to support that policy, because his is the policy which he has announced to the country, a policy of prohibitive tariffs.
My hon. friends of the Progressive party know that the government expected to have an adjournment if they were sustained in the House. I think my hon. friends expected that themselves; I never heard them say anything to the contrary, and if we are to have an adjournment why not have it now? Why have all this obstruction, why have this opposition to-day? Why not have the adjournment now so that we can get back here at the earliest possible date and get on with the country's business? Then my hon. friends would have an opportunity of considering the programme of the government, and of approving or disapproving it as they see fit, but in the meantime we are not doing any good; we are not carrying on the business of the country by remaining here discussing this motion. Why not support the adjournment, even if the vote should come early in the morning? I want to warn my hon. friends that if the leader of the opposition ever catches any person napping long enough to get the reins of power in his hands, it will be very hard to wrench them away from them once he has secured them. Believing as I do that the people of this country are firmly opposed to the protective policy of my right hon. friend-


An hon. MEMBER:: They showed it at the last election.


Frank S. Cahill: They certainly did. I say it is the duty of those who are in opposition to the protective policy of the leader of the opposition to support the government as long as they have the support of their constituents in doing so. If their constituents are in favour of protection, it is a different proposition; then they should support my right
hon. friend. But if they believe, as I believe the country does, that the protective policy of my right hon. friend is not the thing for this country, they should not allow him to get the reins of office.


Lucien Cannon: I understand that most of the speakers on the other side who have addressed the House support the sub-amendment. The government accepts that subamendment, and I think, therefore, it would expedite business if we would cease discussing it and go further to something on which perhaps we do not agree. Both sides are agreed on the sub-amendment, so what is the good of discussing it further?


Hewitt Bostock: I put the question several times. I put it again: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the sub-amendment?


Arthur Meighen: I presume the hon. member is through with his address; I do not want to interrupt him.


Frank S. Cahill: It is not an address; it is just a common-sense suggestion.


Arthur Meighen: Before the sub-amendment carries, I desire to make a very few remarks. Needless to say, I am in favour of the sub-amendment. It was part of the undertaking we gave when the government made a pledge to introduce the resolution.
I have been impressed this afternoon with a feeling that this government must surely be launched upon a policy of suicide; I do not say deliberately embarked upon it, because of all follies I think that is the last they will commit. There are some human values they do not fail to -appreciate, and one is their own political existence; but how they can ask this House to vote an adjournment to the I5th of March after having themselves moved for a committee of parliament to conduct immediately an investigation into charges as serious as ever shocked a deliberative assembly, I do not know. No attempt has been made to answer what the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) has advanced. I know the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) would not himself suggest that his words constitute an answer. The leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe) looks across to the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). I know he will smile if I suggest there was anything in his remarks by way of answer, even when supplemented by the primitive ejaculations of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). Is a committee of this House to commence investi-

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
gation into a series of frauds extending over years, involving the eliciting of evidence from all characters and kinds of people, to be told as it is launched that it is doomed to impotence from the start without any power of executing its orders'at all? The leader of the government looks at me-


Ernest Lapointe: Does my right hon.
friend object to my looking at him?


Arthur Meighen: 
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysborough, Minister of National Defence):: I think the House will agree with me when I say that it is impossible to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to any matter. When the proposition for an adjournment was made my hon. friends opposite discussed every question under heaven but the point as to whether, in the interests of the whole country, it was not wise and proper that the government, having received a vote of confidence from the House, should be given an opportunity to fill
up its membership. We were denounced as being cripples, and as being this, that, and everything else. Then the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) comes on the scene, and in a speech of fierce invective charges maladministration on the part of the customs service in this country. That speech was most interesting to listen to and covered a great deal of ground. But the whole pith of his utterances was that this government was responsible for certain doings by certain customs officials, and he laboured with the greatest possible energy all these questions, particularly the Giroux case. I would ask the House to look at page 689 of Hansard, where my hon. friend proceeded to deal with what he called the Giroux case. With the aid of all kinds of arguments and adjectives he sought to convince the House that certain drugs which had been taken and placed in the custody of certain officials of Montreal had been stolen. In addition to that, he went on to tell us the story of the murders that had taken place down there, as if the officials of this government were in some way mixed up with those occurrences. I want to tell him that the incident to which he refers took place in December, 1920, when the Conservative party was in power. I want to reiterate that statement in the hearing of the members in this House, and to assert that when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was proceeding to discuss this question in regard to this particular incident, alleging that some official under the Liberal party, since we came into power in 1921, was responsible for that occurrence, he either knew the statement was wrong when he made it and was misleading the House, or he did not know the true facts, because that incident took place in Montreal in December, 1920, when my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) was in power.
Now, having nothing to fear, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) comes to this House and says, "We are prepared to grant a committee to examine into every phase of the Customs department, not merely for four years, but for as long a period as you want to go back." He confers with my right hon. friend, prepares a resolution and brings it to the House giving the committee the widest powers to deal with the whole matter. Then my hon. friends go on to say, "Oh but you cannot adjourn now, because this committee cannot function properly when the House is not sitting." Well, my hon. friend who made that argument and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) know very well that whether the House was in session or not, if a witness refused to obey

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
the direction of the committee or to attend, all we could do would be to put him in charge of the Sergeant-at-Arms until this House rose. Under the law as it stands at present, and as is has always stood, there is no provision on the statute book by which parliament is empowered to do anything more than restrain the liberty of the individual during the time the House is in session.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the case which I cited,
was it not made clear that parliament had a right to arrest, through the Sergeant-at-Arms, and had the power to commit to the county gaol during the session of parliament?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is exactly what I said. The
power of parliament was limited to restraining the liberty of the individual while parliament was in session but not beyond that. I was in the House of Commons at the time of the Miller case, and we all felt the farcical nature of the powers of the Commons. There will have to be a statute passed-and it could be passed-conferring power on the Sergeant-at-Arms in certain cases before you can have any control over witnesses who refuse to answer or who refuse to appear. My hon. friends say, "You cannot adjourn now, because if you do this committee cannot function." The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, spoke of the great criminal lawyers in the province of Quebec and stated that these men would retain these great lawyers. Are there not great lawyers who can be obtained to prosecute for the government and the people of the country? Does my hon. friend think that the government does not propose that counsel of the first rank shall be retained to see that this matter is delved into and investigated to the bottom, and that these cases which have been held up, before the House and the country, as having occurred under our administration, as well as in previous years, shall be fully investigated and placed before the public?


Arthur Meighen: If, as the hon. minister
says our powers of punishment are now too light and we need a statute to make them more drastic, would it not be well to stay here and pass such a statute?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You cannot satisfy my hon. friends.
We are here and they are there. And they are very anxious to be here. That is the whole sum and substance of the talk.


Arthur Meighen: That is not quite an
answer.
(Mr. E. M. Macdonald.)


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend says the committee
will be sitting and hon. members will not be able to attend that committee. I would like to know what all the hon. members who come to this House representing their constituencies are going to do when this committee is appointed and is holding sessions. Are they all going to crowd into the committee room to hear the evidence? I venture to think every wise member who wants to form a judgment as to what evidence has been presented will read the proceedings of the committee printed, as they will be, from day to day under the usual practice. My hon. friend would think this committee was going to get through its work in three weeks. It will be sitting for three months and probably more.


An hon. MEMBER:: As bad as that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And my hon. friend will find that there are stories other than those told by the hon.'member for Vancouver Centre, and that there are other incidents which occurred previous to 1621 which will see the light of day and which are of quite as much importance and interest to the country as any incident my hon. friend discloses. I say that every hon. member who wants to follow the proceedings of this committee will look at the printed proceedings and study them, in order that he may know exactly what occurs. He is going to do that anyway if he is interested in the matter. But look at the one hundred and one other matters of importance that hon. members are sent here to deal with. Are all these to be forgotten and excluded from consideration, except this one subject of attendance upon the committee? The arguments of my hon. friends have no virtue so far as strength and virility are concerned, when you examine them. There are the facts. The power of the committee of parliament is just as great and just as limited as it ever was. The committee will take some days at least for organization, employment of counsel, preparation of documents, and the airangement of all these details which every hon. member who has had experience in investigating knows about. The hon. members who have not had any experience in investigating committees may be apt to be misled by specious theories that you are going to start off to-morrow with filing of documents and hearing of witnesses and so on. A wide inquiry must be made in order to be effective. I say that this committee can meet and it has the control of its own destinies. Counsel will be employed to function with it and it will proceed in the

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
regular way. But constituted as we are in this House there is no use in hon. members iterating and reiterating that they have 116 men on that side of the House, while we have only 110 on this side, and that there are certain independent gentlemen in the House. We all know' that. Why not look the facts straight in the face? We have been sustained by a majority of the House. This government desires to go on and function with the support of the House so long as it can secure that, just as any other government would do. In order to carry on, we want to fill up the portfolios. Is that an unreasonable request to make of the House or of the people, who, I am sure, if the House extends us its confidence in this respect, will justify that confidence? The public business will go on. The adjournment will not be for such a long period if we put it to the day fixed by the resolution. The government will then come to this House with its cabinet completed and be prepared to go on, not merely with the investigation of the Customs department, but with the transaction of the public business in the best interest of the Canadian people.
Amendment to the amendment (Sir George Perley) agreed to.


Hewitt Bostock: 802	COMMONS
Adjournment oj the House
Kennedy (Peace River), King (Huron North), King (Kootenay East), Lacombe,
La flam me,
Langlois,
Lapierre,
Lapointe,
Lavigueur,
Letellier,
Lovie,
Macdonald (Glengarry), Macdonald (Antigon ish -Guysborough), MacLean (Prince), McLean (Melfort), Macphail (Miss), McIntosh,
McKenzie,
McMillan,
McPhee,
Malcolm,
Marcil,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremonit),
Mercier (St. Henri), Millar,
Morin (Bagot),
Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville),
Motherwell,
Neill,
Parent,
Anderson (Toronto High Park),
Anderson (Halton), Armstrong
(Timiskaming South), Armstrong
(Lamb ton East), Arthurs,
Baker,
Barber,
Bell (Hamilton West), Bell (St. Antoine),
Bell (St. John-Albert), Bennett,
Black (Yukon),
Black (Halifax),	.
Bowen,
Boys,
Bristol,
Bury,
Cahan,
Cantlery,
Cass el man,
Ghabot,
Chaplin (Kent, Ont.), Chaplin (Lincoln), Charters,
Church,
Clark,
Cotnam,
Culligan,
Davis,
fMr. Speaker.]
Perras,
Pouliot,
Prevoat,
Raymond,
Rheaume,
Rinfret,
Robb,
Roberge,
Robichaud,
Robitaille,
Ross (Moose Jaw),
St. P&re,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Speak man,
Spence (Maple Creek), Spencer,
Steedsman,
Stewart (Edmonton West), Stork,
Sylvestre,
Tobin (Richmond -Wed fe), Tobin (Wetaskiwin), Totzke,
Vallance,
Verville,
Ward,
Willson (Vaudreuil-Soulanges),
Woods worth,
Young (Saskatoon),
Young (Weybum).-119.
Dickie,
Doucet,
Drayton (Sir Henry), Duncan,
Edwards (Waterloo South),
Edwards (Frontenac-Addington),
Embury,
Esling,
Fish,
Flemming,
Foster,
Fraser,
Garland (Carleton), Geary,
Gott,
Grimmer,
Guthrie.
Hamilton,
Hannesson,
Harris,
Hay,
Hocken,
Hodgins,
Hubbs,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North - V ictoria ),
Jones,
Kaiser,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre),
Ladner,
Lang worthy,
Lennox,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Macdonald (Kings), Macdonald (Richmond-West Cape Breton), MacLaren,
Maclean (York South),
MeClenaghan,
MacdougaLl,
McGibbon,
McKillop,
McQuarrie,
Maloney,
Manion,
Maybee,
Meighen,
Messervy,
Morand,
Mullins,
Murphy,
Nicholson,
O'Neill,
Peck,
Perley (Sir George), Pettit,
Preston,
Price,
Baldwin,
Beaubien,
Benoit,
Bettez,
Bird,
Boivin,
Both well, Bouchard,
Boucher,
Bourassa,
Boutillier,
Brown,
Cahill,
Campbell,
Cannon,
Cardin,
Carmichael,
Casgrain,
Coote,
Darke,
Delisle,
Denis (St. Deni*), Desaullnders,
Descot eaux, Deslauriers,
Dionne,
Donaghy,
Donnelly,
Dubuc,

Dussault,
Elliott,
Evans,
Fafard,
Fansher,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Fontaine,
Forke,
Fournier,
The House divided on the mam motion (Mr. Lapointe) which was agreed to on the following division:
++NAYS
Messrs:
Quinn,
Robinson,
Rogers,
Ross (Kingston City), Rowe,
Ryckman,
Ryerson,
Senn,
Short,
Simpson,
Sinclair,
Smith,
Smoke,
Spence (Parkdale), Stansell,
Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds), Stinson,
Stirling,
Sutherland (Oxford South),
Sutherland (Oxford North).
Thompson,
Tolmie,
Tummon,
White (Mount Royal), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright-112.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Gershaw,
Gervaia,
Girouard,
Goodison,
Goulet,
Gu6rin,
Hall,
Hatfield,
Heaps,
Heenan,
Howard,
Howden,
Jacobs,
Jelldff,
Jenkins,
Johnston (Long Lake), Kay,
Kennedy (Peace River), King (Huron North), King (Kootenay East), Lacombe,
Laflamme,
Langlois,
Lapierre,
Lapointe,
Lavigueur,
Letedlier,
Lovie,
Lucas,
Macdonald (Glengarry), Macdonald (Antigonish-Guy^borough), MacLean (Prince), McLean (Melfort), Macphail (Miss), McIntosh,
McKenzie,

Alberta Coal
McMillan,
McPhee,
Malcolm,
Maxell,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont),
Mercier (St. Henri), Millar,
Morin (Bagot),
Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville), Motherwell,
Neill,
Parent,
Perras,
Pouliot,
Prevost,
Raymond,
Rh6aume,
Rirafret,
Robb,
Roberge,
Robichaud,
Robitaille,
Ross (Moose Jaw),
St. Pere,
Sanderson,
SSguin,
Speakman.
Spence (Maple Creek), Spencer,
Stansell,
Steedsman,
Stewart (Edmonton West), Stork,
Sylvestre,
Tobin (Richmond-Wolfe), Tobin (Wetaskiwin), Totzke,
Yallance,
Verville,
Ward,
Wilson (Vaudreudl-Soulanges),
Woodsworth,
Young (Saskatoon),
Young (Weyburn).-120.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.) Messrs:
Cross,
Euler,
Power,
Lacroix.
MacNutt,
White (London),
Mewburn,
Hanson.
Oa motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
Monday, February 8, 1926