1926-02-03

CUSTOMS INQUIRY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise):	Before the orders of
the day are called I would like to say just one word concerning a matter of policy on the part of the government. I was not in the House last night when the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) began his remarks, but I see in Hansard to-day that he used the following words:
Now it is stated by the Minister of Customs: I am prepared to frame up a motion and I give the Minister of Customs warning now that it will have to be worded more amply than the amendment he read with some show of pride before this House just a few hours ago. If the motion is ample enough, wide enough, that will satisfy me so far as the investigation is concerned.
He goes on to offer other remarks, but those are the words I desire to refer to. I submit-
Mr. MEIGHEN:: I do not understand, Mr Speaker, how the hon. minister proposes to make a statement of policy-


Mr. BOIVIN:: I do not intend to make
a statement of policy-


Arthur Meighen: That is what the minister said.


Georges Henri Boivin: -but a statement of the intentions of the government.


Arthur Meighen: There is a time for that, and it is not now. This is no question of privilege. The hon. member cannot take exception to my statement.	.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am not taking exception
to it. I am agreeing entirely with the wording of that statement, and I merely wanted to say that the government is prepared, just as soon as-


Arthur Meighen: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am in the hands of the
House. If Mr. Speaker says I have no right-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is a ministerial statement.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Arthur Meighen: This is not the time for a ministerial statement.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Before the orders of the
day are called,, it is a matter of usage for ministers of the crown to make a statement to the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: All I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, is this, that just as soon as the right hon. leader of the opposition has concluded his remarks, I am prepared to meet him and confer with him and prepare a motion just as wide as he desires to have it. for the purpose of submitting it to the House to-morrow, with his consent, for the appointment of that special committee.



ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Laipointe 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.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, at the close of a few sentences early this morning between the hours of four and five o'clock, I moved the adjournment of the debate and by virtue of that motion, it having carried, I have the floor this afternoon. I am not resuming the floor, however, with any intention of making a prolonged speech, or any speech at all, upon the subject matter before the House. The remarks which I have already made on both of those motions stand, and very little need be said to supplement them now even in the light of the hurried action of the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) in seeking, in anticipation of the debate, to rescue the government of which he is a member from the ^ humiliating position into which they floundered last night. It is still worthy of some comment that this House was kept here until early morning, with the result that hon. members are scarcely fit to-day to perform as they should the serious duties of this parliament, kept here for the reason that the government, upon threat of holding us up all night and to-day, have demanded from us as a condition of getting any sleep, that we surrender our rights under the rules of this House. This was done through the mouth of the leader of the government, and it was done after I had myself, as leader of this
[Mr. Lapointe. 1
party and assuming only to act for it, voluntarily proposed to surrender such of our rights as were essential to be surrendered to enable the debate then in progress to be continued day by day in priority to other matters before this House. It is true that after the warning which came, in the face of a division the narrowest perhaps, ever experienced in parliament, the government crawled and between four and five o'clock decided that they had better not face any more divisions, and came to the terms which we had proposed some five hours before. So that if hon. members feel that they have been denied that rest which nature demands, they know where the responsibility is.
The government now come forward and say: We are ready to appoint a committee. I do not know that there is very much in what the Minister of Customs and Excise says that was not included in his statement of last night, a statement which I welcomed in the course of my remarks and which I welcome now. We want a committee, that is all we want. We want its terms to be ample and complete, we want its powers to be sufficiently wide that it be enabled to proceed with its work without delay. I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) to review the terms of his proposal. This debate in the meantime can continue, and1 if those terms are satisfactory, I am prepared to advise the mover of this amendment to omit such features as refer to the investigation wholly leaving only what remains, this party, of course, standing where it has stood from the beginning against any adjournment on an3' ground and especially against any adjournment on an admission of no ground at all.
It may have been the part of discretion, but it was not the part of courtesy to parliament, to propose one of the most important motions of this session, to propose a motion indeed unprecedented in the annals of this House, and through the course of an entire day, and almost an entire night, to insist that parliament pass it, without parliament being provided with one single reason, or one even admitted reason, by any member of the administration why the motion should pass. Into that position the government flung themselves and they rest there now. I hope the members of the administration, having had a little time for reflection, will repent of the stand they have taken, and that some one to-day will attempt to offer this House some explanation of the motion which the government has made, or attempt to offer some reason, or if

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
no Teason some excuse, why 245 members of parliament called here at the instance of the administration, called here in express words to transact the business of the country, should, soon after they are called, be sent back to their homes for six weeks while urgent public questions demand attention, while public problems demand solution, the whole to rest in abeyance between heaven and earth until the government repair their fortunes. Mention has been made of some of these. It was really amusing to watch the government, while the situation as respects coal in this country was brought to their attention-a situation which is more or less universal so far as Canada is concerned, and that certainly is serious. The government intend, apparently to solve the coal problem by waiting for the summer sun, just as they proposed to solve the problem of Senate reform by waiting the footsteps of the Angel of Death, just as through four languid years they have attempted to solve the problem of unemployment by waiting until the unemployed passed to another land. And while these matters are before us, we are calmly asked to return to our homes, making such explanations as we can to our constituents, while the government endeavour to get some members elected fit to stand before the people's representatives and present an array such as the government should.
I started yesterday to refer to the reason given by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) for supporting the adjournment, and some one must have turned my attention from it. I am very sorry for the omission. His reason was this, and I heard it taken up by some one later on-I think it was the Minister of Customs and Excise- that we should not sit here any longer because if we did we might make speeches that would be used in Prince Albert. The leader of the Progressive party has very little confidence in himself. If he has no confidence in himself, and his devotion to his duties in this House, he should not ascribe the same frailty to other members of parliament. Why, through a large portion of the time of parliament by-elections are proceeding; it has been the course ever since confederation. Are we, because there is a by-election on, or because there are two, to abandon and abdicate our functions as a parliament for fear that somebody would make a speech that might be reported in a constituency? What harm would it do? It is the effort of members of parliament to make such speeches as, because of their logic and their force, appeal to the people of Canada. I never knew before that that was an offence; but to urge that
men might be inclined to do so as a reason for the surrender of this parliament to the exigencies of the government really is something that, coming from even so close an ally as the leader of the Progressive party, is enough to shock the conscience of the House.
The main motion now before us is whether we should abandon our work for six weeks until the matters of the government's motion are decided upon, agreed upon, or still left open for dispute. Until that stage is past this House waits, and waits impatiently, for the government's reason fo(r suggesting an adjournment of six weeks at this time.


Ernest Lapointe: Is my right hon. friend trying to
prevent me from speaking?


Arthur Meighen: No, I thought I had
pleaded with the hon. member for hours to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: Is the hon. member for
Fort William going to try it again?


Mr. MANION:: I did not know my hon.
friend was speaking to the amendment. I thought he was closing the debate. That is the reason I rose.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased to have at last the opportunity to make a few remarks. Hon. members opposite, one after the other, rose yesterday and complained with bitterness that they had not heard anything from me, but they took good care to rise, one after the other, to prevent me from speaking. Let me tell my hon. friend that I have been in this House for twenty-two years, and part of that time the right hon. gentleman was in the House. I know his tactics and have been accustomed to them. Let me tell him also that the lamentations to-day about the late sitting last night find very little sympathy from those of us who sat in the House when the right hon. gentleman, then a member of the government in power at the time, forced measures through by means of the closure. When it comes to a matter of being arbitrary and1 autocratic, as he suggested last night, I think I could appeal to his friends around him and I would stand a fair comparison with him.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had the speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) and his statement to-day, which cleared the air so far as the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is concerned; and I have very little to say about it. My hon. friend tried to impress us with the fact that smuggling is being carried on on a large scale.
ns	COMMONS
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
Well we knew that, and we know it now. It is a plague, and it has -been an especially aggressive business in the last few years since the prohibition law has been enacted in the States. Smuggling operations are carried on both in the United States and in Canada on a larger scale than formerly, and it has been conducted by a nefarious organization, not only in those two countries but in every country in the world. You have only to read the remarks of the Prime Ministesr last year when he supported a bill in this House introduced by the then Acting Minister of Customs, to realize that the Prime Minister and the government were fully aware of what was going on, and were prepared to take any steps to try to prevent smuggling operations. I refer hon. members to Hansard of last year, page 3777, where the Prime Minister said':
I should like to say a word or two about this legislation. The government is fully aware that these penalties are severe, but hon. members, I think know that during the last few years, since the enactment of prohibition in the various provinces, there has been a good deal of illicit traffic in liquor along the international boundary. Smuggling if it has not become a profession, has become a trade with large numbers of men and women, and a disreputable trade to be sure, but sufficient of an occupation to many for them to be engaged continuously in it. It has been found that the men engaged in smuggling liquor into the United States find it exceedingly profitable to bring back other commodities into Canada, and vice versa, and these smugglers where successful make such large profits that they do not hesitate to attempt bribery of our officials in their eagerness to evade the revenue laws. I regret to say, smuggling has reached a point where our customs officials find themselves quite incapable of coping with it effectively. Over and over again, representations have been made to and by the minister of the department that unless they were supplied with high powered motor cars, marine speed craft and other like equipment, they would have to throw up their hands in some localities in dealing effectively with smugglers. The international frontier is an extensive one, and sparsely settled in many parts in the business thoroughfares, the pressure being put on the customs officials all along the line to accept bribes continues to increase, with the increase in legislative enactments in certain directions, and unless the law is strengthened our customs service will speedily become greatly demoralized.
And further on he says:
The government in this legislation is seriously endeavouring to overcome a very grave evil that has developed on a vast scale within the last few years. We have endeavoured to cope with it by means of the staff now available in the Customs department, but we are frank to admit that unless the law is made more severe and unless we are able to appoint our own customs officials and take direct responsibility for the type of men we put into the service, it is not going to be possible to make the frontier as immune from smuggling as we would desire. It is, I suppose, impossible to give accurate figures of how much is being lost to the country in revenue, but some of those who believe themselves to be well-informed estimate that anywhere from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 a year is being lost through smuggling operations. These figures may be exaggerated, but at least the government is determined to fight the evil as effectively as it can, and it is for 
this reason that we have been prepared to accept the suggestions of those who are most interested in endeavouring to thwart the extensive smuggling operations that are carried on to-day. To a large extent we have acted on their recommendations in introducing this legislation.
Members of the House thought the provisions of that legislation were too severe; nevertheless they were enacted and are now the law of the country. But the government has taken other steps. The investigation carried on in the port of Montreal has been organized and directed by and under the control of the Minister of Customs; he has acted even on an interim report of the investigator, and the man who was found guilty has been punished and is no longer in the service. I may say that the Minister of Customs is carrying on investigations not only in Montreal but in other ports. He will investigate the port of Toronto, the port of Vancouver if it pleases my hon. friend, and other ports, and everything possible will be done to check smuggling.
I regret, though, that my hon. friend has made a serious charge against one of my former colleagues in this House, the former Minister of Customs, relating to the destruction of papers. After the explanation given by the present Minister of Customs, I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver Centre regrets that he made such a charge or insinuation against a man who had the esteem, the respect, and the affection of every member of this House, including the members of his own party. It would have been well on the part of my hon. friend to secure better information before making this charge. He was not fair when he said that it was on account of the things he was alleging to have happened that my former colleague was appointed to the Senate and resigned from the government. My hon. friend as well as those around him know the former Minister of Customs was in very poor health, and it was the condition of his health which forced his resignation from the government.
Because my hon. friend has connected the Department of Justice in some way with these customs irregularities, if irregularities have occurred, may I say that the Department of Justice is merely one department of the government? If the Department of Customs or the Department of Health or any other department desire to take proceedings against a party for a violation or an infraction of the laws of such department, they write to the Department of Justice to secure the name of a lawyer in that particular locality, and the Department of Justice sendls to the deputy minister of that department the name of a lawyer. The depart-

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
ment concerned communicates directly with that lawyer; that lawyer reports to that department, and we have nothing to do with anything that transpires in connection with the case.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not under the Department of Justice as such; it is independent of the Department of Justice, but it is under the control of the Minister of Justice. It is a fine force, and I agree with every word my hon. friend has said about the effectiveness of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If a department of the government requires officers for some secret service or other work, they ask the commissioner of the mounted police to ask certain officers to do that work. The work is done and those officers report to the commissioner of the mounted police who sends those reports to the department which asked for the help of those officers. Those are the facts with regard to the Department of Justice in connection with prosecutions or investigations conducted by any other department.
As regards the main motion, we had a full day yesterday. Most of the speeches were repetitions of the others, but still we had a great display. Two days ago, on Monday evening, the Montreal Star issued a call to arms to the leader of the opposition, and I believe he allowed his board of strategy to launch that offensive yesterday, to be supplemented later by the machine gun operations of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). We have had a new edition of the first debate of the session, somewhat revised, but in no way improved. There has been, however, a striking difference. During the first debate of the session hon. gentlemen opposite were arguing that there was no government, no body of men, they even said, who were entitled to put a Speech from the Throne into the mouth of the representative of the crown. During this debate a wonderful change has taken place, and the main argument is that there is a government. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) said particularly that, on account of the vote giving ten of a majority to the government two days ago, the government had asserted its right to carry on, and this was the basis of the contention of my hon. friends opposite yesterday. As in the first debate, they did not spare us, using those fine adjectives contending that we were a "remnant" government, a "truncated" government. Somebody spoke of "dead bones."


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Hear;, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I will advise my hon.
friends, if their vocabulary runs short, to
borrow the expressions used by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), whom I was sorry not to see in his seat yesterday, when he waS characterizing the government of which my right hon. friend was such an adornment, as a government of tinkerers, jobbers and second-hand dealers. Really, the hon. member for South Winnipeg is better at coining words than his friends opposite. We enjoyed many spectacles during the day. One of them was the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) speaking on behalf of the "man on the street." I have a great admiration and respect for the hon. member for Mount Royal and I was pleased, indeed, to welcome his return to the House of Commons. But really, speaking for the "man on the street" is a task which is not congenial to him at all. I will not follow the example of my hon. friends opposite and reintroduce arguments which were set forth in the first debate of the session. I will try to speak very briefly and moderately, forgetting the display of passion of yesterday and forgiving the abuses. I wall even decline to comment on the corridor gossip picked up by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), and given to us in this House with such beaming satisfaction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And undenied.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad he used the
word "resuscitation." I am glad he resuscitated yesterday, but unfortunately he did it a little too speedily,, preventing me from exercising my privilege to speak first.
I suppose it is useless to repeat the reasons why parliament was summoned at such an early date. As was stated immediately after the general election, when it was supposed that it would be possible for this House to meet on December 10, the purpose of this early summoning of parliament was to let parliament decide who was going to carry on the administration in view of the result of the last general election. Everybody knows -we admit it on this side-that no party has a majority in this House. As a result of the election no party was given a sufficient number of followers to undertake to carry on the administration in this parliament without the co-operation of members of other groups. The only thing to do was to let parliament decide, and that was the decision of the present government. On the first day of the session the leader of the opposition expressed the opinion that this government was not entitled to carry on. He made a motion to that effect and failed, a majority of three in this House deciding that they did not want the right hon. gentleman as Prime Minister

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
of Canada. Immediately after this decision the Prime Minister took the necessaiy steps towards securing a seat in the House. We proceeded with the debate on the Address. That debate is not yet concluded, an amendment to the Address, moved by the opposition, having been voted down by a majority of ten.
Now, we are the government and we are only asking fair play, the same fair play that we should have been pleased to extend to my right hon. friend if he had been successful and had carried a majority in this House. We desire an adjournment to permit the Prime Minister to undertake and to carry through the task of filling vacancies and to reconstruct the government in order to proceed regularly with the legislative, parliamentary and administrative work of government. The fact that there are important measures which have to go through parliament, as my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) said yesterday, makes it all the more imperative that the government should be complete and that every department should be represented here by a minister. Is that unreasonable? My hon. friends opposite say that we are not a government, that we are a remnant, a truncated administration. Well, I am quite willing to forgive and forget all these qualificatives; that is party warfare. But what I claim is that there should be some logic and some consistency in the criticism. We admit that many ministers were defeated at the last general election and we admit that changes have to be made. But my right hon. friend cannot make the changes in the government inasmuch as the House has decided against him. 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.
Some hon. gentlemen suggested yesterday that we should carry on the business of parliament, have by-elections in the meanwhile, and avoid this adjournment. Well, we had a majority of one yesterday and my hon. friends opposite will admit that with two, or three, or four vacancies the task of the government would become still more precarious.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: It is just as well to be frank, and I am frank about it. We have a peculiar situation here. We have groups in this parliament and some do not like it,-I am not one of them. But whether we like it 
or not, that is the situation we have to-day and we must deal with it. Parliament as it is to-day is what the people of Canada have made it and we have to accept the situation.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: May I ask the minister a question?


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly, but I should like to be allowed to proceed.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the hon. member suggest that the government can increase its majority as a result of the by-elections which are in contemplation?


Ernest Lapointe: I see a good way of reaching that goal: let my hon. friend resign his seat and we will carry it.


William Garland McQuarrie: Let me tell the minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. members on both sides of the House, in view of the strenuous session of yesterday, to render the task of the speaker as little onerous as possible by refraining from unnecessary interruptions.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am entitled to an answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.
Some hon. M EMBERS: Sit down.


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not see why I should sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


William Garland McQuarrie: I rise to a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: Unless the hon. member desires to speak to a point of order or on a question of privilege he must not interrupt the member who has the floor.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have intimated, Mr. Speaker, that I am rising to a question of privilege. If necessary I will appeal from the ruling of the Chair.


Hewitt Bostock: I did not hear the hon.
member state that he was rising to a point of order. While the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was addressing the House the hon. member rose and by leave of the minister asked a question. Thereupon I appealed to hon. members on both sides of the House to refrain from provoking any incidents that might unnecessarily delay the House. We spent a laborious evening yesterday and I

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
think it is the desire generally that the proceedings should be facilitated as far as possible.


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes, Mr. Speaker,
but-


An hon. MEMBER:: Keep quiet.


William Garland McQuarrie: I will not keep quiet. I have risen to a question of privilege. The minister made a suggestion in reference to myself which I resent.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not think there is
any question of privilege involved in that.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: I think we had better
forget this incident, Mr. Speaker. [DOT] As I was remarking, Sir, this is an unusual move, I admit, but at the same time the situation is an unusual one. Yet a demand for such an adjournment as is now requested is not unprecedented in this parliament. To my knowledge, twice at least since I have been a member, longer adjournments have been granted by the House to the governments for the time being in power.


Arthur Meighen: For what purpose?


Ernest Lapointe: I shall come to that.
In 1911 there was an adjournment from May 19 to July 18, fully two months, for the purpose of allowing the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier to attend an Imperial conference. In 1917 the House of Commons adjourned from February 7 to April 19, almost two months and a half, to allow Sir Robert Borden and, I think, one or two other ministers, to go to the Imperial war conference. The session was opened on January 18; there had been only fifteen sittings of the House when this long adjournment took place, and Sir Robert Borden came back to the House on May 16.
The hon. member for West Calgary 'brought forward the argument yesterday that there should be no adjournment because the Speech from the Throne had been read and discussed and there was a programme before parliament. In these two instances a programme was also prepared; the Address had been voted and parliament unanimously decided that it was better to adjourn during the absence of one, or perhaps two or three ministers. In both instances Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden, leaders of the parties, agreed to the adjournment and said it was their duty to afford every possible facility for the carrying on of the government of His Majesty the King. I expected my
14031-46	.
right hon. friend the leader of the opposition to ask for what purpose these adjournments were made, and I replied that it was for the purpose of attending an Imperial conference, whereupon my hon. friend said "hear, hear." Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to attend Imperial conferences, but it is still more important to attend to Canadian business in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Since the Hamilton
speech I see I have a responsive auditor in the person of the right hon. leader of the opposition.


Mr. BENNETT:: May I ask my hon.
friend a question? Is he not aware that in the case of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the adjournment was granted to permit of his attending the coronation as well?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon, friend reads Hansard as I have done he will see that the reason the adjournment was asked was to permit attendance at the Imperial conference. The coronation was an important ceremony which occurred at the same time, but the main reason was the Imperial conference.


Arthur Meighen: I do not object to the assertion that it is more important to attend to Canadian business, but may I ask my hon. friend if he does not think the House of Commons is the place to attend to Canadian business?


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly, and it is important that the complete government should *be here to attend to the business. The other day I was reading the Hansard of the British House of Commons at the time Mr. Baldwin was defeated in 1924. Although, as is the *case with my hon. friends opposite, he led the largest group numerically in the House; Mr. Baldwin summoned parliament and was defeated by the combined vote of the Liberal and Labour parties, which agreed to co-operate for the purpose of defeating the government. I read the speeches which were made at that time under circumstances somewhat similar to those existing in Canada to-day, and I was impressed with the fact that there was no bitterness in the remarks then made; there was a fair debate, conducted on fair and broad lines, with no abuse of opponents. Then, Mr. Speaker, when the debate was closed, the vote taken and Mr. Baldwin defeated, the first thing Mr. Baldwin did was to confer with Mr. MacDonald and ask him what delay he wanted for the purpose of organizing his government. It was Mr. Baldwin himself who

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
COMMONS moved the adjournment of the House for a few weeks in order to allow his opponent to form a government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Would the hon.
gentleman be equally gracious on this occasion?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not understand
what my hon. friend means, and perhaps he does not know himself.


Mr. CLARK:: Does my hon. friend say
that the Liberal party in Canada to-day is in the same position as the Labour party was at that time in England?


Ernest Lapointe: I have given all the explanations as to the circumstances, and my hon. friend is welcome to arrive at his own conclusions. I say that the act of Mr. Baldwin in himself moving the adjournment of the House for a sufficient period to allow his opponent to organize his government was fair play; it was playing the game; it was cricket, as they say over there. I believe that some of our Canadian statesmen might well borrow some features of their conduct. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friends opposite do not take such a view of their duties in this matter, but we believe that our demand is fair and reasonable and will meet with the approval and support of the country.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Lapointe) with a great deal of pleasure, lie-cause of the moderation which he himself commended and which I also commend. He certainly was very moderate in his remarks to-day, and I shall try to imitate him so far as I can, because the other day when I was speaking in the House, I was a little emphatic and someone said I looked as though I were going to have a stroke of apoplexy. I decided after reading that remark that if I had to sit over here very much longer and keep looking across at this ramshackle remnant of a government, I probably would have an attack of apoplexy.
I wish to say, Mr Speaker, that my hon. friend is not always so moderate as he was this afternoon. I was asked some time ago by a newer member of the House where he could get some vituperative remarks, which would contain all the wickedness it was possible to put into parliamentary language, and I recommended him to look up a speech of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) made in this House in 1921. I say in all sincerity

and my hon. friend will, I am sure, fMr. Lapointe.]
agree with me if he cares to read his own speech-that he left nothing unsaid, and I found myself wondering again and again as I read those remarks how the Speaker could possibly have let him get away with some of the things he said about us on that occa-' sion.	,
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman pointed out that this parliament was called for the purpose of finding out who should carry on the affairs of the country. Very well. If the government had done that my hon. friend would be on good solid ground, but the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) in a very able speech, quoted from May's Parliamentary Practice as to how such an action would be carried out in England. According to that method the House would be summoned ; no Speech from the Throne would be delivered; the vote would be taken as of confidence or non-confidence, and the party receiving the vote of confidence would then withdraw, form its government, come back to parliament, bring in an Address and carry on the business of the country. If my hon. friends had done that they would have been on solid ground, but unfortunately for them, immediately after the session opened, they brought down a Speech from the Throne and their whole sessional programme, and laid it before my hon. friends to my left no doubt for the purpose of showing what good things they were going to give to the Progressive party, and undoubtedly with the intention of getting Progressive support. So my hon. friends did not adopt the method they should have adopted.
The hon. gentleman said that Canadian business was more important than imperial conferences. I agree with him. That is the attitude of this entire party. We wish to get Canadian business carried on, and we know that this government cannot carry on Canadian business, and therefore we feel that the best way of getting the business of Canada done is to get rid of this government as soon as possible.
My hon. friend also spoke of playing cricket. In my first remarks in the House after the session opened I made this statement, and I still adhere to it, that if the right hon. leader of the present government, Mr. Mackenzie King, had wished to play cricket-I did not use that term perhaps-
I said that if he had shown a sportsmanlike spirit, once he realized that his party was defeated by 200,000 more votes and by 16 more members than his party got, he would at once have resigned. That would have been playing cricket. Unfortunately, he did

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
not take that course. I do not consider that he played cricket and therefore he is outside the pale, in a sense, of that sort of game. On the contrary, I think we in our attitude here are playing cricket; we are entirely within the fair play ideas of Canadian parliamentary procedure.
There is one other point I wish to touch on which my hon. friend mentioned, and mentioned two or three times yesterday, and that is that he was not given a chance to speak. I wish to be fair to the hon. gentleman. but at the same time, as my leader so well pointed out, it is the well known practice that any man who introduces a resolution into the House of Commons has the right to rise and speak to his resolution, and particularly is that true in the case of a member of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: I was horrified to see rnv hon. friend rise.


Arthur Meighen: The joke is worn out.


Robert James Manion: I have been sitting in this House now for nine years, and I have watched my hon. friend carry on the business of the House, and he carries it on very well-I will pay him that compliment-but I have never in the past seen him terrified or horrified by anything. He has always been ready to take care of himself, and quite able to do it most of the time, and I fear that was rather a lame excuse he put up in the House yesterday. If we ha.d permitted him to speak later in the debate the difficulty is that he would have closed the debate, which, of course, he wanted to do, and which would have been right in line with his policy as it would then have deprived my hon. friend from Vancouver Center (Mr. Stevens) of the opportunity,. which he had last night, of bringing forward his resolution dealing with the most important question that is now before the House.
I wish to mention one other point. I naturally do not wish to dispute the -word of my hon. friend in the least, but I notice by Hansard that on three occasions yesterday he made the statement that he knew nothing of the charges which had been laid, and which were relaid last night by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre. I say I do not dispute his word at all, but I find it rather strange that he as member of the Privy Council should not have heard of those charges because they were laid before the Privy Council, and had been before them for the better part of a year. I hold in my hand a letter which was addressed to the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, synopsizing a number of these 14011-461
charges made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and which was signed by Mr. R. P. Sparks, the chairman of that executive committee of the merchants of this country. That letter is dated March 20, 1925, nearly a year ago. It was no doubt laid before council, because I have here a letter from E. J. Lemaire, the Clerk of the Privy Council, acknowledging the receipt of this letter from Mr. Sparks. I take it for granted, therefore, that it was laid before council, and had been before them for almost a year. The minister says he knows nothing about these charges. If that is the case, it does seem rather strange, because as a member of the Privy Council he should certainly have been in a position to know about these charges long before they were brought forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre last night.
I shall say only a few words as to those charges, Mr. Speaker, especially in view of the statement made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). Those charges were of so grave a nature, they were such terrible charges against the government, that they certainly furnish a very grave reason why this motion of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) should not be accepted by this House. They furnish a reason, and a very strong reason, why we should get down to work and attend to Canadian business, as expressed by the Minister of Justice. In other words, it is the duty of this House at the earliest possible moment to have that committee started to work, and to endeavour to help them in every way possible. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that any committee appointed by this House will certainly act with much more care and will be able to make a more thorough inquiry if they commence their work while the House is in session, because the members of that committee, whoever they may be, would not care to remain here and go into all the facts if the rest of the House was scattered to the four points of the compass. I submit, therefore, in view of the very serious charges made by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre in his very brilliant speech of last night, . that anyone who accepts to-day the adjournment as proposed by the Minister of Justice, is unconsciously-I repeat that word-is unconsciously making himself an accomplice of those who committed these crimes that were charged by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Therefore, it is all the more our duty, having heard these charges, probably on account of them more than for any other reason, that we should do all we can to prevent an adjournment of this House.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
My hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) in his reply to the charges made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre last evening made a very good argument for a very poor case. He had difficulty in handling himself, and it is rare to find my hon. friend in that difficulty because he is a very able debater. He brought out two or three points, on which I shall touch briefly before leaving this subject.
He pointed out that Mr. Bisaillon had been discharged before the resolution of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre appeared on the order paper; but, Mr. Speaker, he was not discharged until three days after my hon. friend had given notice to the press that he was going to put this resolution on the order paper.
The Minister of Customs also pointed out that the promotion of Mr. Bisaillon was made by the Civil Service Commission. Technically, no doubt that is correct, but we all know the Civil Service Commission does not pick men out of certain departments in the government of this country and promote them of its own accord. Its promotions are all made on the recommendation of the officers of the particular department concerned, and unquestionably the Civil Service Commission would not have thought for a moment of promoting Mr. Bisaillon had the recommendation not been made by the Department of Customs.
Then the Minister of Customs made reference to Mr. Sparks, the gentleman whose letter I have just mentioned, as having given information to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, and his remarks-I do not understand why-were applauded, and applauded vigorously, as if the minister had scored some point. What is wrong with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, or anybody else who is interested in finding out the facts, getting information from any source so long as that source is decent and honourable, and particularly what is wrong with his receiving information from the secretary of an association which was formed by the merchants of this country for the very purpose of looking into this smuggling which was going on, because the government of Canada was not doing its duty in trying to stop that smuggling? I wish to close my remarks on this subject by saying that in my opinion the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has done a notable service for this parliament and for the people of this country in bringing forward so important a matter, involving the loss of millions upon millions of dollars, which if they came into the public treasury would help to relieve the appalling taxation which is now
[Mr. Manion.J
bearing down so heavily upon the people of this country.
In bringing that forward he has given just another proof, Mr. Speaker, that this administration is not only unable but unfit to govern this country. The debate yesterday proceeded from 3 o'clock in the afternoon until about 2.30 the next morning before any member of the government rose to defend the attitude of the government as defended here to-day by the Minister of Justice. Throughout the whole day of very severe criticism-I will admit it, very severe criticism -on the part of members on this side towards the government, throughout the whole barrage of that type of criticism the entire government sat over there and not a word was uttered by a single one of them in reply to any of the charges made, to any of the criticisms laid against the administration. It is true my hon. friend the Minister of Justice could not speak without closing the debate but he-and I say this with all due respect to him-is not the whole government, he is only one member of the cabinet; and any member of the government-and no doubt this was discussed in council-could have risen and defended their attitude, and any member behind the government might have done likewise. But, Sir, for the whole day there was not one word of reply until-I think it was at 2.30 o'clock this morning-the Minister of Customs undertook to reply to the charges of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Up to that time, not a word had been said in defence of the government's attitude. As expressed by the hon. member for Froritenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) it seemed utter contempt on the part of the government for the opinion of this House, equalled only by the contempt which has been shown by Mr. Mackenzie King for the will of the people of this country as manifested on October 29 last.
The first word of support that was given to this government was given by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). He rose and defended the government's attitude although the government had not thought it worth while to defend that attitude themselves.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: A modern Cineinnatus.


Robert James Manion: Oh, well, why should not the hon. member for Brandon defend this government since he is virtually in control of this government to-day; he has it in the palm of his hand to-day. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, as a reader of French history that away back-I think it. wTas in the time
72o

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
of Louis XIV-the French king of that day said " I am the state ". Well, Sir, the member for Brandon could indeed say to-day " I am the government ". That is the position he is in to-day. I cannot altogether blame him for the attitude he takes, from his standpoint, of feeling a sort of proprietary interest in this government. He has that feeling, and he thinks as well that unless he gets his pound of fle^h in advance he is in danger, as he was in past parliaments, of not getting his pound of fleSh at all. He has a very vivid remembrance of the attitude of the Prime Minister in the past. He remembers that in 1921, and from then during successive sessions down-we all remember who were here during those sessions-the Prime Minister was offering and re-offering various things to the Progressive members from the west but never did he carry out any of those promises which he made. Therefore to-day the hon. member for Brandon insists on getting his pound of flesh in advance. But there is one attitude which the hon. member for Brandon should give up-and I say this without meaning to offend the hon. gentleman or without in any way wishing to attack him. It is the attitude of pretending when he gets up on the floor here he is taking a sort of judicial attitude, that he is studying and sizing up the situation from both sides, and that he intends to decide when he has done that which party is really in the right and intends' to vote for that party. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Brandon does not really consider matters in that way. We all know that for the past four years the hon. member and those of his party whom he can drag behind him-and that means perhaps fifty per cent of the party-that he and those whom he can control have always voted for the government whenever it was in any danger. I admit there have been times when they voted against the government. On some question of policy that has come up where the government was in no danger of defeat they have said " we must support this " and he and some of his followers have voited against the government. Mr. Speaker, I again say-and I say it without any thought of offence-that it would be better for my hon. friend to abandon this mask of supposed independence; he should do as my good friend the hon. member for Last Mountain (M)r. Johnston) did, cross the floor and support the government. I do respect the attitude of the hon. member for Last Mountain.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not Last Mountain
now, but Long Lake.


Robert James Manion: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, the hon. member for Long Lake. I respect his attitude. He has acted in a straightforward and manly manner. He has crossed the floor and said practically-by his actions if not by his words-"I am supporting this government." That is a commendable attitude.


An hon, MEMBER:: It took him a long
time to do it.


Robert James Manion: It took him some time
but he was always a consistent supporter of the government on the one side as he was on the other. At any rate he has acted frankly, openly and straightforwardly in supporting the government. I think it will be much more frank on the part of my hon. friend for Brandon to do the same. Remember I am only speaking of half the Progressive party, if that many, who took that attitude and while consistently voting with the government as consistently pretended they were adopting an independent attitude. I think it would be much more open, frank, and whole hearted for such hon. members to do as the hon. member for Long Lake did and admit frankly that they are supporting the government to-day. There is, I repeat, some fifty per cent or thereabouts-I will estimate it roughly-of the Progressive party who are really Independents. To them I have nothing to say, I have every respect for their attitude. Five of them showed their independence last night, and on the occasion of a previous vote in this House. Those men will go back to their people, and they will go away from this House with the respect of all parties, because of the independent attitude they have taken. They will go back to their people and they will be respected for that attitude. But, Sir, I do not say as much for those who are consistently on one side and who are thinking only of that side irrespective of the policy or the principle involved.
Sir, the real truth is that the hon. member for Brandon supports the government, supports them all the time; indeed, he could not be driven away from them even by a high explosive shell. He also takes an attitude sometimes of fighting for the rights of the masses as opposed to the classes. It is rather an amusing thing to hear so much talk of the masses and classes in this country. So far as I know, and I think I know something of this country, there is no such division amongst the people of Canada as a division between the masses and the classes.


Mr. FORKE:: Good copy for the Brandon
Sun.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Robert James Manion: I do not know anything
about the Brandon Sun.


Robert Forke: That is good copy for that
paper.


Robert James Manion: I do not know anything
about the Brandon Sun, but I am going to say this: To my mind there is no division at all between the masses and classes in this country; we are all one in Canada. But 1 do not blame the hon. member for Brandon because in his simplicity, so childlike and bland, he has followed the lead of the right hon. gentleman who is called by some of his followers the Prime Minister of this country at the present time. Take for example, the speech of the Prime Minister so-called in Prince Albert, as reported in the press yesterday and to-day. He makes a speech which, to my mind, is completely the speech of a demagogue, a speech in which he says that these terrible Montreal millionaires are the backers of this party, that they are the people who are supplying us with funds, that they are the people who are trying to get complete control of the government of this country; that if it was not for Mackenzie King and his followers-the little band of followers that were left after the election- there would not be any hope for the masses of the people in this country at all. That was quoted yesterday by somebody, I have forgotten who it was, in this way-that the millionaire Montreal group were in control or trying to get control, just as Mr. Mackenzie King put it; and I was surprised to see the number of Liberal members who applauded it very heartily. I do not understand, and I saj'' it in all sincerity, the attitude of my hon. friends in the province of Quebec whom I know so well and like so well. I do not understand their attitude in permitting their leader to take such a stand that the Montreal millionaires-who are outstanding business men in Canada and just as honourable men as the rest of us, and I presume as they are, are endeavouring to take possession of the government of this country and trying to use it for their own evil ends. I believe it is time that sort of thing should stop. I would like to ask my hon. friend the Prime Minister, if he were in the House, if we are supposed to have had such funds, who is it that supplies the immense funds for the Hon. Vincent Massey? I notice his return the other day gave the expenses as $15,000 or $16,000, and that was an election in a rural riding. Those were the published expenses of his election. When I was in Montreal the other day I was told that my good friend Mr. Marler, who used to be in 
this House ran up an expense account of $65,000 or $70,000 in his published expenses. We might speak of Mr. Hushion, who ran in St. Antoine, and who was supplanted so ably by our young, brilliant friend who was elected to this House and who will stay here. I was in Montreal during the Hushion by-election, and he must have spent tens of thousands of dollars on advertising alone. I remember walking down the street with Mr. Birks who opposed him-and Birks I understand is a millionaire-and I said, "Mr. Hushion is putting it all over you in advertising at the present time," and it was true. Where was Hushion getting his money? I think it is time that Mr. Mackenzie King should cut out that sort of attack on the business men of the country. He says that he stands for unity in this country. Is it standing for unity to try to divide the ordinary working classes from the business classes? Is that national unity? I submit that every decent citizen of this country believes in national unity today, and I believe that every man, whether he be Catholic or Protestant, whether he be a French speaking Canadian, or an English speaking Canadian, who wilfully fosters antagonism of race, creed or class in this country, is neither a true friend nor a loyal citizen of the land we should all love. Certainly when Mr. King takes that attitude he is fostering those antagonisms of class at least. I believe that just as we, members of parliament, are continually maligned by unthinking people, when these accusations in regard to our being grafters and crooks are continually being made, so are the big business men of every country maligned in the same way, and I believe it is the duty of the members of the House to put their foot down on any and all of that type of demagogueism and to try to prevent it.
The Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) said a couple of times that our speeches on this side of the House were being made for Prince Albert. I say on my honour as a member of this House that I do not believe any hon. member on this side ever thought of Prince Albert till it was mentioned by the Minister of Customs yesterday. Probably ten lines of the debate will not get out there anyway. Speaking of Prince Albert, makes me think of the speeches of Mr. Mackenzie King in Prince Albert. I notice he is reported in the press to-day as suggesting that this young man Burgess, whom I do not know and never heard of till nomination day, is committing some kind of crime in running against him at Prince Albert. When did Mr. King become so sacred that it is a crime for anybody to be nominated against him? I think most

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
men would consider it a good proposition to be nominated against Mr. King, because he has been defeated probably more often than any man in the House. When my right hon. leader was defeated in Portage la Prairie in 1921 and ran down in Grenville he had an opponent against him. Did you hear any whines from our party or from the right hon. member himself because he was opposed? You never heard a whine from him. He is too good a fighter for that, and I, as one of the returned soldiers of this House, resent the idea that Mr. Mackenzie King should take it upon himself to make the statement that a young man who won the military cross in France while Mr. King was working for the Rockefeller foundation in the United States has no right to run, or that Mr. King should try to put limitations upon a young man who has every right to run as a member of the House. If he had no right to run as member of parliament, what right had Mr. King to run for the prime ministership of this country? The last man I remember in British history who believed in divine right was James the Second. The Stuarts were at least the last monarchs, according to my historical reading, of those who believed in divine right, and because of that belief one of them lost his head and the other his throne. The only person since that time who believed in divine right was the Emperor of Germany and he is an outcast from his fatherland. We have here to-day a gentleman who was defeated by this country on October 29, Mr. Mackenzie King, and he is to-day, in spite of that defeat, still claiming to be Prime Minister of the country, and therefore I submit the only claim he could advance to that position would be by divine right. That is the attitude he is taking. That is another reason why we should have no adjournment and that business should be carried on at the present time.
I think the Minister of Justice made reference to the group system this afternoon, although I do not think he believes in groups any more than I do, and I say frankly that I do not believe in them, because the whole issue of group systems is that it hurts and is subversive to parliamentary procedure. Take the case of Canada first. We had groups in this country before confederation. I looked the question up and I find that from 1841 to 1867, a period of twenty-six years we had eighteen different administrations. From 1854 to 1858 a period of four years we had six administrations. My recollection is that the birth of the Liberal-Conservative party in this country was due to the fact that the groups of that day were unable to carry on
and good Liberals like George Brown linked up with John A. Macdonald to carry on the business affairs of the country. Take the case of France: She has different groups, and between 1873 and 1896 there were thirty-four administrations in France. On an average those administrations lasted eight and a half months, and conditions have been so bad in France, both politically, financially and in every way, that for the past year there has been a debate going on in the Conservative journals of the country suggesting that a dictator be appointed to handle public affairs.
I could give many other instances. I could refer to Home Rule in the British parliament, but I think I have given sufficient illustrations. What we want is leadership of the government which is still hanging on to the reins of power. Instead of leadership we are getting follow-ship by Mr. King, who is following the dictates#of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke)' and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth).
I copied out of a book the other day a statement made by Mr. Chamberlain with reference to Randolph Churchill, which reads:
He had borrowed from the cast off policy of all th.e extreme men of all the different sections.
If Mr. King is not careful and if he keeps on following different leaders in this House in order to keep himself in power, he will have that saying applied to him. He should remember Mr. Drury's attempts to carry on under those circumstances. He was in much the same position as Mr. King and attempted to carry on. He dickered and traded with different sections of the country and different sections of the provincial legislature, and finally he was driven out in disgrace and some of his government are now in the penitentiary. The same is true of the Ross government away back in 1902 and 1903 in Toronto. The same cause brought them down, and the same thing is going to bring down this government just as sure as we are here to-day. My good friend the hon. member for North .Waterloo (Mr. Euler) smilesi. I want to offer him a friendly piece of advice. I did not intend to do this, but I will throw it in gratis. He has been spoken of as going into the government. I would advise him not to do that. They will not last long enough.


Mr. EULER:: I was merely thinking that
at the time the Ross government was in power my hon. friend was probably a supporter of it.


Robert James Manion: I was not a supporter of
any government at that time. I was going
72S

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
to college at Toronto and I was not then of age, so I did not have a vote. But I remember Mr. Raney and quite a number of the incidents connected with the Ross government at that time. The point I am making is that Mr. Mackenzie King is taking the same attitude as Sir George Ross and Mr. Drury did-anything for more votes. That is the attitude. "Power at any price" is the motto of the present government,- even the price of the country itself. The party is today willing to throw aside the flimsy principles that remain of the once great Liberal platform for the sake of grabbing a few here and a few there who will possibly hold them in power for a short time longer.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) has spoken a couple of times, and I heard him say that he did not have in his body an atom of political partisanship. I notice that the hon. number for Labelle seems to have sufficient political partisanship that there is no danger of his voting for anybody on this side of the House. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) said in one of his speeches that the hon. member for Labelle was an Independent, and Sir John A. Macdonald had given a definition of an Independent as one upon whom nobody could depend. The hon. member for Labelle can be absolutely. depended upon by the present government. The reason I mention him is that he said in his speech yesterday that the government had to have this six weeks' adjournment, the reason being, he said, that they had been very much damaged while going through the election. In fact, he went into medicine saying that they had had some of their limbs amputated. If he were jn his seat I would- tell him that where they were amputated was just under the chin. I remember last year making the statement that the government last year-this is only the remnant of it now-had pernicious anaemia, and now, the government has had its head amputated just under the chin, so I submit it is in a very bad way. The government is seriously ill, if not worse, and the judgment of all students of parliamentary history is that once a government is ill, it never recovers. I was reading the other day that very fine pair of books by Mr. J. A. Spender, a man who has been in the British House of Commons press gallery for some thirty or forty years. In writing of his experiences he gives this statement which is applicable at the present moment. He says:
Whether a prime minister in difficulties should prolong the life of his government or go quickly to the country is one of those questions which are interminably debated among higher tacticians. Generally, 
the answer is that bad becomes worse by waiting. It was an accepted formula of pre-war days that a government once fallen sick never recovers.
Mr. Gladstone said something along the same lines in an article which he wrote in 1887. He said:	,
Individuals may recover from even serious sickness. It does not appear to be the way with governments.
It is the opinion of all those whose writings I have had the pleasure of reading that once a government is ill, it rarely recovers. This government is seriously ill. It has no more chance of recovery than if it were -already dead and buried. In fact, I believe burying is about the only thing that has not been done to it so far. I have another quotation which I ran across, also by a politician and a Liberal-Mr. Spender was a Liberal; Mr. Gladstone was a Liberal and Lord Rosebery was a Liberal. Lord Rosebery said:
Inevitable politicial catastrophe only becomes more overwhelming by delay.
I wish my hon. friends, especially my good friend from North Waterloo, because I like him, would bear that in mind, because the inevitable political catastrophe which this government confronted on October 29 last is going to be more emphasized as soon as the people get an opportunity to show their desires. The people of Canada are to-day watchmg the members in this House and they are waiting for an opportunity to wipe out the group system, because they know the only way in which we can get stability is by bringing in one party with full force and power. There is no doubt, when the time comes, what the decision of the people will be. They will naturally look over the two parties as they stand to-day. They will see that Mr. King went to the country with a majority over all, but to-day he is back in this House dependent, not only on the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), but on the hon. members of the Progressive party and any others whose support he can secure. It is impossible to get stable government under such conditions.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The hon. gentleman has used a word that has been very frequently used in the last two days- "stability." What does he mean by a government being stable?


Robert James Manion: A stable government is
a government that has a majority sufficient to carry on, that does not have to offer bids and try to purchase everybody in the House by its various bids.


Mr. CANNON:: I think the hon. gentleman ought to withdraw that expression.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Lucien Cannon: If the hon. member doe3
not know, the Speaker will tell him in a minute.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope the hon. member
will withdraw that expression.


Robert James Manion: I did not say that this
government was doing that. My hon. friend asked me what a stable government was, and I told him that a stable government was one that had a majority. I went on to say that a stable government was one that did not have to purchase groups by various bids in order to remain in power.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
member to withdraw that expression. The inference is that the government is trying to purchase votes.


Robert James Manion: I suppose I shall have to
bow to your ruling, Sir, but I cannot help the inference my hon. friend opposite takes. I can give the arguments, but I cannot give him the understanding to comprehend them. If he chooses to take my words and apply inferences to his own government, I cannot help that.


Lucien Cannon: I will not borrow any
understanding from my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: I do not think the hon.
gentleman will, although at times he needs it.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member is getting to be very polite.


Mr. RINFRET:: This is another example
of the courtesy-


Robert James Manion: I had the floor. Mr. Speaker, will you kindly let me continue?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I rise to a question of
privilege. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) very clearly asked me what I had said. If he does not want to know it, I do not care to tell him.


Robert James Manion: I say very frankly it is
not of any importance what the hon. gentleman says.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member is a
very prominent parliamentarian and1 I am sure he will abide by the ruling I gave a moment ago. He said that he did not mean to say that the government was actually trying to purchase votes. The duties of the Speaker are very well laid down in Bourinot and Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms
Many expressions are enumerated under paragraphs 239 and 240 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. The hon. member will see by reading those expressions, that many of them are of a milder character than the one he used a moment ago, even inferentially. I quote from section 239:
The following expressions have been ruled to be unparliamentary in the British House of Commons: Alleging that a member's statements were: not consonant with personal honour; cowardly; dishonest; insulting; a malignant attack; a malignant slander: offensive; a scandal; scurrilous; vicious and vulgar.
And even the word "disgraceful" is banned.
I quote these proscribed words simply to remind the hon. member that when he alleges, though perhaps inferentially, that the government is so unstable as to find it necessary to make bids for the purchase, I do not know whether he said, of votes, but for the purchase of support, he is exceeding the limit? of propriety. I gathered from his remarks that he went rather too far, and I would appeal to his good sense and his sense of the fitness of things to withdraw the expression. The country, I think, would lament any tendency on the part of members to disregard the proprieties of parliamentary procedure. No one can be bought in this House, and as Speaker I must, in the interests of strict parliamentary practice, resent the implication that anyone is for sale in parliament.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before Your
Honour gives any definite ruling-


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. Your Honour's decision has been given and it is not debatable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am merely
pointing this out-


Lucien Cannon: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: With the leave of the Chair I want to make an observation. I quite appreciate the advice which Your Honour has given to the House regarding the necessity for observing the proprieties of parliament, and that is something we all cherish. But I did not understand that Your Honour was giving a ruling on any direct point of order; had I known that I would certainly have asked for an opportunity to say something to the point. While I entirely agree, as I am sure the whole House will agree, with the references which Your Honour has made to the rules applicable in' debate, I respectfully submit that those references have force only in relation to the personal character or rectitude of individual members of the House: they do not relate to any discussion of government policy.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is now commenting on the Speaker's judgment.


Robert James Manion: If I may be permitted to go on-


Jean-Joseph Denis: Order. Will the
hon. member allow me to state the point of order?-unless he is rising to a point of order on my point of order.


Robert James Manion: That is precisely what 1 am doing. I have the floor and the point has been decided by the Speaker.


Lucien Cannon: Then I understand that
the hon. member is supporting my point of order when he implies that the 5 p.m. hon. member for West York, (Sir Henry Drayton) has no right to comment upon the decision of the Chair. The situation is clear.


Hewitt Bostock: I gathered from the hon. member who was addressing the House that he was ready to withdraw the expression which had been called in question.


Robert James Manion: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I withdrew the term before the discussion took place.


Hewitt Bostock: Then that settles the
point. Although I gave no formal ruling I requested the hon. gentleman not to use so harsh an expression.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what I understood.


Lucien Cannon: Order; the hon. gentleman can look after himself better than you can.


Robert James Manion: I was merely answering the general question that had been asked me. I have been in parliament nine years and have rarely been called to order, for I believe in the amenities of debate; I believe in extending to others the same courtesy that I expect them to show me. But the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), I insist, himself drew the inference; there was no implication on my part. The question was asked me what a stable government was and I gave the definition, and the Solicitor General then got up and applied it to his own government. And the Speaker confirmed the inference.
When I was interrupted I was about to quote a speech of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) delivered in Montreal the other day, in which he made the following statement as reported in the Citizen of the following morning:

Hon. Mr. Boivin, Stating that the crucial test had been the vote on the non-confidence amendment of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, declared that the crisis, "the biggest since confederation'', was passed and parliament was as normal as before the election.
Well, if parliament is as normal as it was before the election, on what ground doe3 this government ask for an adjournment of six weeks? This was an ex-officio statement made by the minister before a political gathering in the city of Montreal where he declared that parliament was as normal as it was some months ago. If that is the case, surely there is no reason for the government to ask the House now to sanction an adjournment of six weeks. Why should the people of the country wait for six weeks before this government attempts to function? For four years the people have been waiting for the government to do something, and they are still waiting. I know that the present Solicitor General was not one of the members of the administration that came into power in 1921 but he was a supporter of that administration, and during the past four years while they have been in office the people of this country have experienced the worst business depression and the most severe state of unemployment, and have witnessed the most appalling exodus from Canada that we have ever known in the history of the Dominion. That is what we received from this government from 1921 to 1925, and the only thing that the people of Canada owe to hon. gentlemen who are now carrying on the administration is a great deal of Christian forgiveness.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I do not know why my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) is continually-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I rise to a question of privilege; I did not say anything. I decidedly object to the tactics of the schoolmaster which are practised by the hon. gentleman opposite. I have nothing to learn from him and I am surprised that he should refer to me. I did not say a word about him. I think he should sit as far away as possible from the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens).


Robert James Manion: I withdraw the remark and beg my hon. friend's pardon. I presume it was the hon. gentleman behind him that commented on what I was saying. I thought it was my hon. friend from St. James, because the hon. member so often throws in a little remark here and there.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I object to that again.
I have never been reproached with any lack of courtesy in this House and I will not be charged with anything of the kind now. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre started it last night and I resent any imputation of the sort. I have been as well brought up as any hon. gentleman opposite, including the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
members not to delay the proceedings.
Mr. MAN10N:	It seems to be my misfortune or good fortune, I do not know which, to be interrupted fairly often, and apparently I am' getting my share of it to-day. I was going to say, when I was last interrupted, that we have many problems in this country to settle: we have a railway problem, a tariff problem and an immigration problem, and my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has proposed a customs problem of great magnitude. But the real problem in this country to-day is the necessity for stable government; and as conditions are at the present time there is no likelihood of our getting such government. And if the members of this House are to go home for six weeks and ministers of the crown wander about the country to the four points of the compass, there will be less chance still of anything being done to stabilize matters in Canada. What we ought to do is to put out, bag and baggage, this government so-called which is in power today.
When I was at the front, Sir, I remember there was a malady called shell shock, caused by a shell exploding near a man; a day or so later another shell would come close enough to shock his nerves, and if enough of them exploded near him he would have that illness, in which his nervous system played out. I think this government at present is suffering from shell shock, and it is going to go on suffering from that illness until it absolutely blows up from spontaneous combustion. That is the position of this government at present. It is in a weakened condition, it is without a head; it is without some of its limbs; its prime minister is contesting a by-election, and the conditions in the country are deplorable. I am sorry to have taken so long, Mr. Speaker, but my friends in various parts of the House made my speech at least one-third longer than I had intended it to be. I say in closing that it is the duty of the members of this House to carry on the business of the country; it is our duty to earn our indemnities and not go back now to the various sections of the country from which we come. We should stay here and try to
live up to the trust reposed in us by our constituents. That is the main reason why I cannot support the resolution of the Minister of Justice calling for an adjournment of this House for six weeks.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will detain the House but a few minutes. I would not have taken part in this debate at all had it not been for the speech of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) yesterday. I thank my hon. friend for his very kind words in regard to myself. I would have liked it better had the friends of my hon. friend expressed these kind thoughts prior to October 29th last, because the most effective opposition which I found in the recent general election was not the personality or the speeches of the Pate-naude candidate-who has since been here in daily conference with the leaders of the Tory party and who was financed by that party in Montreal-not at all; the most effective opposition I found in my constituency was the work of the bootleggers and smugglers who opposed me in my election and who, I have reason to believe, were financed by the Tory organization in Montreal. Why did the bootleggers and the smugglers oppose the Finance minister of the government during that campaign? It was because they knew that the members of the government had been exhausting every effort to round up their business throughout part of the country.
I am prepared to admit at once that smuggling has existed in Canada to a deplorable degree, and I am prepared to admit at once that we did have information passed on to us by a Mr. Sparks, who represented certain manufacturers and traders in Canada, and who complained to the government of the extent of the smuggling. We said frankly to Mr. Sparks, "We are doing what we can to stop this practice; we are just as much opposed to it as you are, because it takes away our revenue. What do you want; what do you suggest?" He suggested that we loan him a certain gentleman, who, for many years, has been employed in the public service; a gentleman well known to the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) who, I think, made the appointment-a former Scotland Yard man, well trained. Mr. Sparks suggested that we loan him this man in order to run these smugglers down. We did loan him that gentleman, and that gentleman did do considerable work. As a result of his work some of the officers of the department were suspended, and others were dismissed. But there were many lines upon which we could not reach conclusions. We knew something

Adjournment-Custom.} Inquiry
of what was going on and we have been continually winding the ropes around these men until we could round up a good part of them and stop this smuggling. Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, very frankly, that from the information we have, smuggling in Canada is not limited to the port of Montreal or the city of Montreal; there is smuggling in the city of Toronto, along the Pacific coast, on the Atlantic shores, requiring the attention of the officials of the department. They are trying to stop it and they are stopping it to considerable degree.
To show that they have been doing some work and that the administration of the Customs department is not altogether defective, I wish to place on record the evidence of the collections in the Customs department. That should be a very fair test of the work the Customs department is doing. It has been contended-and I think with reason-that the imports of Canada during recent years have not been as great as they were formerly. The records go to show that the customs officials in this country have been collecting the revenues more strictly in recent months and in recent years than they had been doing for some time previously. For instance, in 1921, when my hon. friends were in office and were collecting the revenues of this country, with a tariff considerably higher than our tariff to-day, they collected from the Customs department, for the eight months ending November 30, $78,447,000-without giving the exact figures. In 1922 they collected $88,702,000. In 1923 we collected $91,388,000, and in 1925, $95,316,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon. friend the figures for 1924?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I have the figures. The amount collected in 1924 was considerably less; it was affected by some changes made in the budget that year. The amount of revenue that year was $80,469,000.
I have risen simply to say that the government recognizes that there is smuggling, and the government recognizes that it is pretty hard to stop smuggling. Conditions in Canada to-day-and I suppose throughout the world as well-are different from those existing a few years ago. This is a particularly difficult matter to control in Canada where we have a boundary line over 3,000 miles in length. Time was when the smuggler used his old horse and took the by-roads, and when the officials were watching for him it was not such a difficult matter. But to-day, when the smugglers have powerful high speed automobiles, it is not so easy. What has led to this increased smuggling? There are [Mr. Robb.)
several reasons. One is that the United States, in their wisdom, went dry. There was an incentive then to smuggle whiskey into the United States, and the man who smuggled whiskey into the United States was looking for a return load. Then we increased, whether wisely or not, our excise taxes and duties on cigarettes and tobaccos, and made it very profitable for this fellow to bring back another load. It was a profitable business. The United States have had an army all along the line trying to stop this smuggling, and Canada has been doing her part. The government is doing its best and we invite the fullest co-operation of every hon. member of this House in our efforts. We also invite the fullest co-operation of hon. members when this committee is appointed, and we are willing to go back just as far as they want to go.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like, Sir, to make a few observations with respect to the speech of my learned and hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), particularly concerning his reference to the occasions on which parliament was adjourned. I recall the circumstances under which an adjournment was granted to permit Sir Robert Borden to attend the Imperial War Conference. It will be recalled that he expressed to the House of Commons extreme regret, and he obtained the permission of the House of Commons, practically unanimously given, before leaving, to attend that conference.
In the case of Sir Wilfrid Laurier it will be recalled that the coronation ceremony was to take place at the same time as an imperial conference was being held, and it was the unanimous wish of parliament on that occasion that Sir Wilfrid Laurier should attend that conference.
But there is another case to which I .direct attention, and that was on the death of Sir John Macdonald. The death of a Prime Minister has the effect, of course, of dissolving the administration, and I find by looking up the Hansard of that day that Sir John died on Saturday, the 6th of June, and on Monday, the 8th of June, 1891, the Speaker communicated that fact to the House of Commons. After Sir Hector Langevin had spoken and Mr. Laurier had seconded a motion for a public funeral, the question of an adjournment came up, and Sir Hector Langevin used these words:
As hon. gentlemen may have learned by the papers to-day the funeral of our departed friend will take place in this city on Wednesday, and in Kingston on Thursday. It will be Friday, therefore, before we get back, and under these circumstances I would move that when this House adjourns, it stands adjourned until Tuesday week, the 16th instant, at three o'clock.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
In other words, an adjournment of a week and a day. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Mr. Laurier said:
I would have expected that before this motion was made, some gentlemen on the treasury benches would be able to inform the House as to whether anybody had been summoned by His Excellency to carry on the government of the day. I assume that he has done so, if British precedence is, as it ought to be, followed. Under such circumstances. I think the motion to adjourn should have been coupled with such a statement. If the hon. gentleman is ready to show that His Excellency has summoned someone to form a cabinet-
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to direct special attention to these words:
If the hon. gentleman is ready to show that His Excellency has summoned someone to form a cabinet, I am ready at once to agree to an adjournment. I can well conceive that the new cabinet will require some days to prepare for the hard labour they will have to do this session, and there would be no hesitation in granting an adjournment for a short time; but so long as no cabinet has been formed, it seems to me that the proper way of conducting business is to have the House adjourn from day to day, except, of course, the day set apart for the funeral, in order that we may receive at once what communications may be made by His Excellency with regard to the formation of a cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, may I direct my hon. friend's attention to those words-"in order that we may receive at once what communications may be made by His Excellency with regard to the formation of a cabinet." If an adjournment is to be taken, it seems to me the proper way of conducting business is to have this House adjourn from day to day, in order, Sir, that this House may from day to day be apprised of what is being* done by the Prime Minister to reorganize his cabinet, and that we may know what communications have been made to His Excellency with regard to the reorganization of the cabinet. Then followed these words from Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
The hon. gentleman is aware that this has invariably been the practice followed in England.
Sir Hector Langevin then made a few observations, said that he had been advised Mr. Laurier would make the speech he did, and said that in some respects the practice followed in England was different from that which had prevailed in Canada. Thereupon Mr. Mills, one of the most eminent constitutional lawyers that ever sat in this House of Commons, and known as the Sage of Bothwell, reviewed the authorities, and at the close of his observations, speaking of the assassination of Mr. Spencer Perceval, he said:

Mark these words:
-as the Great Council of the Nation if it thought fit to do so. Looking at the precedents which we have before us, and at those which occurred in England
under circumstances somewhat similar to those which now exist here, I think the course advised by the minister might very well have been taken by him if he could at the same time have informed the House that His Excellency had sent for someone to form an administration, but that information has not been given to the House, and while we owe it to ourselves and to the late Prime Minister to pay all proper respect to his memory, we also owe it to the country that we shall not be derelict in discharging those duties which the law and the constitution and our public responsibility impose upon us.
Those were the words, Sir, of Mr. Mills of Bothwell. The motion was agreed to upon division, and on the 16th day of June, a week later, Sir Hector Langevin announced the formation of the new administration; that Mr. Abbott, afterwards Sir John Abbott, had been called upon to form an administration, and they proceeded at once with the business of the day, although in the statement made by Sir Hector Langevin, he used these words: The vacancy caused by the lamented death of the late Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald has not been filled, and pending the appointment of a successor, the affairs of the Department of Railways will be administered by a member of the cabinet.
It is to be recalled, Sir, that the circumstances were not wholly unlike the present circumstances, because at t'hiat moment the McGreevy scandals were engaging the attention of parliament, and one of the motions that was considered in the early morning of Saturday-it was later in that same day that Sir John Macdonald died-was a motion dealing with the calling of Mr. Connolly to the bar of the House that he might be dealt with for not producing documents and papers that had been called for by a committee of parliament. I direct attention to this incident because it clearly indicates that in the mind of the great leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the function of parliament, when it was called and was despatching public business was to continue to function as such day by day.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will
allow me, does he not admit there is some difference between the two cases resulting from the fact that the new ministers at that time had seats in the House, and were not compelled to stand for re-election?
Mr. BENNtETT: Quite true. I thank my. friend for directing attention to that, .because it enables me to deal with it perhaps more concisely than I otherwise would have done. The distinction is clear. It is the distinction made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself, that when an existing government continues, such as this, there should be no adjournment except from day to day, but when a new administration has been called into being; when as Sir Wilfrid Laurier then said there has been a

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
resignation; when there has been the defeat of an administration and a new parliament has met, as in the case of Mr. Baldwin's defeat to which I shall presently refer, then of course the government is well within its right in asking-in fact, it is not the government that asks, but that person who represents the former government who makes the motion-for adjournment in order that the ministers may be elected and the king's business carried on.
The distinction to which my hon. friend directs attention is the basis of the whole reason why we on this side oppose this adjournment of this House of Commons. The distinction is clear. This is not a new administration. In the former case, Mr. Abbott having formed his administration within thirty days after the death of Sir John Macdonald, it was not necessary that the ministers should go out to seek re-election, because they continued in their old portfolios, as stated by Sir Hector Langevin in the statement he read to the House from Mr. Abbott, who was then in the Senate. But as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, had it been a new administration an adjournment would have followed as a matter of course, and in the very case to which my hon. friend referred, the case of Mr. Baldwin, the principle for which we contend was vindicated because, when Mr. Baldwin was defeated, when the motion of lack of confidence in the administration moved by Mr. Clynes had become effective by a majority vote, at that very moment the government of Mr. Baldwin ceased to exist; but Mr. Ramsay MacDonald could not function. He had not yet been called upon, so Mr. Baldwin, following the constitutional practice that has prevailed for the last one hundred and fifty, nay, for two hundred 3rears in parliament, moved the adjournment of the House. For what purpose? To enable Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and his ministers to seek re-election as a new administration in the constituencies and come back to function as a government. It is because in this case the government exists that we oppose the motion. In the words of Mr. Mills this "great council of the nation,'' this high court of parliament, must function from day to day not only in order that we may deal with pressing public questions but that we may know how this government is to be reorganized, what its personnel is to be, who are the members, where they will seek re-election and the circumstances under which they are to carry on. And I commend to the Minister of Justice the circumstances in connection with the formation of the Abbott administration and the observations of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the then leader of the opposi-

tion. under circumstances not wholly different from this, as indicating the true practice-the proper, the considered, the reasoned practice that prevails in connection with matters of this kind.
I rose rather reluctantly because I had no desire again to participate in this debate; but it was thought desirable, having regard to the observations I made yesterday, that I should deal with the remarks of my hon. and learned friend (Mr. Lapointe). That is my only excuse for again troubling the House and trespassing upon its time. Let us for a moment consider the essential principle, the principle that a new administration is always entitled to an adjournment, a continuing administration never is. And let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite this question: Do they recall the circumstances under which two members of Sir Wilfrid Laurier s administration vacated their positions? Do they remember the circumstances under which one gentleman resigned and another left office? Did Sir Wilfrid Laurier ask for an adjournment? He did not. ' He made a statement immediately that Mr. Sifton had resigned his office, and Mr. Oliver in due course was sworn in and sought re-election. Do they recall the circumstances under which Mr. Emmerson resigned office? All these are present in the mind of every hon. member. It has never been the practice of this parliament, under the leadership and guidance of Sir Wilfrid Laurier or any other leader since Confederation, when vacancies in the cabinet have arisen-either by resignation, by death, or by the fortunes of war in the election courts-to ask for an adjournment. It has always been the practice for parliament to continue to function from day to day. in order, as Mr. Mills says, that the great council of the nation might be able to exercise those salutary powers and influences which the great council of the state has always exercised; when the committee of the House is being formed that we call the cabinet.
It is so clear and so apparent that no reason * exists for this adjournment that my hon. friend, although he made the best case he could-not a case, though, at all worthy of being called a case-indicated by the perfunctory manner in which he spoke that he himself felt as I feel. Why not let us face this matter frankly? The truth is that the government of this country say "We want an adjournment of this parliament because we want it." That is all-"because we want it." Not because there is any reason; not because there is any reason of economy that you can name. Here are a large number of

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
civil servants brought together for the purpose of maintaining this House of Commons in session. They are to go back to their respective homes and a quarter of a million dollars is to be lost-because it means that at least so fiar as service is concerned. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) says that is too large an estimate.


James Alexander Robb: I should think it is overestimated by $200,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely not, as regards
six weeks' conduct of the affairs of this country. But let us take it at that; let us say that the sum is $50,000. Very well; $50,000 represents the interest on one million dollars for one year at five per cent. Then we should have a capitalized value of a million dollars lost because Mr. Mackenzie King says he wants this adjournment. Now let us look at this question fairly. That is the practical side of it. I ask my hon. friends who go to western Canada and from platform to platform talk about economy if they mean it when they say that this House should adjourn for six long weeks merely because it pleases the government to do so?
One step further and I will conclude with respect to that phase of the matter. I mentioned these things yesterday and I am not going to deal with them again. But I have looked into the subject. I spoke without preparation yesterday, and very hurriedly, but I have looked into the matter since, and I can name at least half a dozen measures which this government could take up during the next six weeks. There are the trade treaties. Surely there is no trouble about the ratification of them, no difficult}' on that score. I again mention the immigration matter, about which the Minister of the, Interior (Mr. Stewart) was so hazy and his memory so indistinct this afternoon. Surely we have the right to be apprised of these matters, and that legislation could be enacted. Two or three other matters might well be considered. There are the select standing committees of the House to be named. They could be commencing their duties. The Public Accounts committee could begin to function; the Auditor General's report could be laid before it. There are all these matters to be dealt with.
But, Sir, since I spoke yesterday another matter has arisen, a matter of transcendent importance, a matter which is quite as important in the national life of this country to-day as was the question that was being dealt with by parliament at the time of the death of Sir John A. Macdonald. It is the matter which the Minister of Justice in fair
terms has mentioned-the matter of smuggling, the matter of the loss of revenue, the matter of those grave , scandals which have been brought to the attention of this House whereby smuggling has been carried on, not clandestinely or secretly, but openly with the assistance and connivance of those who are paid to prevent it. That is the charge laid before the House, and I do submit that if ever the words of David Mills had application, they have in this case-that the great council of parliament should not leave these precincts and the members go to their homes while there are upon the records of parliament charges so serious, so grave, so fraught with such serious results to the life of this community. I put this to the Minister of Justice: Does he think for a moment that his great and revered leader would have supported for a moment the suggestion of an adjournment of parliament for a month at the time of the death of Sir John A. Macdonald when the McGreevy-Connolly scandal was being dealt with by parliament? Here we have a charge made by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre in which he has very moderately stated the situation, and as to which the Minister of Finance, with that fairness that always characterizes his utterances, has said that a condition existed with their knowledge; as to which the Minister of Justice has said that it is within the knowledge of all men that smuggling exists. How then, Sir, are we to remedy it? I was struck last evening with one of the Observations of the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) in that admirable speech he made in meeting these charges. What did he say? "Parliament," he said, "voted $350,000 last year to deal with this matter." The Minister of Justice says, "We have been doing our very best to grapple with this difficulty," yet last night the Minister of Customs and Excise said "we have spent up to date $23,100." Only $23,100 spent, and $350,000 authorized to be spent practically at the instance of the administration. Why has it not been spent? Why has it not been used? Let my hon. friends answer. Only $23,100 expended, and it is common knowledge now by admissions of the ministers that for ten months they have known this thing has been going on-it will be twelve months in a few days. Parliament, I repeat, voted $350,000 to stop this evi'l and only $23,100 has been spent. Why? That is the question the people are asking. They are asking "Are you sincere and earnest in this matter or not? Are you playing with it or not? Why do you not spend this money? Why do you not take the necessary steps to
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

accomplish the ends you had in your mind when you asked parliament to give you this money?" These are the questions the people of this country are asking. These are the questions business men are asking. There are business men who have been driven to bankruptcy because they have faced the competition of goods brought in from the United States without the payment of duty. I do not say that my hon. friends opposite are not as desirous of stopping these things as I am, but there is a tendency-ah! There are none of us who do not know it-to become more or less apathetic in the discharge of one's duties as the days go by. One could not fail to be struck with the vigour with which the Minister of Customs is approaching his duty. One could not forget that as the years go by the enthusiasm of youth yields to the apathy of age. That is the reason of the trouble. I do not suggest that it is the apathy of age that affects the Minister of Public Works; it is the apathy of youth.
I listened to the statements of hon. members on the other side 'and the statement of the minister, and they certainly offered no reason why we should have spent only $23,000 out of a vote of $350,000.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I gave a reason. I showed we had collected $10,000,000 more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I think the hon.
minister is too astute to say that, I know that he did not assert that he spent $23,000 to get $10,000,000, because if he spent that to get $10,000,000 he would have got $150,000,000 if he had spent the whole amount. But my very much admired friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) said that trade had been buoyant, that the imports of the country had increased, and that the revenue the smugglers permitted to go to the exchequer was $10,000,000 more than the year before. He did not say anything more than that. That is all he meant to say.
I ask every member of this House, particularly the Progressives and Independents, do they believe we are functioning as members of parliament if this great council of the nation adjourns for six weeks? Is there a man who in his heart really believes that? It is as inconvenient for me to remain here as it is for any man, yet I believe in my heart and conscience that having regard to the charges made in parliament last night I should1 be derelict in my duty and recreant to the trust reposed in me as a member of this great council of the nation did I not set aside my personal feelings and interests and remain here. I am here as an elected member of

parliament to do my duty by the Canadian people to the best of my ability, and I fail if I consent to an adjournment of the House other than an adjournment from day to day. I happened to have a seat in parliament during the strenuous days of the war, and I remember that certain charges were made with respect to shells and matters of that kind. I see before me the faces of three of my old friends who were in parliament at that time; can you imagine the language they would have used if it had been suggested that at that time we should adjourn for six weeks? We are face to face with a serious situation, and I ask this great council of the nation not to deal with it lightly.
One question was put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that I must mention before resuming my seat. "What," he asked, "is meant by a stable government?" A stable government is a committee of parliament composed of members of the Commons and Senate commanding the support of the majority of the members of the House of Commons, who profess a common political faith and yield allegiance to a common leader known as the Prime Minister; a group with known policies, with administrative capacity, and with the will and power to govern without the sacrifice of principles or the surrender of expressed convictions for the sake of power. That is stable government; that is what the country is crying for, and that is what this country cannot get. We cannot get stable government if we adjourn this House for the next six weeks to permit of the reorganization of the government, contrary to the practice that Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1891 said should not be violated. When the death of the then Prime Minister dissolved the government, he said it was important that we should be informed from day to day of the constitution of the reorganized government. The very case to which my hon. friend refers indicates the principle for which we contend namely that when business is before parliament and a committee of that parliament has asserted its right to be the government- indeed has obtained a vote of confidence from parliament, a vote by which it is said to be the government-then it is the duty of that committee of the House, that cabinet or government, either to function or to resign; and the only wav it can function is to go forward with its legislative programme. To fail is to admit defeat-and they are not that kind of men; at any rate I hope they are not. To fail is to admit their incapacity or inability to govern, and they will admit neither. To adjourn is at once an admission to the Canadian people of incapacity, of inability or of

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
fear-but fear never dominated the minds of those I see sitting on the treasury benches, the remnants of a great government; because if it did they would not be here. That is the position I put to the House and the country, in full confidence that on reconsideration of the matter-knowing as they do that the determination of the matter may cause the members on the right of the Speaker to continue here, difficult though it may be to carry on-hon. members will not permit any adjournment of this House that does violence to principle.
I merely rose to make these observations in reply to what had been so well said1 by the Minister of Justice, namely, that we should approach this matter in no feeling of bitterness -because we have none-but rather that as willing public citizens, trustees for the moment of power and authority, we should discharge as best we may the obligations which now rest upon us, to the end that we may secure to this country that which my friend has asked for, stable government.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, this House has now
been in session for nearly a month, and the motion before the House is one to adjourn for a period of six weeks after the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne is concluded. I listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches which were made on the Address, and I came to the conclusion near the end of the debate as it has so far proceeded that a good many of the speeches by hon. members opposite were being made for use in the by-election which is now taking place in the constituency of Prince Albert. We listened to the government members holding up their motion for some two or three days; the debate was confined entirely to them iand to the wing on my left. I endeavoured about midnight to get the floor with a view to saying something, and immediately after I had moved the adjournment of the debate, the leader of the House, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) announced that the next order of business would be a motion to adjourn for a period of six weeks. It is just possible that the debate on this motion for an adjournment for six weeks is unnecessary because, in the event of the motion for an address being defeated in this House, which is probable, the debate which has taken place on the present motion will be an absolute waste of time. A good deal of feeling has been displayed by some hon. members with regard to words which have been used not only in this House, but in the press and by members of the 14011-47
House outside of it. I refer to the charges of purchase, bargaining and baiter with regard to the business of parliament. In that regard I wish to refer to an article which appeared in the press of December 15. This is a Canadian press despatch from Saskatoon in which the whip of the Progressive party is credited with having stated:
The Progressive party will sell its support in the best interests of the west.
This is a statement attributed to the whip of the Progressive party in this House before parliament assembled.


Mr. ROGERS:: What paper?


Donald Sutherland: It
is a Canadian Press despatch published in the London Free Press, of London, Ontario, under date of December 17. I have seen no contradiction of that statement.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I rise to a question
of privilege. The statement referred to by the hon. member was quoted as my words in the Saskatoon Star. I may say that I never used the word "sell." I said that the support of the Progressive party would be given or used in the best interests of the west.


Mr. SPENCER:: I rise to a question of
privilege. The hon. member has used my name as having made certain statements to the press. The statement he has made is quite foreign to me and I know nothing about it.


Donald Sutherland: It
is well to get these matters cleared up if it is a little late in the day. I accept the word of the hon. gentlemen if they say that they made no such statement; that they did not use the word "sell." It is, however, a Canadian Press despatch report, and I will say nothing further in regard to the matter.
The Speech from the Throne, which has been before the House for a number of weeks, contains something that leads me to believe that somebody, at any rate the Prime Minister or the government, must have considered that the Progressive party would be influenced if some inducements were offered to them. I refer to a debate which took place in this House in 1924 in regard to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway and in which the then Minister of Railways made this statement:
Parliament, as now constituted, will not vote money for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway at the present time.
At that time there was a much larger support for the Liberal party from the Progressives who were urging the construction



Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
of that railway. There were some sixty-two members of the Progressive party in the House at that time, whereas now there are only about twenty-four, and while the whip of that party states that he did not in the interview use the word "sell," he does not deny that he was discussing what the Progressive party would do in this House. The motion was voted on, and although the government had one hundred and seventeen members and the Progressive party had sixty-two members in that parliament, the motion for the immediate construction of the Hudson Bay railway was voted down at that time. How is it that it appears in the Speech from the Throne at this session? How is it that rural credits, a matter that was also turned down by the government, is also a feature of the Speech from the Throne which is now before parliament? I would ask hon. members to consider these things.
I have in my hand an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press, a paper which was a strong supporter of the government. This editorial states:
Right Hon. Mackenzie King, the premier, went down in the Ontario debacle and is left without a seat. With him went his Ontario ministers, Hon. George Graham, Hon. T. A. Low, Hon. James Murdock, Hon. George Gordon and Hon. Vincent Massey. The government fared badly in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. . . . Mr. King, no doubt, can get a seat in Quebec. He is still the premier, but in all probability will recommend that Mr. Meighen be called upon to form a government.
This was the view of the Liberal journal in western Canada, and it was the natural course for the government to pursue. The editorial goes on to say:
Mr. Meighen deserves credit for coming into Portage la Prairie and taking a chance. It was a sporting proposition and no one will dispute the Conservative leader his right to the laurels.
And so on. In this connection, I wish to comment further upon a matter which was brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) in regard to statements made by the Prime Minister in the constituency of Prince Albert when he referred to a young man who, he said, had the audacity to come out in that constituency and oppose him when there was, he claimed, no possible chance of his being elected. He said:
He added that a young man of limited means did not put up a $200 deposit for the pleasure of losing it.
The Prime Minister is quite confident that he is going to win out there. Some significant words were dropped, however, by Mr. Dunning, who was with Mr. King. Mr. Dunning said to the electors:

The electors should not be over-confident. It's the gun that isn't loaded that does the damage, said Mr. Dunning.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) leader of the House, in his remarks here this afternoon, asked for fair play for the Prime Minister, stating that it was necessary to have a reconstruction under the present Prime Minister and that we, the major group, should not object to an adjournment for six weeks. In that regard let me refer to some things that have been said by the Prime Minister in Saskatchewan. He also refers to fair play and objects to the Conservatives putting a candidate in the fight out there. He states that it reflects on one of the great parties of this country, and it is up to them to find out who was responsible for putting this young man in the fight against him. He is reported as saying:
Mr. King, turning to last night's division in the House, observed that every Progressive, Independent and Labour member in the House had voted with the Liberals to give the government a majority of ten.
I wonder whether he will give equal prominence to what happened in this House last night when the government had a majority of one.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in speaking in this House the other day, put on Hansard a letter over the signature of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) had had an interview with the Prime Minister in regard to a matter referred to in a letter which they had sent him some time before. This secured verbal promises from the Prime Minister, but this did not satisfy those hon. gentlemen. They' had received promises in the past from the Prime Minister, just as hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party had done, and they stated quite emphatically in this address, "We have absolutely no confidence in the Mackenzie King government or in promises made by them ", They insisted on a written statement or promise. It is significant that this letter was dated Ottawa the 28th day of January when the Prime Minister was leaving for Prince Albert to take part in that election and a vote was about to be taken in the House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleague the member for North Winnipeg had absolutely no confidence in the promises of the Prime Minister and they wanted it down in black and white before voting con-

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
fidence in him and his government so that they might hold him to the fulfilment of his promises. The letter, which is addressed to " Dear Mr. Woodsworth " under date of January 28-is the clearest and most emphatic proof of the fact that there has been bargaining in relation to matters of great public importance in this country' with a view to securing support in this House to enable a government which was defeated at the polls, to carry on in defiance of public opinion. _And the government is now asking for a six weeks' adjournment in order to build up its shattered forces.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 4, 1926