1926-02-04

RELEASE OF ALCOHOL FROM DISTILLERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. GEORGE H. BOTVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise):	Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day are called I would like to say that on February 1 the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) asked if I would lay on the table all orders in council issued during the past two years for the release of alcohol from distilleries within a shorter period of time than that set forth in the Inland Revenue Act. I am glad now to be able to place these orders on the table of the House, together with a copy for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Lapointe that when the House adjourns immediately after the conclusion of the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, it stand adjourned until March 15, 1926, and the amendment thereto of Hon. Mr. Stevens.
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I was referring to the supplementary address which had been presented to parliament by the Prime Minister on January 28, through the lips of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Perhaps it would be well for 14011-47i
me to read this address which was presented on that occasion. It is as follows:
Ottawa, January 28, 1926.
J. S. Woodsworth, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Woodsworth,
Replying to the letter received from Mr. Heaps and yourself, dated January 7, in which you ask whether it is the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with regard to
(a)	provision for the unemployed, and
(b)	old age pensions, I would refer you, respecting provision for the unemployed, to the answer given in the House of Commons to-day by the Hon. Ernest Lapointe on behalf of the government in reply to a question by yourself and which indicated the government's intention of carrying out with respect to emergency relief the practice adopted in co-operation with provinces and municipalities in the years immediately following the war. In answer to a question from Mr. Neill, Mr. Lapointe further intimated that it was the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with respect to Old Age Pensions. You will observe that the statement made by Mr. Lapointe was in accordance with the intimation which I gave to Mr. Heaps and yourself at the time of our interview, following the receipt of the communication herein referred to.
With respect to amendments to (a) the Immigration Act, (b) the Naturalization Act, and (c) the Criminal Code, which were referred to at the time of our interview, I would say that having since taken up the proposed amendments with the ministers concerned, I feel I am in a position to assure you that legislation on these matters will also be introduced in the course of the present session.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Prior to bringing this matter up I had been referring to the feeling which prevails in the country that a good deal of bargaining has been going on between the government and some of the groups in this House with a view to the continuation of the government in office. I referred to a Canadian Press report on that occasion, which was denied by the chief whip of the Progressive party and also by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), which press report contained this statement:
The Progressive party will sell its support in the best interests of the west.
This statement was denied by those gentlemen, in so far as the word "sell" is concerned, and I accept their denial; I do not question their veracity at all. I have always had a good deal of respect for the hon. gentlemen who sit behind the leader of the Progressive party, and I am sorry that I am not able to say as much for their leader.	But there
is something further in that report which the hon. member for Mackenzie did not deny, and it is as follows:
What legislation it can secure in the interests of the west is the fundamental question that will decide its actions.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
Apparently they have been satisfied in their demands, because the government have promised in the Speech from the Throne to introduce legislation-mark the words " introduce legislation ", perhaps not expecting it to pass- along the lines desired, although in years gone by the government had used their best endeavours to defeat such legislation. Apparently the leader of the so-called Labour group in the House became jealous of the influence which was being exercised by the Progressive party. Although he and his colleague had approached the Prime Minister and had received verbal assurance that their request would be complied with they were not satisfied, and1 insisted that before the next vote wag taken they should have a definite statement from the Prime Minister, over his own signature, as to what he would do under the circumstances. Is it any wonder that the people of this country have become alarmed, that the press of Canada is filled from day to day with references to the bargaining which it is claimed is going on in the House of Commons. At this point, in order to give still further point to my remarks, I might refer to my last few observations before the House rose at six o'clock last night. Referring to the letter from the Prime Minister to M!r. Woods-worth, I stated that it 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.
Those hon. members who were in the House yesterday and listened to the Minister of Justice will appreciate the situation more accurately when I read the words which the minister made use of on that occasion. He said:
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.
This is an admission on the part of the leader of the government that they are unable under present conditions to carry on. The importance therefore of having the representatives of groups in this House lend their support to the government will be appreciated. The Minister of Justice goes on to say:

-that the government should be complete and that every department should be represented here by a minister.
Now the Speech from the Throne contains the information that a number of departments are to be merged and certain ministers eliminated. What it is proposed to do has not been disclosed to the House but the leader of the government forces in the House, in his evident distress, pleads that it is necessary to have a minister here at the head of all departments of the government. I wonder if those hon. members sitting behind the government feel that some of the ministers defeated at the polls are better qualified than they are to take charge of and' administer departments. The Prime Minister himself was most decisively defeated in a constituency where he sought to test public opinion with respect to himself and his government. The defeat which he sustained on that occasion should be sufficient to convince him and his colleagues that the people have very little use for the man who has been leading the Liberal forces during the past few years. And remember M.r. King ran in a constituency where he is well known and is not a stranger as he is in the riding where he is now endeavouring to secure re-election. Perhaps I may be permitted to say here that the scolding, petulant mood exhibited by Mr. Mackenzie King before the electors of Prince Albert is by no means to his credit. "Why," he demands, "where does this young man who is my opponent come from? Who dares to put this man into the field in opposition to the great William Lyon Mackenzie King? The people of this country Should know who are at the back of this conspiracy Let me say that there is a band of men in Canada prepared to stand by the empire, a band prepared to make any sacrifice necessary to maintain that empire and to see that it is perpetuated. Is it surprising that one of those men who served in the ranks of the Canadian forces during the greatest crisis that this empire has ever faced, should now step forward and oppose even the self-styled great William Lyon Mackenzie King? The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) dealt with this point most effectively yesterday. I should have lost faith in our country had not someone at this period of national crisis been nominated to oppose this man. And now the government are asking parliament to adjourn until March 15 in order to enable him to build up his shattered forces, in order to secure the election of one William Lyon Mackenzie King. According to them it is their only hope. The shattered Liberal forces are looking for leader-

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
ship, and the Minister of Justice makes the plaintive plea "Give us fair play. We would do the same to you under similar circumstances." Ah! has he forgotten the statements of this same William Lyon Mackenzie King with regard to the right hon. gentleman who leads the major group in this House after the general election of 1921 when the latter endeavoured to secure re-election in a constituency close by and where he was well known? Why there was on that occasion,
I might almost say, gross misrepresentation by the man who now claims to be Prime Minister, to say nothing of the same petulance which he is manifesting in the Prince Albert by-election. This ought to be a sufficient answer to the Minister of Justice. It indicates what hon. gentlemen opposite would do under similar circumstances.
As I have already said, the Speech from the Throne intimates that certain departments are to be merged. We do not know how many ministers will be seeking re-election, possibly not any outside of the Prime Minister. Then why this adjournment? Last night I quoted a statement from the Winnipeg Free Press published on the day following the general election. That journal anticipated that the only thing the Prime Minister could do under the circumstances was to send in his resignation, and recommend His Excellency to call upon the right hon. leader of the opposition to form a government. But the Prime Minister and his ministers decided not to do that, they determined to hang on to office let the consequences be what they would. But they did announce that parliament would be called at the earliest possible moment, and that it would assemble on December 10 in order to transact the business of the country. The date of the opening of parliament was afterwards changed to January 7. The House has now been in session for nearly a month, and it is quite evident that the administration admit their inability to carry on and despatch public business. The Speech from the Throne is absolutely at variance with the professions while in office of the leader of the party opposite and his government. I referred to those yesterday, and in particular to the question of the building of the Hudson Bay railway. On that occasion the Minister of Railways, the Right Hon. George P. Graham, made the statement that parliament as then constituted would not vote money for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. At that time the Liberals had a following of 117 members in this House, and 63 or 64 members of the Progressive party were in the House
advocating the building of the road. But now, with their forces decimated, with their ranks depleted, there has apparently been an effort to get Progressive support. My hon. friends opposite say to them, "We will promise you members of the Progressive party anything, if you will only support us and enable us to carry on." Is it any wonder that the Progressives in this House have absolutely no confidence in the King government? They have good reason not to have any confidence in it. They realize to-day that the government is dependent upon them in order to enable it to carry on. The government must now concede everything that the Progressives ask in order to secure their support. I have altogether too high a regard for my hon. friends of the Progressive party to think that they have any faith in a government which is forced under such circumstances to grant such concessions in order to secure their support so that the government may be enabled to hang on to office. 'Surely there is something higher and nobler in public life than merely to hold on to office.
But the most significant, yes, the most amusing thing that has happened in this House in many years was the introduction of the .motion to adjourn parliament for six weeks, or until the 15th day of March, without any explanation from the leader of the government as to why this should be done-not a word. The motion came before the House and the debate began without any attempt to justify it. We had no explanation to warrant such action, although a number of the members were here in the House, until yesterday when the acting leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe) rose and made his plea. He found fault with hon. members on this side of the House for depriving him of an opportunity to speak when the motion was introduced. I do not think a more-I will not say ridiculous, but unusual claim, was ever before advanced; because it is well known that the hon. leader of the House had a perfect right to speak on the motion, and should have done so. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) would gladly have given way to him had he shown any evidence of a desire to speak on that occasion. After the debate had continued for some time he took the floor and made the plea, "Oh, give us fair play; do not embarrass us in our distress. We are anxious to serve our country and1 are particularly anxious to carry on the government. We do not like to go out into the cold shades of opposition."
It was rather significant that this motion was sprung in the House on the 2nd day of

Adjournment - -Casio,ns Inquiry
February. Hon. members know that there is an old adage that the bear, who has a habit of going into a warm place and hibernating during the winter, on the 2nd day of February comes out and surveys his surroundings, and if the sun is shining brightly he concludes there are to be six weeks more of winter and he immediately goes back to stay in his nest for another six weeks. That is what the government are doing. When they found that on the 2nd of February the sun was shining brightly all day long, and there was every prospect of storm and stormy weather for the next six weeks, they said1 to us, '"Now if you fellows will only go home for six weeks and wait until the spring arrives, we .will then take up again the business of the country."
This appeal was followed! by an address by my good friend the Minister of Finance. What was his plea? We would expect from him some good1 sound argument which would appeal to the judgment of members of this House as to why an adjournment should be granted. Did he favour us with such an argument? I listened to his remarks and I looked over Hansard this morning, and I cannot see that he has done so; but he attempted to belittle the charges which were made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), the most serious charges that were ever preferred against a government in Canada. Did he deal with those? Well, in his own way he did. He says, "It is quite true that the bootleggers are a very strong force in this country at the present time. Parliament voted $350,000 a year ago to suppress smuggling and bootlegging and things of that kind, but the government are absolutely helpless. The automobile enables these men to frustrate the efforts of the government." I could not help thinking what a force the government could have let loose on the country if they had only manned the automobiles which they have at their command. But only some $23,100 of that $350,000 vote was used *for this purpose.
The Minister of Finance says, "Why, these bootleggers from Montreal endeavoured to defeat me in my election," and he attempted to connect them with the Tory organization in the city of Montreal. I am glad to hear that there is a Tory organization in the city of Montreal; I was not aware of it before. The effect of the bootleggers' assistance so far as the Tory party was concerned in the province of Quebec was not anything to boast about, but I recall the fact that while the Minister of Finance was a candidate in his own constituency there were other candidates

who had other difficulties to contend with. I remember the election very well, and I think I will remember it for some time. I am sorry that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) is not in his seat. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance introduced this matter, I think I am justified in relating some of the things which took place in other constituencies. We remember that in the last session of this parliament-indeed it has been brought up every session-a proposal urged and agitated by hon. members to my left, with the supposed endorsation of the government, namely, what is known as the transferable vote in single member constituencies. But no measure to that end was put into effect. In fact the bill was not introduced by the government, although it remained on the order paper until the last day of the session. But in the recent election they adopted an entirely new system. Notwithstanding the fact that they had 83,000 election agents paid out of the public treasury of the country during the last election, they put into effect a brand new system-not the transferable vote in single member constituencies, but t'he transferring of the voters themselves bodily into other constituencies with a view of assisting the government in their distress. I am fully conscious of the responsibility of a member of parliament in making statements on the floor of this House. It is true that very often recldess statements are indulged in by some speakers at the time of an election, but when we are in the parliament hon. members should be careful what they say. I have made the statement that the government adopted a different system; in view of the fact that the transferable vote in single member constituencies did not go into effect they transferred the voters bodily from one constituency to another, in fact from one province to another.
I see some of my hon. friends from Quebec looking very intently at me, as though I was making a rather reckless statement. They may be surprised to know that a carload of the residents of Quebec were brought into the constituency of South Oxford and that deliberate attempts were made to put those men on the voters' list in that constituency. After failing in several attempts they succeeded in getting at least seven of them on the list in one polling division of that constituency. It was only on the day of nomination. when the registrar for that constituency handed in his list of names which had been added by him, that I ascertained that these men's names had been placed on the voters' list. Perhaps I had better make clear the extent to which I realized the need for caution,

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
the need for watching closely what was going on. On the 19th of October I had published in the press of the constituency a notice to this effect:
Warning
To the returning officer and registrars appointed to make up the voters' lists in South Oxford.
I have personal knowledge of the fact that names are being placed on the voters' lists for this election in South Oxford by registrars in the rural districts, of persons who are not only not entitled to have their names on the list, but who have already had then-names registered as voters in other parts of this constituency-
I have affidavits to that effect and I can prove it before the Committee on Privileges and Elections when it is appointed.
-and are therefore guilty of the offence of personation, the penalty for which offence as a fine of $2,000 or a term of imprisonment of two years.
I have	been	informed by	one of the	registrarsappointed	that	these names	were added	with theknowledge	and	consent oif the returning	officer. I
have since confirmed this by telephone conversation with the returning office.
As the	time	[DOT]for revising	these lists will expire
to-morrow, October 20, at six o'clock p.m.
I herewith issue this warning to the returning officer and to all registrars for this constituency fto take immediate action to have the voters' lists made up according to the regulations contained in the Dominion Elections Act.
Unless this is done, action will be taken against all who have violated their oath of office and also against those guilty of the offence lot personation.
What happened then? An editor from western Canada, a man who had resided there for many years, was sent into the constituency, and he edited a full page in one of the local papers day after day. "Oh," he taunted, "this is an election bluff; the candidate has nothing to substantiate anything of that kind." What happened? I immediately took steps to see that these people who had been transported from another province into the constituency of South Oxford would not vote there in that election. As a result, a warrant was issued by the crown to arrest the leader of the party who was responsible for adding these names. Who do you suppose it turned out to be? One of this army of 83,000 agents appointed by the government, one of their deputy returning officers. Is it any wonder that they are asking parliament to adjourn for six weeks in order to bolster up their shattered forces? This man was arrested by the crown when I informed the authorities what had happened and gave them the evidence to substantiate it. He was let out on bail, brought before a magistrate and convicted of perjury. This was one of the election officers to whom I had referred in the warning which I had caused to be published a few days previously.
Others from western Canada were also very active in the campaign in that constituency, but I need not refer to more than two or three of them. They were men who had been associated with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) for many years, men who had first been elected to the legislature of Alberta in the same year that the Minister of the Interior was elected, one of whom had drawn $19,900 odd out of the treasury of this country while he was an organizer for the Liberal party and who was eventually forced off the payroll. I warned the government time and again with regard to what was going on, and one of the most disgraceful scenes that I ever witnessed in parliament took place when I was prevented from discussing the matter on the floor of this House. One of the ministers who was responsible for blocking that discussion is no longer in parliament. This man, so far as I know, is now off the payroll. He was appointed organizer for Ontario on behalf of the Liberal government. Time and again he came into the constituency to secure a candidate so as to link up in some way the Progressives or the United Farmers of Ontario, as we call them, and the Liberal party in South Oxford. Finally he succeeded in doing that to his satisfaction by getting the executives of the two parties to meet together in a little hall after dark in a most obscure place in the constituency. They decided that they would coordinate. That is the word they are frequently using; they speak of the need of coordination or co-operation. Having succeeded in this, they secured a man who for years had been very active as a member of the United Farmers of Ontario, or as a Progressive and had opposed the Liberal party. But they decided that the Liberal party would nominate this man as their candidate and that the Progressive party would work behind him, and in that way they hoped to defeat the candidate on behalf of the opposition. This worked out all right for a little while. The elections came on and everything was going fine. The editor from western Canada who was editing this page in a local paper loaded' it up from day to day with the most ridiculous statements that were ever advanced in any election, until finally another ex-member of the government of Alberta arrived to bolster up the forces. I do not like to refer to this gentleman today, because I believe he is now being tried at Edmonton for the alleged offence of looting the treasury of that province. But this is what happened, and these are some of the things which I had to contend with in the
744	COMMONS
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
last election. I am not surprised that the Minister of Finance has gone out of the chamber. He has heard enough; he is already convinced that his complaint about bootleggers operating in his constituency on behalf of the Conservative party has paled into insignificance as compared with what has been going on in some other parts of the country. Yes, Mr. Duncan Marshall, organizer for the Liberal party, and Mr. George Peter Sinith, were colleagues of the Minister of the Interior until 1921 when they were turned out of office by the people of the province of Alberta. The people of Alberta evidently were heartily sick and tired of that government, but they were not content to retire to private life. From day to day the gallery of this House has been, I will not say adorned, but at any rate occupied by a man who has been active, if not in the public life of this country, at least behind the scenes with the Liberal party in Canada for many years. I referred to this matter last session on several occasions, as the Minister of Justice will recall, at the time the Petersen contract was before parliament. I referred to the author, the man who was responsible for making the contract and who was directing and advising the government in the matter of that contract. He was going to save Canada, so he claimed, from the great octopus which was draining the life blood of the farmers of the west, and in fact of Canada as a whole. The government, we were given to understand, were by this scheme to break up the North Atlantic shipping combine, although the government had the Canadian Government Merchant Marine in it.
Now it is rather significant that for many years, as far back at least as I can recall, this man has been an active agent of the Liberal party in Ontario and in the Dominion of Canada. In 1,903 or 1904 the Patrons of Industry were organized in Ontario, and it is just as well for us to understand that these farmers' organizations do not spring into existence altogether from any desire on the part of the farmers to participate in politics; there is a much felt need among those engaged in agriculture to organize with a view to legitimately furthering their interests. At that time the author of the Petersen contract was the organizer for the Liberal party in the province of Ontario.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: I rise to a point
of order. I have listened with a good deal of deference to my hon. friend but I am utterly unable to see what the Petersen contract has to do with the resolution before the House and the amendment thereto.


Donald Sutherland: I
always like to give way to any reasonable request, but it is not my fault if the hon. gentleman is unable to see the connection. Now the person to whom I was referring-


Jean-Joseph Denis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, for a decision on the point of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Hon. members taking
part in a debate should adhere as closely as possible to the subject matter of the discussion. I presume that the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland, South Oxford) will bring the present trend of his remarks to bear on the motion before the Chair, and before ruling on the point of order I shall wait a reasonable time until he does so.


Donald Sutherland: I
am perfectly satisfied that Your Honour will see the relevancy of my remarks in this connection to the motion before the House. If the hon. member for Joliette does not see it it is not my fault, but I assure you, Sir, that I shall be able to connect the Petersen contract with the present situation and particularly with the motion under consideration. I shall show why this House should not adjourn for six weeks in order to enable a discredited party to carry on, with certain officials in the gallery of this House directing their policy. The Prime Minister cannot come in and take a seat in this House but has been dodging around the corridors since parliament met, until a week ago. He is now in the constituency of Prince Albert whining about having as opposition a young man there who is he claims going to lose his $200 deposit because he presumes to oppose the great Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my remarks last night, as it is to-day, is to show the connection between the feeling which prevails in this country, in regard to the bargaining that has been going on for support in this House, and the situation as we have it at the present time; and I am going back a few years to prove that this connection has been maintained right along and is being kept up to-day by the agents of the Liberal party who were operating in the province of Ontario a few years ago. The matter was referred to last night by several speakers. In 1893 and 1884, Mr. W. T. R. Preston was the paid organizer of the Liberal party in Ontario and in the same years Mr. Duncan Marshall was the paid organizer of the Patrons of Industry in that province. These associations continued for a number of years until the final merging process took place about the year

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
1898, and it is significant that these are the men who were directing operations in the recent election in the endeavour to merge the Liberal party with a farmers' organization which was originally created and intended to serve a useful purpose. After this amalgamation had been accomplished in 1898, the organizer for the Patrons of Industry, Mr. Duncan Marshall, ran as a straight Liberal candidate in the constituency of Muskoka, where he was decisively defeated and rejected. He then went out to the west where he Succeeded in getting a foothold in the legislature of Alberta, where he represented the smallest constituency in that province. I do not think that there were ever so few people who had a representative in a legislature. After all these years, after being turned out of office, he was found sitting the morning after the election of 1921 on the door-step of the Minister of Agriculture, whom he was asking to take care of him. The minister did so, and when the vote to provide for him was before the House, referred to him as "my special messenger, Mr. Duncan Marshall." When this man was directing operations in Ontario a carload of people were brought into South Oxford, residents of the province of Quebec, and some of them put on the voters' list there. Reference has been made to perjury committed in this connection: it was only by the adoption of heroic measures and the arrest of the ringleader of the gang that we succeeded in putting a little scare into them. Had that not been the case I do not know how far they would have gone. I have considerable faith in the people of my constituency, and when they realized what was going on there was a revulsion of feeling which was unmistakable. The methods that had been adopted in that election were resented.
Now what I have been saying leads up to one of my objections to the adjournment of parliament. I made representations to the chief electoral officer and I noticed that the statutory report of that officer has been tabled in the House. I am curious to know what is contained in that report. A most unusual thing happened. After I had reported to the chief electoral officer he communicated with the returning officer, and in a long letter covering Several pages he complained about my attitude in taking exception to certain things. Some of the deputy returning officers had failed to comply with the act, had in fact absolutely disregarded it to such an extent that, when the official count took place, in several polls we were not able to find a statement as to the result of the poll. This letter,
I was informed, had been received from the returning officer. Immediately I wrote back and pointed out that his attempt to justify and exonerate the man who had been convicted of perjury was sufficient evidence to show that he was absolutely unfit for the position which he held. He referred to the evidence which had been given by one of his deputies as being very straight evidence. This party was not called at all; he was being tried on a criminal charge. His counsel knew better than to place him in the witness box; the crown could not do so. After he had been found guilty of perjury I did something that I had no right to do. The crown attorney beckoned to me. I went over to him and said that so far as I was concerned I hoped that the young man would not be sent to prison. He was let out on suspended sentence by the magistrate. The fact that he was so discharged is being held up by the returning officer-and I am afraid that it will appear in the report which has been presented to parliament-as evidence that his offence was not very serious. As is well known, in a case of conviction for perjury there is no option to impose a fine; the one convicted must be sent to prison. It is most significant that a few years ago this young man lost his position a3 telegraph operator for forging a pass. I did not realize that that was the nature of his offence at the time, and I interceded for him and secured a position for him in the government telegraph service in western Canada. He had been in contact with those people in the vicinity of Edmonton who were I believe responsible for this whole trouble which developed in South Oxford. It was directed by those people, and he was the manipulator in getting the names improperly placed on the voters' list. I intimated that I would have those men arrested. I started out determined to do so, and I did not understand until later, when I went to the registrar, that this young man had made an affidavit that those people were entitled to vote, although he knew very well, that they had only been in the township a few days. They were living on a car on the Canadian National Railways, and I believe were brought into the constituency to vote against me. One of them, the foreman, when subpoenaed'-and they were only served with subpoenaes after they had got out of the constituency and were on their way east-admitted in court that their names were on the voters' list in the province of Qudbec, and they were anxious to go back there because they had just learned that they had not been in South Oxford long
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

enough to entitle them to vote. The news spread quickly that I was going to have them arrested, and they were already on their way east when served with summonses to appear; it was only by means of a swift automobile that we were able to overtake them and 'have them brought back. Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) think that the statement made by him in the House yesterday that bootleggers had been employed against him by the Tory party and were being backed up by them is going to receive much credence?
The government are responsible 4 p.m. for bootleggers. Do not forget that. They cannot shift the responsibility to any other quarter. It is admitted that smuggling on a very large scale has been going on, and the government have been charged by an hon. member of this House with a guilty knowledge of the illicit traffic, so they cannot shift their responsibility to any other quarter. The fact that parliament last session voted 8350,000, and that only 823,100 has been spent in an attempt to cope with the evil, is sufficient to condemn them. There is not any question as to that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before leaving the election scandal in South Oxford, I am going to refer just for a moment to a letter which I sent to the chief electoral officer, because I do not know whether or not it will appear in his report:
Ingersoll, December 24, 1925.
Colonel O. M. Bjggar,
Chief Electoral Officer,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
I have vour letter of the 11th inst., regarding complaints made by me against certain election officers in South Oxford.
In view of your correspondence with returning officer C. H. Denton on the matter, I cannot agree with your suggestion. I think Denton's letter of December 3, to you, should be attached to your report now that it has been written, as it more than bears out the correctness of the most serious complaints made by me. He attempted to defend Todd,-
That was the party convicted of perjury.
-one of his appointees convicted of perjury. His statement that he was quite positive Garner had placed the names of the voters from Quebec on his list several days before the 20th is not the statement he now attributes to Garner, viz., that he had not made any additions to the list on representations made to him after six o'clock.
As a matter of fact there have been repeated attempts made to get these imported voters on the lists for several weeks, not only in No. 5 North Oxford, but elsewhere in the constituency. The returning officer must have known of this. His attempt to excuse and justify the violation of the oath of office of his appointee after he heard the leader of the gang swear the names of these parties were on the voters' list in Quebec and after he heard Garner swear that he had not put their 
names on the list until after six o'clock on October 20 bears this out.
As to the deputy returning officer's statement of polls referred to by me, I may say no such statement was enclosed in the ballot box any more than in the case of the three referred to from Ingersoll.
Yours very truly.
Permit me to make another reference to .the western editor, who was conducting the publicity page after the conviction referred to had been made. There is a full page and at the bottom a notification that the Liberal *candidates for North Oxford and for South Oxford are responsible for its contents. I shall read only this short extract:
Technically and legally, Mr. Donald Sutherland of South Oxford imay have won a great political and moral victory. When-by that process of a law which demands stem justice-he succeeded, through hiis instrumentality-in having placed "the brand of Cain" upon a young man, a neighbour in his own township, whom an officer of the law decided had been guilty of perjury. Believing in the majesty of a just law, comment is reserved as to the details of the case, and as to the merits or demerits of the judgment, the general public we believe will find a full report of the evidence in Monday's issue of the London Advertiser and the Sentinel-Review. They may read that evidence, and draw their own conclusions. The underlying principle at stake, so far as it affects the election an South Oxford and Canada generally, is that this Tory ex-M.P. sought to here to deprive of their franchise a half-dozen French-Canadians, employees of the Canadian National Railways-Canadians whose fathers for possibly 150 years have called this soil their native land. To stop them from voting- to take away their franchise-to win a paltry halfdozen in the count for himself-Mr. Sutherland spread wide open his life's book, after twenty-three years of public favour and public pay, so that his neighbours could judge of hiis size and calibre. To win a petty political advantage for himself-to teach the lesson of stern justice as lie would exact it-he lifted the veil over his closing political career so that his neighbours might discern the dictates of the mind that-as Shy,lock did-demanded its pound of flesh. And the result was the arrest for perjury of one of his neighbours, a young man of his own township who has already received some slight recognition from those neighbours, and whose parents have guarded a family name so that .it might be handed on without stain to their children and their children's children. The curtain may well be drawn. The electorate can well be trusted to award a just verdict after the evidence has been weighed so far as Donald Sutherland is concerned. But suppose that young man haa been the son of Donald Sutherland-who is quits conceivably old enough to (be his grandfather? Suppose, Mr. Elector, that young man had been your son? Suppose, mother of other boys, he had been vour son? What would you do if the "Brand of Cain were placed for life upon the brow of your boy?
That-, Mr. Speaker, was the sort of campaign conducted in the constituency of South Oxford against me during the last general election, headed by those who were then and have been for years living as parasites and barnacles on this country. I may say that the result of that election in the province

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
of Ontario is a great tribute to the intelligence of our people. Repeated attempts have been made to interject other things than the tariff into the issues before the people.
I wonder what my hon. friends from western Ontario who are supporters! of the government think of present methods when they come to this House and find that the Liberal policy, so far as their 'party is concerned, has been forgotten. The Prime Minister himself has denounced it, and now it is to be a case of bargain and barter -with the various groups of this House in order to continue in office. But the leader of the government, the Minister of Justice said yesterday "Look at the last vote which took place. We only had a majority of one. If we find it necessary for a member to resign and go to the country, it is quite evident what will happen. We cannot afford to do it, so now be generous to us; allow us to continue in the seats of the mighty." Well, I think Mr. Speaker, that the government are very anxious to continue in office, and I am afraid that the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) are to no small extent responsible for that anxiety. Let me tell the government that if they intend to remain in office they had better withdraw this motion now on the order paper, because I have altogether too much faith in the honesty of the hon. members of the Progressive party to think that they will stultify themselves by voting for a six weeks' adjournment to enable this government to bolster up their shattered forces. As the Winnipeg Free Press pointed out, the natural thing to do was for the government to resign and advise His Excellency to call on the leader of the opposition to form a government, We on this side of the House have not made any promises or pledges of any kind. I want to say further, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister-or the supposed-to-be Prime Minister-was referred to by the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) as having a more refined and exalted sense of honour than himself. But let me quote some statements made by the Prime Minister. On June 6, 1922, referring to an address made by the right hon. leader he said:
He knows as well as I do that at the time of being selected leader of the Liberal party I spoke before the convention which drafted that platform and expressed my view in regard thereto, Broadly I stated that I would regard that platform as a chart which indicated the direction that the Liberal representatives assembled expected the party to take if returned to power, but that I would be guided as to how far it was wise to go at any particular time by the collective wisdom and judgment of the ablest men whom it might be possible to bring together to direct the affairs of this country.
Does the platform of the Liberal party indicate in any way the chart that is now being followed by that party? Have the wisest counsels in the nations been consulted by them? What does the Toronto Globe, the mouthpiece of the Liberal party of this province for generations back, advise them to do? It is not necessary for me to refer to that.
Mr. Mackenzie King: The platform of 1919 was certainly inserted in the handbook and it would have been an extraordinary thing if it had not been, but the platform of 1919 was not put forward throughout'this last campaign as a pledge or promise on the part of the Liberal party of its proposals if returned to power.
The platform of the Liberal party has been discarded, and there is no need of referring to it. Expediency is the platform of the Liberal party to-day. Their attempt to hold pn to office is being encouraged by certain groups in this House. I think the 'letter of the Prime Minister under date of January 28 of this year is conclusive evidence that it was necessary for them to secure the support of my hon. friends sitting opposite under the leadership of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Let me quote a statement once made by Hon. George Brown, who was at the time the leader of the Liberal party in Canada. Hon. George Brown said:
If, Sir, public man avows certain principles, agitates those principles, and seeks to overthrow the government of the day and establish those principles; and if, when he attains power he laughs at his principles and casts his professions to the winds, he is aiming a blow at public morality.
Have this government no regard for the influence their actions are having and are bound to have on the youth of our country? History is one of our most useful assets. It enables us to realize what was in the minds of people in the past. When the record of this parliament comes to be written, after we have retired to private life, are we going to feel proud of our contribution to the parliamentary history of Canada? It is for the members of this House to exercise their rights as citizens of Canada; to see that honour is maintained in public life, and to see that the representatives of the people uphold parliamentary institutions, under which we have the greatest degree of liberty enjoyed by any people in the world. Democracy in its best sense is, or should be, represented here, and you violate the principle of democracy if you enter into a conspiracy to obtain something not in accordance with the oath taken as a member of this parliament. We have had altogether too much sectionalism, too much provincialism for the good

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
of Canada. We must have a broader conception of things if we are going to realize the destiny in store for us. We cannot look forward with too much optimism to the possibilities of development when this great big throbbing country, with its vast stores of wealth, begins to function as it should. One good harvest has a tremendous influence on the financial condition of this country, yet we find the government endeavouring, in the [DOT]Speech from the Throne, to claim credit for what the people of Canada are alone entitled to. It is the duty of a government to administer the affairs of a country and to do so in the most economical manner, not to retard its development in any way. Have the *present government been doing that? Their admission that the scandals connected with the Department of Customs have been going on for years to their knowledge is evidence of their unfitness for office. We might just as well deal with this matter now as later on, because the government are not going to continue to carry on in this country. They were defeated at the polls; they cannot continue to disregard the fact that the people .failed to give them any such mandate. The popular voice must be heard and must be listened to, otherwise the gravest possible injury will be inflicted1 upon what is known as democracy or freedom in this country. It is a matter of small importance to the individual member which political party is in power; but it does mean something to this Dominion whether there should be a Strict [DOT]observance of honour or whether a government are to be permitted to resort to trickery in order to maintain themselves in office.
I referred to a few things that took place in the constituency I represent. I have no doubt that these were duplicated elsewhere. Think of it-an average of three hundred and *forty-three election officials many of them agents of the government appointed under the Dominion Elections Act in every constituency [DOT]in Canada to assist in returning them to power! Do hon. gentlemen realize what a handicap the party with which I am associated laboured under at that time? It is possible [DOT]that hon. gentlemen to my left suffered in a (similar way because we know how the Prime Minister characterized them as outlaws. And yet many of our Progressive friends come forward and vote confidence in the government. The first one to come to their assistance was the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) the leader of hon. gentlemen to my left. He [DOT]was very much worried to think that the government were being put in such an indefensible position, and he rushed to their sup-
port without, I believe, having any well defined idea as to what he was about to say. I am sure his followers felt more embarrassed after he had resumed his seat than they did before he rose to speak.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel satisfied that the [DOT]government will consider the wisdom, even at this late stage, of withdrawing this motion because if they do riot do so I am quite satisfied they will enjoy but a very short existence. (Because, Mr. Speaker, there is some sense of fionour left in the hearts of the people's [DOT]representatives. It is not a case, as some persons sneeringly say, of drawing sessional indemnities; but hon. members will see to it that this government shall Observe in the administration 'of public affairs the ordinary rules which are demanded in private life.
I have nothing further to say with regard to that matter, I am sorry to have been compelled to speak as I have done; but I wish to point out before resuming my seat that the Minister of Customs and Excise adtnitted the truth of many of the charges made by my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) and intimated that a committee would be granted to investigate them. Under those conditions an adjournment for six weeks is no light matter. The Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) delivered a speech in Montreal a short time ago, after the government got over the first difficult hurdle and secured a majority of three-not with united support but with considerable support, from hop. gentlemen to the left. The report which I am about to quote appeared in the Montreal Star of January 21, and the Minister of Customs and Excise is represented as saying:
He denied that the Hudson Bay railway was a concession to the Progressives. The road was nearly finished, the Conservatives having spent twelve millions on the 'building of the greater part of it. It was the duty of the government to look to the interests of all parts of the country.
You would infer from the minister's observations that this party had been committed to it, and as a matter of fact, the statement is true; but do not forget that the building of the Hudson Bay railway has been dangled before the people of western Canada for many years. In 1911 it was talked of during the election but the Liberal government were decisively defeated. They had a majority of 47 when they appealed to the country, but the people returned the Conservatives with an equal majority. The significant fact, however, is that for years the Liberals played with the people of the west in regard to the Hudson Bay railway. It is true they called for tenders for the building of the road just before the election but no contracts were

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
let until after the election. Three days after the defeat of the government the then Minister of Railways, Hon. George P. Graham, signed the contract for the construction of about two-thirds of the road. The incoming government were committed to the project by their predecessors. They went ahead with it, and they spent practically all the money that has been disbursed in the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. It was only because of the serious situation which arose during the war that the work was stopped. Now the present government are trying to create the impression in the province of Quebec, and particularly in the city of Montreal, that the Conservatives have committed the country to this policy and that they are not responsible for it at all. I wish to call the attention of hon. gentlemen to my left to these further statements on the part of the Minister of Customs:
The Liberals had never been free traders, and never would take away the protection to which eastern manufacturers were entitled.
I say this to hon. gentlemen to my left. After you had voted confidence in the government they adopted this attitude:	Why, free
trade is not part of our policy, we are protectionists. As to the Hudson Bay railway that is an old Tory scheme. They have committed the country to that obligation, and as to those Progressives, they had' better be careful. I quote further from the speech of the Minister of Customs and Excise:
The Progressives have been described as "Liberals in a hurry". If they remained Liberal, the King government would continue in power, but if they proved to be in too great a hurry, then Mr. King would have to appeal to the people again.
Talk about bids being made, bargaining with a view to continuing in office, could any greater reflection be cast upon their honour than to suggest that the main objective in life of my hon. friends to my left is to draw their salaries as members of this House. These hon. members are actuated by just as high and lofty motives as are others and to say that if they get in too much of a hurry Mr. King will have to appeal to the people again is to insinuate that personal interest and not public duty is with them the paramount consideration.
That brings me to a matter on which I am raising my protest against an adjournment of six weeks. I demand that these election scandals shall be cleared up during the life of this parliament and that the committee on Privileges and Elections shall be appointed and see to it that their present returning officers in this country who did not discharge their duties in the last election
shall not carry on during the next election. Mr. King would have to appeal to the people again-yes, he would like to have this army of 83,000 back of him in another election. Instead of resigning as he should he is going to ask-so the Minister of Customs and Excise says-for the right to again appeal to the country. This is one question I rose to emphasize and I am satisfied that the government, notwithstanding their desire to cling to office, have reached the breaking point, and must let go. When they do the light is going to be turned on the administration which we have had in this country during the last four years. It is in the public interest that that should be done, and although they may sit here dumb as they have been to a great degree with regard to any reasonable request for information with regard to reasons for an adjournment, they must again face the people and give an account of themselves. The right thing and the only thing that can be done is to listen to the voice of public opinion. The people must be supreme. Whether we shall have another general election in the course of a few months is a small matter compared with the importance of having representatives in parliament who will realize and appreciate their duties to their constituents and their country.


Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the few observations I propose to address to the House I wish to deal briefly with some of the statements the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) made during the course of his address the other evening. I regret to observe that he is not in his seat, and hope that possibly he will be there before I conclude. My constituents, as well as the people of Canada generally, are very much disturbed, in fact alarmed, over the present condition of business in this country. I believe they are very much upset with the farce, aye with the tragedy, that we see enacted here from day to day by this government. I believe the people of this country are demanding that parliament shall immediately proceed to deal with the serious problems with which we are faced. I believe they are alarmed on account of the fact that they are suffering from a burden of taxation unparalleled in this or,-I think I am almost safe in saying-any other country in the world to-day, even the Mother Country. We find our neigbours to the south, where the scale of taxation is already less than ours by three or four times, reducing that taxation once more, and yet this government

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
expects the business people of Canada to carry on under a burden so unequal, and to meet the competition of those neighbours in our own markets.
For the benefit of those people who are wont to say that prosperity has returned or that prosperity is just around the corner, as the government has been declaring during the past three years, I wish to give one or two illustrations from my own city of Vancouver. I believe that if there is any city which is prosperous in Canada to-day Vancouver most nearly approaches that condition. But our industries in Vancouver are suffering, just as they are suffering in every other city in Canada. I have no hesitation in naming two of those industries, with their permission, I may say. One industry is the Tyee Machinery Company in Vancouver. In 1921, :when this government came into office that company was employing thirty men and turning out about one logging engine per month. In 1923 this government cut the tariff on logging machinery, and since that time the business of that company has disappeared. I hope my Progressive friends are listening and that we can arouse their interest in our problems, and I hope that before this parliament closes they will be interested in other problems than that of growing grain and of building the Hudson Bay railway. I wish to point out to them that the Tyee Machinery Company in 1923, when the present tariff was imposed, were employing thirty men, had a payroll of $8,000 per month and trade accounts of $12,000 per month, whereas to-day that industry is employing four men, and what do you think they are doing? They are repairing logging engines imported from the United States-four men repairing American machinery and the proprietor of that plant is the agent of the American concern. I hold this government absolutely responsible for the loss occasioned in this industry. Many other industries have suffered in the same way. The proprietor of that plant, who invested all his money in the industry, is the agent of an American firm which is manufacturing logging engines.
This is the condition of industries in the city which I represent, and that is not the worst. I desire to direct the attention of the Minister of Customs to this feature. A sister industry in that city, since the tariff on logging machinery was reduced, tendered and had an opportunity to manufacture machinery for a very large sawmill which was being constructed on Vancouver island. The order for that machinery would have given em-
ployment to a hundred men for six months and would have kept at home in this country our citizens probably to the number of at least a thousand. Instead of that, they were forced to desert their homes and go to the United States for employment to manufacture that machinery there. Further, in connection with that very order which this particular company lost, the American company which got the order dumped the machinery into this country at an under-valuation, and on inquiry being made by the Department of Customs it was found that they had escaped payment of duty to the extent of $32,000. I believe to-day-and I draw the attention of the Minister of Customs and Excise to this fact-that sum has never been recovered by that department. That is another charge against the Department of Customs and this government to be investigated. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) laughs. This loss of revenue, to the Minister of Justice, is a laughing matter.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I was not laughing in
connection with my hon. friend's remark.


John Arthur Clark: I take my hon. friend's
statement. The minister was certainly laughing.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry, but I was
not listening to the particular remark of my hon. friend. The smile was otherwise directed.


John Arthur Clark: The condition of affairs
which I am revealing is sufficiently serious for him as acting leader of this government to listen to what II am saying. Let me tell the Minister of Justice, the acting leader of the government, that the same company has lost another order due to the very same condition brought about by his government by the cutting of the duty, and the permission of this government for this machinery to come into this country at an under-valuation, dumped on our market to the detriment of Canadian workers and Canadian industry. The most recent instance of this-and I have under my hand a letter giving the facts-is a tender made by an industry in Vancouver for the installation of machinery in a large pulp mill-a most valuable order. They were asked by the Canadian management to tender on that machinery and they tendered. Before, however, the tender was accepted, the president of the pulp company, an American, came across, and he demanded from the Canadian management that the tenders be delivered to him; that he personally would place the order. Then he went to the United-States and he placed the order with a firm there at the same price that the Canadian firm

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
had tendered. What has happened? Subsequently, that order was farmed out in small lots, and thirty per cent of the order has come back to this Vancouver industry which originally tendered on the work at the same price for which it was awarded to the American company. Why should Canadians submit to such a state of affairs? We welcome the investment of American capital, but we want American capitalists to play the game by Canadians, to patronize Canadian industry. Not only do we want that; but this party demands it, and when this government sees that the proper and only course for it to adopt is to resign and act accordingly, this party will see to it that it is made possible for Canadian industry to secure Canadian business and that Canadian markets are reserved to Canadian industries as should be the case.
I see the Minister of Customs in his seat. I believe the suggestion made by the Minister of Customs the other evening when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) moved his resolution for a customs investigation, was a mere gesture on his part. I make that statement and charge in all seriousness. I point out to the Minister of 'Customs, the Minister of Justice and this government that the Department of Customs had full knowledge ten months ago of every detail presented by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I suggest to the Minister of Customs that he had knowledge and I charge him with knowledge of the situation from the moment he took office and became Minister of Customs.
M'r. BOIVIN: I rise to a point of order. I deny absolutely-


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Speaker, I object to
denials. I suggest the Minister of Customs speak to the question at the proper time.


Hewitt Bostock: There is a point of order.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I deny having had any
knowledge whatever of anything connected with the Department of Customs at the time that I took office.


John Arthur Clark: I said: From the moment that the minister took office.


Georges Henri Boivin: I make the denial absolutely as vehemently to the remark which is now made by my hon. friend. I had no knowledge whatever of anything connected with that department until the beginning of November, and within fifteen days after I knew there was irregularity in that department, the investigation was begun in Montreal.


John Arthur Clark: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister made a misstatement when he said that he rose to a point of order. He has made simply a denial.


Hewitt Bostock: I would judge it is a question of privilege.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is the expression I
should have used.


John Arthur Clark: Perhaps we can help the
minister out still further. I do not mind; but while the minister suggests that-


Georges Henri Boivin: Once again, on a question of privilege this time, so that there will be nomistake, I ask that the hon. member withdraw the accusation which he has made against me.


John Arthur Clark: What I say is this: From the moment that the Minister of Customs took office, he had knowledge-
M;r. SPEAKER:	Order. Surely the hon.
member will accept the statement made by his colleague? It is the rule of the House.


John Arthur Clark: I am afraid you misunderstood me.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member made a charge, namely, that the Minister of Customs had knowledge of what took place in his department from the moment he took office. The minister rose on a question of privilege and denied that absolutely. The duty of the hon. member is to accept the statement made by the Minister of Customs.


John Arthur Clark: I think, Mr. Speaker, you misunderstood my intent. I am not doubting the minister's personal word. I accept his statement from the personal point of view. I was proceeding to point out that from the moment the minister took office, he had knowledge; he must have had knowledge; he was charged with knowledge; he was charged with the responsibility of everything that was in his department. From that moment these records were available to the minister and he became personally responsible for the state of affairs in the Department of Customs. It may be that the minister did not personally peruse these reports for two weeks' or for a month, but that does not relieve him of responsibility for the condition of the department.


Georges Henri Boivin: The question was not one
in regard to responsibility but in regard to personal knowledge. I made the statement quite distinctly in my speech the other night, and I make it now, that although I was appointed Minister of Customs on September 5 last I did not come to Ottawa regularly

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
and did not take charge of my department until the first day of November and that during that time my colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) was Acting Minister of Customs. The question of knowledge I therefore absolutely deny. As to responsibility, I am only too glad to take responsibility for anything done by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) explained clearly enough, I think, that he made a distinction between personal knowledge and political responsibility.


Georges Henri Boivin: I accept that.


John Arthur Clark: I think that the minister's
statement just now is only another evidence, not only of the inefficiency of his department but of the manner in which he is presiding over it. I suggest to him that from the very moment of his taking office he should, rather than attempt to shirk any responsibility, seek and even claim responsibility for what is being done in his department.


Georges Henri Boivin: Exactly What I said a
moment ago.


John Arthur Clark: I would go even further.
I suggest-aye, I charge-that every member of this government knew officially and personally-


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Knew what?


John Arthur Clark: I will come to that; the
Minister of Agriculture will not have to wait long.


William Richard Motherwell: I have been waiting a long while to hear something.


John Arthur Clark: If the Minister of Agriculture would only take his eye off that paper he is reading and pay some attention to what is going on he would hear what is being said. I charge that the Minister of Agriculture, along with the others-


William Richard Motherwell: Sure.


John Arthur Clark: -knew of these charges that were recounted by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) from the first day of December. At least they knew personally of them then and they knew officially of them ten months ago.


William Richard Motherwell: What charges?


John Arthur Clark: The charges in relation to
the condition of the port of Montreal.


William Richard Motherwell: I accept responsibility.


John Arthur Clark: If the Minister of Agriculture had been paying attention to conditions in the port of Montreal during the last ten months he would not have to ask what charges I refer to. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre sent his resolution in and the Minister of Customs admitted that it was in the hands of the government on the first day of December 1925. And with full knowledge of these charges in the possession of every member of the government, the government has the effrontery now to come to parliament and suggest that parliament should adjourn for six weeks, burying these charges. So long as the members of the House of Commons knew nothing about the matter they were not going to pay any attention to it. But when the charges are made the Minister of Customs rises in his place and with an air of sanctity says, "Oh I knew about this condition; I knew all about it, but the resolution of the member for Vancouver Centre does not go far enough and I was going to enlarge upon it an any case." I suggest that the Minister of Customs prepared that amendment while the member for Vancouver Centre was speaking.


Georges Henri Boivin: Once again I ask that the hon. member conform to the rules and respect the statements made by hon. members of this House. I declared that my amendment had been prepared long before I knew that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre intended bringing the matter before the House on his present amendment. I ask that my statement be accepted.


John Arthur Clark: I accept the word of the
Minister of Customs absolutely, and I am glad that he has put the matter that way. Now let me ask him this question:	If that
amendment was prepared long ago, why did not the minister on the opening day, knowing the seriousness. of these charges, come to parliament and make a statement?


William Richard Motherwell: We do not want
any more Gus Porter charges.


Georges Henri Boivin: Do you want an answer?


John Arthur Clark: I will ask a few more questions and the minister can answer them when he speaks.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have already spoken to the amendment and am unable to reply to the questions the hon. gentleman is now asking without the unanimous consent of the House.


John Arthur Clark: I do object to speeches intervening in my remarks. Why, I ask, did not the Minister of Customs on the opening day of the session, if he had an amendment

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
prepared and considered that the motion of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre was not wide enough, come to parliament with a substantive motion of his own and present it for discussion? In his proposed amendment lhe suggests that the situation is so serious as to call for the appointment of a parliamentary committee forthwith. But he was quite content to withhold that amendment while we dispersed and took a six weeks' rest; more than that, he was content to wait not only that six weeks but perhaps for months until the hon. member for Vancouver Centre might have an opportunity of getting his resolution discussed on a private members' day.


Georges Henri Boivin: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


John Arthur Clark: Delighted.


Georges Henri Boivin: Will the hon. member tell
me how an amendment can be moved to a motion before the motion is presented?


John Arthur Clark: I am not talking about
amendments; I am suggesting that the minister had a way of dealing with the matter. In case it has#not sunk in, 'let me repeat that the minister could have come to parliament and. made a statement. Your Honour ruled just the other day that the ministry has the right to make statements to parliament at the opening of any sitting, and the minister could have done it any day since the opening. The government could have placed on the order paper a substantive motion dealing with .the matter and could have had it discussed. But this was not done, and the only inference hon. members on this side can draw is that it was the intention of the minister to withhold any investigation by a parliamentary committee and to withhold the facts from the country.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) is going to do about this. I am sorry that the whole committee of parliament has been absent during the afternoon-the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and the member for Brandon. Now I see one member of that committee taking his seat. It is a great hardship for those of us who wish to have our remarks given serious consideration to find ourselves addressing the House without any member of the committee of parliament in his seat. We have in this chamber only the members of His Majesty's loyal opposition- and rubber stamps.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I rise to a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I object to such language being applied to any member of this House. It is not parliamentary. I think if the hon. member is looking for rubber stamps he might find the ink and the box on his own side.


Hewitt Bostock: In common parlance we
say, "So-and-so is nothing but a rubber stamp", meaning that he is a dummy. I do not find the term unparliamentary.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Speaker, do I understand your ruling to mean that certain members of parliament are rubber stamps or dummies?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I only ask for an explanation of the ruling.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I say that the
expression is not unparliamentary.


John Arthur Clark: I thank you, Mr. Speaker,
for elaborating and defining more clearly the appellation which I employed, and which, Sir, I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Customs and Excise was not applied to members of parliament generally but only to those on his own side of the House. The member for Labelle described them as voters for the principles and policies enunciated by that newly constituted committee of parliament-himself, the member for Brandon and the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Since the recent igeneral election things have changed very materially in the Dominion. During the campaign the Prime Minister announced to the country that there were four great issues before the electors-transportation, immigration, fiscal policy and Senate reform. Since the newly constituted committee of parliament has taken office we find these are no longer the great national issues. We find the member for Brandon dictating to this House that instead of considering the transportation problem, we are to vote money to build the Hudson Bay railway; we find the member for Winnipeg North Centre saying that instead of having an immigration policy or attempting to find work for our unemployed, we shall have a policy of doles; we find the member for Brandon also saying that instead of considering any fiscal policy we shall devote our attention to rural credits; and again we find the member for Winnipeg North Centre-realizing I suppose that by his conduct in this House he has lost the confidence *f his electors and "will not much longer retain his seat-we find him dictating to the



Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
Prime Minister that Senate reform shall be abandoned and instead thereof that we shall consider a policy of old age pensions. Thus is he making sure of his own future.
Now, Sir, possibly the absence of the member for Brandon is accounted for by the fact that, realizing there is not going to be an adjournment until March 15 in which to 5 pan. prepare his legislation, he is now occupying his time in preparing a measure for rural credits. I think the silence of the Minister of Justice on Tuesday is amply accounted for by the fact that he had no valid reason to give for the proposed adjournment, and that the member for Brandon when he rose to attempt to justify the proposal lost his nerve; he could not face the House and give the real reason. Let me give it now: He desired the adjournment in order that he might prepare the legislation that is to be submitted to parliament this session. Whether it was fear of an investigation into the charges made by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre or whether the proposal was put forward to enable the Progressive leader to prepare his legislation, I want to point out to the hon. gentleman and to his supporters the seriousness of the situation now confronting the House and the country. During the past, few weeks we have had in this House the clearest confession of impotency, the most unequivocal1 and pitiable confession that this government is incapable of submitting to parliament one piece of constructive legislation for the good of the country; in a word, the gentlemen now occupying the treasury benches have confessed that they cannot carry on as a government. We have had presented to parliament charges of the %most serious nature, the like of which has not been know in our parliamentary history. Yet in the face of all that this government asks my friends the Progressives to vote for delay, to vote time for two or three of its supporters to seek seats in this House. I suggest to the members of the Progressive party that the country will not tolerate an adjournment of this House, it will not tolerate any tampering with the interests of the Dominion at this critical juncture. This situation is fraught with serious consequences, and I suggest to my hon. friends of the Progressive party that they will be sounding their own death knell and that of their party should they align themselves with a government which attempts to delay the investigation of charges as serious as those now before this House. I warn them that the call sounded by this government to-day is the last desperate call for help from tMr. J. A. Clark.]
a shipwrecked government to my hon. friends of the Progressive party.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Jol'iette):	Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this debate has degenerated into mere stump speeches and political propaganda. On the one hand we have the opposition saying, 'We want to do business; get to business," and on the other we have here anything but business. I have listened to the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland); he was out of order all the time, and hon. members know it well. I rose to a point of order and Mr. Speaker gave the hon. member the benefit of the doubt. That was a good ruling, but we know the hon. gentleman was, strictly speaking, out of order. The hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) was also out of order most of the time.
What is the question before the House? 1 will try to confine myself strictly to that question in my remarks. The question is, whether this House should adjourn for a certain period of time, as indicated in the motion and is the amendment to that motion sufficient to prevent this House from granting that adjournment? That is the question. We will examine first of all the motion to adjourn, and then the merits of the amendment. The amendment says:
This House having been called in session at the instance of the present government, and a number of legislative and other proposals submitted for its consideration by said government in the form of a Speech from the Throne, it is the duty of the House, should the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne be adopted, to proceed with the public business until same is disposed of.
Now, Sir, can you imagine anything more contrary to logic than the position taken by the opposition? They have been saying for one month that this government does not exist. They have used every adjective in the English language against the government, and now they claim that after the Speech from the Throne is voted-if it is voted by the House-the government has all power and should proceed with the business of parliament. And not only do they say they should proceed, but that it is the duty of the government to proceed with business and that they have no right to ask for adjournment. I say that not only has the government the right to ask for an adjournment, but that right has already been recognized by parliament. Much more will it be recognized when the vote on the Address is taken, if this vote is favourable.
What have we had? In the first instance we had a government convening parliament and asking whether or not this government should carry on the affairs of the country.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
What, was the result of that question? Parliament, the supreme master of the situation, answered yes; answered that the government should have convened parliament, should have remained in office and should have submitted their case to the House. That being so, the government presented to parliament the Speech from the Throne and asked that it be discussed. Then what occurred? The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) proposed an amendment to the Speech from the Throne which, if carried would have defeated the Speech, having the same effect as a morion of non-confidence. What was the result? A vote was taken on that amendment and again parliament declared that the government-should 'carry on, that it should remain in office, notwithstanding the fact that our friends on the other side rise one after another and call upon the government to resign, as against the wish expressed by parliament itself. But we have more than that. This motion to adjourn will only take effect if and when the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne is voted by parliament. What will it mean? If the Address is voted by parliament it will mean that the House, by the third vote within a month, will be calling upon this government to carry on and conduct the affairs of the country. Then, the government having received a mandate from parliament on three different occasions within a month, will anyone say that it is not justified in carrying on? Not only is it justified in so doing, but it is its duty to carry on. What is the situation? When the first vote was taken, this House by a majority of three declared that the government should remain in office. When the second vote was taken there was a majority of ten, again expressing the wishes of the House. When a third vote is taken and a third majority given-because we expect it to come out that way, or otherwise the motion has no object -the House will have declared for the third time that the government must remain in office. Then it is for the government to organize and carry on the affairs of the country. I say that when the first vote was taken this government received an implicit right to organize its cabinet and fill in the gaps. Surely it is no argument to come befoie parliament and say to the government "You have lost nine ministers, and therefore you cannot cany on." Parliament is seized with the situation and parliament must decide as to whether or not this government, which has gone to the country and been returned as it has been returned, should continue in office


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Hon. members on the other side are laughing; perhaps they will not laugh after this. We have been hearing for a month that the government was ramshackle; that it was dis-crea.ted; that it was depleted; that it was shattered, and that it was dilapidated. Some hon. members have gone to the limit of saying not only that the government was dead but that the bones of that part of it which is left were bleaching.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Assuming this to
be true

and it is not right, it is not proper, it is supremely unjust to the government to use such expressions-what have we got? We have the supreme power in this country, the parliament of Canada, declaring that it would rather have a ramshackle, decimated, depleted, shattered and dilapidated government to govern the Dominion than have the Tory party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friends
opposite may laugh but that is the consequence, it is the inevitable consequence, of the judgment of parliament. There is nothing to laugh at.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If there is a joke
it is on hon. gentlemen opposite. It is easy to find epithets in the dictionary but it is dangerous to use them. When hon. gentlemen opposite apply such epithets to the government, they place themselves in a very dangerous position. In view of the fact that parliament has, notwithstanding all the circumstances, decided to give its confidence to the present government, such epithets only recoil on the heads of those who utter them.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: Does my hon. friend consider that the hon. member for Labelte (Mr. Bourassa), sitting on that side, was justified in saying that the government was a crippled government? That is one of the epithets my hon. friend left out.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Even supposing the hon. member for Labelle did say-and we will assume that he did so for the sake of argument-that this is a crippled government, yet confronted with a choice between a crippled government and a Tory government his position was "I would rather support the crippled government."

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Mr. HOCKEN:: That is not news.


Jean-Joseph Denis: That is the unescapa'ble position. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite vie with each other in hurling invectives at this government, and employing terms which will only re-act on themselves.


Ernest Lapointe: They do not see it.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Hon. gentlemen
opposite say, "What a humiliating position for any government." Let me employ the same argument again:	The present government in
that humiliating position is more satisfactory to the majority of members here than a Tory government would be. As we know all things go by comparison, and if the present government, with its weaknesses, its shortcomings, depleted as it is, is preferred to the Tory party it must be because the reputation of that party has sunk very greatly in recent years, and the position of the Tory party is far more humiliating than is the position of the government.


Mr. BURY:: May not the position of the hon. member for Labelle be this, that he thinks he can do more with a crippled party than with a robust one?


Jean-Joseph Denis: The distinction is a little fine so I will permit the hon. gentleman to find an answer himself. Moreover, I am not the spokesman for the hon. member for Labelle. What he means exactly I do not know, and I have no right to attempt to interpret his meaning. He has made his statement, it is on Hansard, and that is all there is to it.
I say that the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) is first of all an admission that this government will be able to carry on, should carry on, and will have the duty of carrying on immediately the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne has been adopted. This is perfectly clear, but with the task of carrying on is associated the duty of reorganizing. This duty of reorganizing has existed ever since parliament was convened.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I would prefer that the hon. gentleman would not do so until I have finished my sentence. As I was about to say, the task of reorganizing existed immediately after the election. Would the government have acted as they have done had they been so anxious to remain in power as hon. gentlemen have alleged so many times? Had the government wanted to retain office, irrespective of the opinion of parliament, they

could have reorganized and come back. But that would not alter the situation. They would be the same government with the same number of members behind them, namely about one hundred. They would not be any stronger, and by so doing they would have undertaken themselves to render judgment, whereas that responsibility devolved upon parliament. Now that judgment has been rendered, now that parliament has declared that the government must carry on, there is an implied command, an obligation on their part, to reorganize, take the time necessary to do so, return to parliament, and continue to administer public affairs as long as they receive the support of parliament.


George Brecken Nicholson: If, as the hon. member has stated, parliament has declared its perfect satisfaction with this government, and its perfect confidence in the ability of the government to carry on, why is it asked to abdicate its functions and go back home for six weeks?


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough):: There has been no abdication by parliament.


Jean-Joseph Denis: When this judgment was rendered by parliament the conditions were known by parliament. All those members who voted for the government knew that the government could not carry on without going again to the country and having certain of their ministers elected.


George Brecken Nicholson: May I ask one more
question? Has any member of the government stated to parliament that they could not carry on, or that they were unable to function as a government?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I would answer
my hon. friend in this way: Is it in the interest of the country that the government should be represented here only by one-half or two-thirds of the ministers? Rather is it in the interest of the country that the government should carry on as it is going to do, as parliament rightly or wrongly has decided it should do, and it must in order to organize have its ministers elected. This cannot be done during a session of parliament.
It will be said that this is something extraordinary, something which has never happened before. But parliament has been adjourned before. Let us suppose however that the situation is an exceptional one, and that parliament has never before adjourned in order to secure the election of ministers,, is it not also true that never in the history of this country has there been a situation such as exists to-day? It is an exceptional situation

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
which has to be met by exceptional means, and parliament has decided that it should be so. Surely parliament has not decided that the government should be carried on by two-thirds of the ministry. Parliament having decided what the proper course should be the government is now seeking to give effect to that decision.
So much for the first part of the amendment. In the second part of the amendment it is stated that the adjournment cannot be granted because there is to be an inquiry into the Customs department. That is the trouble. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in a great speech tries to demonstrate to this House how perfectly unjust it would be to leave this matter in abeyance for six weeks when it should be dealt with immediately. He says that the committee must be appointed at once, and that no adjournment shall take place until the committee is appointed, and the investigation proceeded with. What is the answer of the government? The government answers, through the Minister of Customs, "Not only will we grant you this inquiry, but we will go much further than you ask us to go and give you the most complete investigation; the committee will proceed, not to deal with a period of two years but with a period of twenty years if you like." That is the declaration of the Minister of Customs, and he invites the opposition to co-operate with him and investigate. Having received no answer, he rose again on Wednesday and asked to be permitted to make a declaration to the House. He said: "I declare to the House once more that I am ready, and the government is ready, to appoint that committee". What is the opposition doing? Instead of consenting to the appointment of the committee they continue to make speeches. I have no objection to that, but it is absolutely out of order, because what is sought by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is not a verdict against the government at this stage. Surely his speech was not delivered with the object of having a debate on it? Yet we are having that debate. Is such a course logical, is it practical or is it just? Whyi are we having this debate? For political propaganda, and for that purpose only. The procedure is well known. The hon. member makes a charge and asks that a committee be appointed and the government answers and says, "We agree and we will make it even better than you have asked for". With all due consideration and respect, what business have members on the other side of the House to rise in their places and bring charge
after charge against the government, precisely on this great issue upon which the opposition is asking that a committee be appointed to enquire into the conditions of the Customs department?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Does the hon. member not think it is highly important in the public interest that that committee should get to work at once and that there should be no recess or adjournment for six weeks in the interim?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is to prevent them sitting?


Jean-Joseph Denis: The Minister of Customs on two successive days stated in this House, "I am ready, let us appoint a committee". What more do you want?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the hon. member not know that negotiations are proceeding between the Minister of Customs and the leader of the opposition as to the appointment of that committee?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am very glad to hear that. It makes the position of my hon. friends very much worse. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) is a clever lawyer and will understand it. While negotiations are under way they want a tribunal appointed. This committee will be a tribunal to try the case and hon. members on the other side of the House are guilty of the impropriety of rendering judgment before the case has been submitted to the tribunal. That is exactly the situation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the hon. member not understand that all these considerations he is mentioning would constitute an objection to the adjournment of the House and an argument for proceeding at once with the investigation of the charges?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Not by any means, and I will tell the hon. member why. The committee can be appointed, and with the consent of the House can function during the adjournment. I have too much respect for the knowledge of my hon. friend to think that he does not know that. He knows it perfectly well. The committee can be appointed, and with the consent of the House they can sit all through the adjournment until we meet again. Therefore it is not correct to say that if we adjourn the House the committee cannot function. The statement of the Minister of Customs was "This committee will have the right to hear witnesses, send for papers and documents, to move from place to place," and so on. It
75S

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
will have very wide powers and it can exercise those powers during the adjournment. Is that a reason why we should not adjourn?
Coming back to the other point, I say that the opposition is guilty of a great impropriety in calling for a tribunal, which tribunal must decide the case, and before that tribunal is appointed, rising in this House and continuing the attack against the government in the same way as might be done if the committee had heard the evidence and reported. There will be a proper time for the attacks, if there are to be any attacks, and a time for the government to defend themselves, and that time will be after the committee has reported to this! House. The committee will inquire into the charges, make a report to this House, and on the motion to adopt or reject the report every member of this House will have the right to make a speech, and that will be the opportune time to discuss the question. Whatever is being said in the meantime is political propaganda.


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member has Stated that the committee is to function during the recess of parliament.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If parliament adjourns.


George Brecken Nicholson: If the House adjourns and the committee holds its sessions, the members of parliament are scattered all over the country. Suppose the committee in its investigation, within one week or ten days or so after it has begun to function, discovers something that parliament should immediately deal with, what are we going to do?


Jean-Joseph Denis: That will not occur.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Pure imagination.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The committee will be appointed to deal with this question and the committee functions outside of parliament and independent of parliament until it reports to parliament.
I have abstained from giving advice to my colleagues and I am not going to advise them now, but if we want to discuss questions frankly, honestly and intelligently, let us follow those rules which were enacted long, long ago-those rules which have given justice at all times and in all parliaments to both the plaintiff and the defendant, to both the government and the opposition. Let us proceed regularly. Let us have this committee appointed. Let us have this committee function. Let U3 have this committee report to parliament, and when the time comes after the

report has been made, let us discuss that report of the committee. So much for the amendment. If we leave that aside, if we take into consideration the fact that what is Sought in the amendment was granted immediately by the government, I ask: Is there any purpose in that amendment except to block the business of this House? I am afraid unfortunately that is what is going on now. Therefore, my humble opinion is that if hon. members on the other side of the House are serious, sincere, they should accept the proposition of the government to appoint a committee, let the committee function, and follow the wish of parliament by letting the government organize. Then we shall come back to parliament and dispose of these matters.


Mr. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to address to the House some remarks which, I hope, will be very brief upon this amendment. One would hardly have the hardihood to do so after what has fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis), if it were not for the fact, as he, or, at leapt, his leaders must know, that the terms of this investigation are now under consideration, and if decided or completed, I do not think I would very long occupy the time of the House. I hope I shall not repeat what has already been said in this debate. I am unalterably opposed to a six weeks' holiday. I adopt all the arguments that have been advanced on this side, and I say frankly that I cannot conceive any reason that concerns this country, why this House should take a holiday.
I wish to make some remarks concerning the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) and his speech on Tuesday last. I frankly admire the minister. I think the strategy of his deliverance on the non-confidence motion, saved the Liberal party from defeat. I was asked by a Quebec member what I thought of his speech on Tuesday night. I said that I thought it was the best apology that could be made in the circumstances, and I believe so still. The minister is a learned counsel, and I have no doubt he has often given the advice to men who have sought it, that when they are caught with the goods, they should make a clean breast of it. So, we find that when the minister was caught with the goods, he pulled out of his pocket a resolution which he had prepared dealing with the whole question, and in order to make a cleaner breast of it, he tells us that he is going to offer us something which is wider and better than was asked for in our own resolution. I congratulate the minister on being so beforehand with the work of his department. He told us this afternoon that

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
he was slow to get started, but he is certainly one of those "stretch" runners, so that when it comes to the last lap, he can make up a great deal of time. He expected and, no doubt, still expects that this adjournment will be approved by the House. We find that although he did not, upon his own confession, undertake the responsibility and work attached to a minister in his department when he was appointed, yet, as he tells us this afternoon, a long time ago he prepared the resolution which he offered us on Tuesday. I want to question the frankness of this offer. We find, when we propose a remedy for the situation, that the minister has all ready, cut and dried, and prepared, a resolution. Would it not have been proper, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) suggested, that the government, realizing the necessity for this investigation, should have acted immediately this parliament assembled? Could this not have been put in the Speech from the Throne? The minister admits that frauds have been committed on the customs and that criminal infractions of the law have taken place. So does the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). So does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who says that he knew what was going on, and if it matters, so does the Prime Minister. We have one member of the government who says that our desire for an investigation is a mere bluff. Not only was that said once, but it was referred to the second time. We have this situation, that the resolution which has been proposed by the minister was not given to the House until it was dragged from him, and, therefore, I question its good faith. Within my experience I knew of a confidential clerk who was embezzling money and whose plan was to take a sum of money out of the vault and then to write out his cheque for the amount with some little interest added. One hundred dollars would be taken and a cheque for $105 put in his pocket, so that if there was detection, he could say: "Oh, I only borrowed this money. Here is a cheque with interest for the amount that I have taken." When we are actually imperilled in this country over customs frauds and we desire that the government or so-called government should act, and when we raise the question, we are told by the minister that he has had the matter under consideration for a long time and here is a resolution that he proposes to move when the matter comes up. Do hon. members think the country will be satisfied with the bona tides of the government in pressing an investigation of these very frauds which they knew of for months and months? I submit not.
The situation may be tested in another way. We have urged: Why was this duty not undertaken by the government sooner? Then, comes the opposite: Why this delay? The motion for the six weeks' adjournment came after the resolution calling for this investigation into customs frauds had been placed on the order paper, but they were willing to delay the investigation for at least six weeks longer, because it could not have been dealt with until the House reassembled after the proposed holiday. There is another evidence of the unwillingness of the government and its dilatoriness to act in this matter when we consider the attitude of the minister. Many a murderer before he has been hanged has expressed as his last wish: "Let me know who was it that squealed on me?" After the bars have clanged behind many a prisoner, his chief ' desire in life is to know who squealed on him. And we find the minister rising in his place and telling the House how anxious he is for an investigation and giving us a committee of nine members instead of seven. There is the interest on the cheque, and then he says to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, "But who did tell you? Was it Mr. A. or Mr. B.? Did you arrive at Montreal with Mr. C, or was it from Mr. D that you got. the information?" Why was the minister so very keen to ascertain the source of the information received by our party when he avers that he is so very anxious to carry out a proper investigation? The minister referred to the Duncan report; and what does he tell us about it? How keen the man must have been, who had the attitude of the minister towards the Duncan report, to hold an inquiry because, as he says, he desires a clean administration. The Duncan report was put in his pocket, where the resolution came from, and then he felt it was not safe in his pocket and he put it in a safe, as he tells us, with a combination lock on it. And then he is deeply concerned to know, did Duncan tell anything that led you to ask for the inquiry? Is that the attitude of a minister of the government who wants a fair, honest, thorough-paced inquiry into these gross custom frauds?
The minister also declared to us what his policy was with his department. He said, "When an official is accused I suspend; when he is found guilty I dismiss; when he is found not guilty I restore." Loud cheers from those sitting around him. Mr. Speaker, I submit that this minister who desires a clean administration had some other duty to perform. When guilt is established, not only should dismissal follow, but if the official has transgressed the laws of this land, if he has brought himself subject to an information,
760	COMMONS
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
it is the minister's duty to see that that information is laid; and when he suspends an official who, he has reason and probable cause to believe, has been a criminal against the laws of this country it is his duty not to stop at suspension but to put that criminal in a place where he is safe against his trial and where he cannot make away with the evidence against him. Did the minister do that in the case of Bisaillon? He says he read the report and that the charges against the man were grave and serious; he uses both words. Then what does he do? He puts the report in the safe, where it was until the time he spoke on Tuesday. He takes no action against Bisaillon, although the occasion for action was so grave that, as he says, he immediately dictated the memorandum for council to net upon. And when he finds out that this report was so grave, which demanded instant action, part of which he took, he leaves the report in the safe. He is concerned over it, but no action whatever is taken against Bisaillon except dismissal, nor is any action taken against anyone who may be involved in that report.
I submit that it was the duty of the Minister of Customs to have an information laid immediately against Bisaillon if he knew of any infraction by him of the criminal law. That report, as the minister avers, he has read, and I venture to think-I know nothing, I am only surmising-that it involves others. And if that report involves others who have transgressed the law of this land and the Minister of Customs has taken no action against either Bisaillon or other parties referred to therein, >1 want to tell the minister, as I tell the House, that this country will hold him personally responsible, because he has connived at criminals against the law of Canada and allowed them to go unwhipped of justice. I submit that we as members of parliament have a right to see this Duncan report; I submit that it should be laid on the table of the House. Oh, but someone may say that if you lay a report of that kind on the table the criminals will get away. Does anyone mean to tell me that after what has taken place in the House these criminals have not already got on the move and that the evidence Which would convict them is not being spirited away? I say that no harm but only benefit can result from that report being laid on the table of the House and the criminal law being put in motion against those who have offended. Why has the minister delayed thus long? The government will never end these terrific assaults on our customs until action is taken against the perpetrators, and I am sure it is the wish of the 
House that every measure be taken by the government to bring these criminals to justice. tNo excuse will be listened to. There is no use saying that someone is involved, it does not matter whether he 'be Tory or Liberal; the law of the land is committed to the charge of the ministers and if they fail in their duty the people will hold them to account.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you call it six o'clock.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I beg to table the third volume of the Auditor General's report for the year ending [March 31, 1925.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Is this a case of the last being first?


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon. member withholding his consent?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to have the report. I was merely asking whether this was a case of the last being first. When will the other volumes come?


James Alexander Robb: I have no information at
present.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: At six o'dock, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the Duncan report, the minister's treatment of Bisaillon, and his treatment of the report itself. That report, the minister says, should have been known to no one but Duncan who made it and to himself who received it, and that the import of it was so great that he took immediate action. He says that he is not a friend of Bisaillon, that that man's interests are .not the minister's. One would gather from what he says so emphatically that if any action was to be taken against Bisaillon the minister was quite prepared to take it. The question naturally arises:	If frauds have 'been committed, why was action not taken? If the minister the very day that lhe received the report communicated its essentials to council, and council dismissed Bisaillon, then there must have been in that report convincing evidence of a crime by Bisaillon against the country.
Were others involved? Naturally the inference is that they were. If not, why the

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
secrecy with regard to the report? Why could it not have been, kept even in the pocket of the minister, why did it have to be put in a safe under a combination lock? I serve notice now on the minister-and I regret that he is not in his seat-that if the report contains evidence of offences committed against the country by Bisaillon or others, and the Minister of Customs and Excise and the Minister of Justice, whose duty it was, failed to take action, then they and the government will be held responsible in public opinion.
And why delay? Is there any other reason than that it is well known that the best advocate any defendant can possibly have is delay? This is an old adage familiar to every lawyer. The inference is plain, I submit-and until the report is produced I will assert it-that the minister and the government are protecting somebody. When I speak of the significance of delay, think of the situation that is obvious to everybody from what the minister said on Tuesday last-and, Sir, it drew applause from hon. gentlemen opposite. At page 707 of Hansard will be found this utterance by the minister:
There are two other charges referring to Mr. Giroux and Mr. Gaunt. Let me tell my hon. friend that if at the parliamentary inquiry that the government is willing to hold, any charges are laid which will involve Mr. Giroux and Mr. Gaunt in any wrongdoing for which they can be prosecuted before the courts of this land, the Minister of Customs will take the responsibility of prosecuting them and doing everything he can to place them behind prison bars.
This is splendid notice to give Mr. Giroux and Mr. Gaunt. Surely the minister is a man of intelligence-of course he is. Surely he is capable either of deciding himself or taking advice whether these men have committed crimes against the country. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this committee is to be set up-and I believe it will be-and if opportunity is to be given to the criminals to flee the land, then the government will be held responsible by the people. The member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) said this afternoon: Oh, the delay need not trouble us very much because the committee can sit during the adjournment of the House. I would not refer to this statement if it had not brought applause from hon. gentlemen across the way. That committee must sit while this House is in session; there is no doubt about that. All that any witness would have to do, as I understand it, would be to decline to answer a question before that committee, and then it would be a matter for the House to compel him. And with the House not sitting, what could be done? No one knows that better than the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis), who has had a long experience in this House.
On the question of delay, I want the public to be shocked with what developed on Tuesday evening, when it was intimated to this House that in one case to which His Majesty the King was a party fifty-two remands took place, while in another case there were thirty-nine. If ministers, I do not care who they [DOT]be, think that they are discharging their duty to this country when the course of justice is interfered' with, as, I submit, is evident in cases such as these, then the public want to know it, and the public will visit just ret ,tribution.
The 'hon. member for Joliette spoke also, of political propaganda and expressed the opinion that the actions on this side of the .House were taken with that in view. I would not refer to this matter but for the fact that the statement met with applause on the pther side. I can assure the hon. member that that is not so. I can tell him that where d come from, in the province of Ontario there is no need whatever for political propaganda, (and the last thing that would drive every vestige of Mackenzie King Liberalism out of that province would be the adoption of this [DOT]motion for a six weeks' adjournment. That js all that would be necessary to kill and ibury all the Grits, to use the expression employed by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) the other night, in .the vicinity of Toronto. We have been told that they are either dead or buried, and certainly they would all be buried' if this six weeks' adjournment were granted at this period in the country's history.
If tbfis government is sincere, therefore, I ask for action in the interests of the people, of Canada. I ask first of all that those be prosecuted whom the government knows to, be guilty. If the government does not know that anyone is guilty then it should confess it; but if it knows that someone is guilty it should not wait until the finding of this committee. I ask in the second place that this .committee be set up at once and that it be ,asked to act immediately, without any delay whatever. The offences are so grave and the interests of the country are so affected that .immediate, instant, vigorous action is demanded. I do wish that the minister would .act. It was not difficult for him to pull a resolution out of his pocket when this matter *came before the House; I really wish he .would pull out of his pocket a warrant and let us see some action taken. I know that from my own city a deputation came to interview the minister or the government with regard to this matter some time ago. I understand that the sessions were in camera; I

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
do not know what took place. I was assured however that there bad developed such a situation that immediate vigorous action on the part of the government was imperative. That was some five or six months ago, although [DOT]I cannot be accurate in the matter of dates. ,1 ask, further, that this motion seeking an /adjournment of six weeks be withdrawn. It iis important that the House should1 be in session, and I have referred to that point (before. This investigation cannot go on unless the House is sitting. It may be said that the withdrawal of the resolution would be ,a confession of weakness on the part of the government; it would be yielding in the game :of politics to the other side. But I submit that when the interests of the country demand that the resolution be withdrawn it should be withdrawn. It might be that we would claim that we had induced the government to take that step. Well, they have been induced before to do other things which they did not want to do, and1 there are few matters of importance in which the government could better serve the country than by withdrawing this motion for an adjournment. On that point I have concluded; it affects, I submit, ,the honour and the interests of Canada.
There is another matter with which I feel compelled to deal; it touches the personal honour of the members of this House and has already been referred to. But I wish to put it in the way it occurs to me. Frankly, I cannot see how I could ever get into that frame of mind in which I could vote myself an indemnity and a holiday at the same time. My constituency, which has returned me by a substantial majority, is long-suffering and willing to put up with a great deal. But if I went back and told the people there that I had voted my salary and voted myself a holiday at the same time I should expect them to leave me. Let me tell hon. members that I know the province of Ontario and I know what the state of feeling there is. And knowing all that, I can assure hon. members who represent Middlesex, Bruce, Huron and Lamb-ton that the intelligent farmers of those districts will find it very difficult to support a member who in this House, in the exigency in which this country finds itself at the present time, votes himself his salary and a holiday at the same time. Let us suppose-and it is not improbable-that Mackenzie King should say at the end of six weeks that he could not form a government and should decline to carry on. That is well within the range of probability. Then what position would any hon. member be in if, in addition to his salary, he had voted himself a holiday in 
which he had done no work? Would he return a portion of that indemnity to the country? How many members would do so? The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss MacPhail) has held exalted views on this question of a member's relationship to his indemnity. I do not know what action she would take, but it would no doubt be favourable to the country. But the picture of some other members of this House returning the unearned portion of their indemnity is somewhat remote. What is an indemnity? It is an outlay to recompense one for the expense to which one has been put. But what expense shall we incur in conducting the affairs of the country if we take this money and vote ourselves a holiday of six weeks? I wish someone would explain the point; I wish the Progressives would. They might say, "We are looking to the Hudson Bay railway; we have received a promise of that." Please do not grasp at a shadow. If it is not right to take the indemnity it is not right to take it in the expectation of having the Hudson Bay railway built, especially when the promise of that railway comes from a quarter where other promises have been made of which so few, oh so very few, have been fulfilled.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. gentlemen not to make true those gibing predictions of the public press with which we are all familiar, that no honest vote deciding the affairs of this country would be taken until the members of this House were sure of their indemnities. I hope, Mr. Speaker, it can be said that we take the measures as they come up on their merits, without regard to any inducement to vote which may be held out in the future and without regard to any other purpose than the discharge by each member of his duty to the country and to his constituents as he sees it.


Mr. RAYMOND MORAND (East Essex) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, allow me, at the outset of my remarks, to convey the pleasure that I feel in being able to give expression to my admiration for the urbanity, impartiality and the dignity of which you have given proof in the high office you occupy. I am especially glad to be able to do so, in the language which is familiar to both of us, my mother tongue, as first French Canadian representative of the few French Canadians inhabiting the shores of the Detroit river.
Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion and to the amendment, it is only fair that I should say why I propose to object and to register my vote against the adjournment of this House for six weeks. I propose to do So because I believe my constituents

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
demand it of me. I shall do so because my constituents have given me and have given to the country a clear manifestation that they have no confidence in this government. That being so, in what plight should I be if I returned to the constituency of East Essex and said that by not registering my objection I had made it easier for the government, which my constituents have entirely discredited, to reorganize and to carry on? The government have very definitely said that they are unable to form their ministry without this recess. That to my mind is a clear manifestation of the fact that they are unable to govern. Since the election on October 29 they have had every opportunity to prepare a legislative programme and to choose the men who should compose the ministry; and they have insisted that they were able to function as a government. And yet they now come and ask for a six weeks' recess; they now acknowledge that they cannot function. Why? If they had asked hon. gentlemen on this side they would have known it from the very beginning.
It is only fair that I should state why 1 believe my constituents have no faith in the government. I should start by saying that I represent a riding which from its very constitution should have returned a supporter of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, a riding which is intensely Liberal, a riding which contains both urban and rural populations, a riding in which is to be found every nationality, every group, and every colour, possibly there is in Canada with the exception of the Eskimos

yes, a riding which has within its confines to-day representatives of practically every constituency in Canada; a riding situated just across the river from the city of Detroit, at the very gateway through which hundreds and thousands of Canadian citizens have found their way into the United States. My constituents have witnessed that. They have witnessed with their own eyes the difference between the Canadian prosperity, as alleged in the Speech from the Throne, and the prosperity that has been secured in the United States by years of protection. That constituency is the same which sent to this House men like the late Hon. R. S. Sutherland, who graced the chair, and the late Hon. Mr. Kennedy, Minister of Railways; the county that provided- a haven for the Hon. George P. Graham, the ex-Minister of Railways,-in short an intensely Liberal riding. And yet that county saw fit to send to this House three supporters of the right hon. leader of the opposition. The people of
East Essex did not do that as a favour to me; they did it because they felt the government was discredited. Situated as we are, just opposite the city of Detroit, a manufacturing centre, we have seen for the last four years in our community shops and factories close. We have enough closed factories today to give employment to five thousand men, and we daily see five thousand of our people crossing to Detroit to get work. Furthermore, our people daily see truckloads and railway cars of manufactured goods crossing from the United States, goods turned out by American workmen, goods coming over here to take the place of Canadian products that should be manufactured in the shops that are closed. We have seen one factory after another close its doors, and we have not witnessed, with possibly one exception, a single factory established in the city of Windsor within the last five years. Further than that our people see eveiy day load upon load of magazines, newspapers and various other articles brought over from the city of Detroit, consisting of yards of advertising material free of any duty. These publications are dumped throughout Canada, teaching our people to use American goods, and teaching them through a medium the Canadian manufacturer cannot use, because it is impossible for our small manufacturers and even some of our large ones to take a page for advertising purposes in one of the large American magazines. I have a clipping from a newspaper containing the report of a speech delivered a few days ago. In the Saturday Evening Post Frederick Good says that one page alone costs $7,500 per issue. What chance have our small manufacturers to buy a page in that magazine when they have only .the market of Canada, while the United States manufacturers have a market in the whole of the United States, with Canada thrown in as well?


Mr. MORIN:: Does the hon. member know that Canada's unfavourable balance of trade in relation to the United States has been reduced in the last few years instead of increased?


An hon. MEMBER:: Nobody knows that.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: If the hon. member
wishes to know what the conditions are, I shall be glad to take care of him and show him the conditions if he comes down to my constituency. Part of my constituency is rural. Hon. members Have to read, but my constituents see with their own eyes the statements in the press in regard to the loads upon loads of agricultural produce from the United

7l>4
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
States thajt come in and flood our market. This .produce is brought in to satiate the appetites of our own consumers long before agricultural products of a similar character in my own constituency are brought in to market. In my constituency they can grow anything that is grown in any part Of the world, with the exception of the tropical specialties that we have to get from outside. But because these agricultural products can be brought into Canada under the low tariff, or no tariff at all, they flood our market. I heard an hon. member say the other day that although the price was high the people who wanted to buy those early products should get them. They were selling strawberries in Windsor four or five weeks before our strawberries came in at a lower price than our peoiple should get for their own strawberries at the time they are put on the market. When we travel the streets of Windsor, Walkerville or Ford City we see in the Stores American apples, plums and berries, in fact any of those garden products that they grow in the United States, and which we should have produced ourselves.
I do not propose to cover all the effects that the tariff has upon my constituency. It would take too long, and I hope some time later on to address the House on that question specifically. But I wish to say^that my constituency is not only industrial but partly rural; therefore I am as much a representative of the farmer as our friends in the group who sit around me. I will say further, that the men who grow agricultural products in " Ontario, especially in the peninsula surrounding my constituency, have not the protection that the wheat growers of the west have. The wheat growers of the west have a natural protection because of the type of agricultural product with which they deal. The wheat which they produce has practically a monopoly of the Canadian market, and a large quantity of it goes to the American and European markets, because of its high quality:	I refer to their hard wheat. It is
not on account of any particular thing done by our farmers, not on account of any particular attention which they give to the growing of that wheat, but on account of the type of land and the climate in which it is grown, which make it such a superior article that they are able to hold their own market, whilst the farmers of Ontario have to meet the competition of similar articles in their market; therefore they have a right to protection.
My people have shown absolutely that they have no confidence in the government; in an intensely Liberal county they sent three [Mr. Morand.i
Conservative representatives. They have watched day by day the young people of Canada going to the United States. I have seen from my own office window twenty-five, thirty and as many as thirty-five people waiting at the American consul's office to get the necessary papers to enable them to go to the United States. I never knew until three years ago what it was to have people waiting in my office to get certificates of health to go into the United States. And what kind of people are these men Who are leaving Canada? The very best of our people, especially the sons of farmers. Yet while all this has been happening this government has been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring farmers from, Europe. I maintain, Sir, that the idea of bringing farmers from Great Britain is working against a natural law. It is always easy to get immigrants from a country where there is a surplus of the type we are trying to get, but in Great Britain, the farmers are the class they themselves need, so that we have to spend large sums of money to bring them here. On the other hand we find that many Canadian farmers' sons who have been raised upon the land, members of large families occupying farms from which the timber has been taken off, find themselves at the age of twenty or twenty-one forced to leave the farm and go to the cities, sometimes in Canada but too often in the United States. I maintain that if the government had taken that fact into consideration they would have made some arrangement Whereby they would spend on the placing of the sons of our own farmers upon the farms *of the west an amount equal to that which they now spend to secure farmers from the Old Country. The type of population it would' be easy to get here, the type of immigration it would be very easy to secure, is the type we would be able to get if our industrial activities were as they should be. If our factories were humming, if there was work for our own workmen, all you would have to d'o would be to open the door and myriads of those men in Europe would be only too glad1 to come here.
Now, Sir, I maintain that I have no right,, representing a constituency the people of which have so definitely stated that they did not want this government, that they wanted1 no more'of it-I have no right to support this motion, which is nothing m-ore than an idea put forward by a party with broken-down principles. I maintain that had they resigned, as they should have done after the election, my right hon. leader would not have' waited six months to form a government; his government would have been formed long agoi

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry .
The Prime Minister at Richmond Hill said that he could not carry on; that he could not do the work he should do; that he could not grapple with the large problems which were confronting the country, unless he had a straight majority in the House; yet he now comes back and has to rely upon an aggregation of groups with chameleon-like proclivities. I say, therefore, that he is not in a position to conduct the business of the country.
This is the first opportunity I have had of speaking in this House, and I am going to take just a few minutes of the time of the House to say a word or two as regards the admiration and fealty that I have for my leader. His ability, integrity, earnestness and work have no better confirmation than the determined attacks by his political enemies, no better confirmation than the fact that the election has been fought in most places not upon the issues of the day but upon the personality of the leader of my party. I maintain that if he had been in charge he would have said: "Ready" long ago. He would have been prepared to go on.
An lion. MEMBER: Ready, aye ready.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I hear some hon. members say "ready, aye, ready." The phrase seems to come very easily to the lips of our friends across the floor. Apparently, it is because they used it so often during the last compaign that they know it and know it well. But since they have brought up this subject, I am going to say something about "ready, aye, ready." Being of a somewhat curious turn of mind I looked this up. I wanted to see where and how it was used, and much to my surprise, looking through Hansard, I found that other public men before my leader had used the term "ready, aye, ready." Just for the satisfaction of the House I am prepared, as I expected that somebody might mention the phrase, to read a statement by Sir Wilfrid Laurier which appears in Hansard of August 19, 1914., page 10. This is what he said:
It will be seen by the world that Canada, a daughter of old England, intends to stand by her in this great conflict. When the call comes our answer goes at once, it goes in the classical language of the British answer to the call to duty: "Heady, aye, ready."
No wonder hon. members across the way know the words well. They have, 1 suppose, been practising them since that time. Ready, aye, ready,, without qualification, on a straight question of helping England in time of war; but my leader said, "ready, aye, ready" in his Toronto speech, which I have heard mentioned many a time since I have been sitting here during the last three weeks. He said
"ready, aye, ready," but let me read how he said it. I am not going to read the entire extract, as it is too long, but I will read a part of it. He said:
There is no suggestion at all that we should send armed forces across the sea. Britain merely sought a declaration of solidarity on the part of the Dominions, the existence of which the war itself demonstrated once and for all. Let there be no dispute as to where I stand. When Britain's message came then Canada should have said: "Ready, aye, ready; we stand by you.". ... By that course we do not bring the country nearer war. We take the best step in our power to ensure that war shall not come.
I believe hon. gentlemen across the floor who have used the phrase "ready, aye, ready" so often, did not know this. There will be no excuse for them now,, and any time they want to find it I shall be only too glad to show it to them.
We have heard a great deal during the last few weeks about the supremacy of parliament, how everything must be decided by parliament. After coming across the rather curious instance in which these words "ready, aye, ready" had been used, I delved a little deeper and found this: On page 2403 of Hansard of .Tune 18, 1917, I find these words again of that wonderful chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
What I propose is that we should have a referendum and a consultation of the people upon this question-
Speaking in regard to the question of conscription.
I have taken the referendum. . . . When the consultation with the people has been had, when the verdict has been pronounced, I pledge my word, my reputation, that to the verdict, such as it is, every man will submit.
He went further: He moved this amendment to the second reading of the bill that had been proposed by Sir Robert Borden:
The further consideration of this bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Yet the same people who *are applauding on the other side are ready at all times to cast up to my hon. leader his Hamilton speech. Be consistent, please. Not *only did Sir Wilfrid Laurier propose that .amendment, but the leader of the present government in the House not only supported it, but spoke on it. Again to-day the hon. gentleman referred to my hon. leader and his Hamilton speech. In the division that [DOT]followed the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier to which I refer, we find the names of three or four of the present members of [DOT]the government and quite a number of hon. members who now sit behind them. I do not
766	COMMONS
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
.propose to place on the pages of Hansard the numerous distortions that have 'been given to ,my leader's words. But I say I know him; I have admiration for him, and my admiration is born not of any political expediency but of acquaintance with him, and of a study of his public career. The time is not far distant when that study will have gone further, when it will be widely distributed throughout the whole Dominion of Canada and the cry that he take hold of the reins of government will be so increased, not only from the province of Ontario, not only from the Maritimes, but even from the province of Quebec, that this government will be compelled to resign.
I believe this government never intended to implement with legislation the Speech from the Throne. I was rather interested to pick up a newspaper, Le Droit, which I am sure my hon. friends opposite will not accuse of being a Conservative paper. Le Droit, speaking of the platform of this young man who has had the audacity to oppose the Right ,Hon. Mackenzie King, makes these comments. I will have to translate them literally.
Mr. Burgess is independent of political parties, which compose the actual House of Commons. If he is independent of parties he is not independent of the caprices of the west. In effect here are his points of programme; the building of the Hudson Bay railway, which is a detriment to the central provinces and the provinces of the Maritimes.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will my hon. friend
eay that the Hudson Bay railway would be a detriment to the eastern provinces, when it [DOT]has been approved by both parties in this House?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I am reading from a
Liberal newspaper, which I believe shows the direction in which the wind is blowing.
Construction of the Turtleford branch line,- I
I do not know where that is, but it is some railway in the west.

when already our national railways are much too extensive for our population; reduction of the duties on automobiles, which will encourage their importation and be a detriment to Canadian industry.
I think that is sufficient to show the real reason why the government do not want the House to be sitting when the by-elections are going on. They know very well that these by-elections-they will not all be held in the west-.will bring up many things which will have a tendency to alienate the affections of the members of the Progressive group.


Mr. RINFRET:: If my hon. friend will
allow me, Le Droit is not a Liberal paper.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will my hon. friend say whether or not Le Canada is a Liberal paper?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Le Droit is not a Liberal paper.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: If the hon. member for
St. James (Mr. Rinfret) will tell me of one Conservative candidate Le Droit 'has ever supported, I will retract the words.


Mr. CAHILL:: With the permission of the hon. gentleman I would like to tell him that Le Droit opposed me in the last election, and I am sitting on the government side of the House.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I did not say there were
not a few Liberal members, possibly, that even Le Droit could not support.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to take up any more of the time of the House.


Mr. POULIOT (Temiscouata) (Translation.):: Mr. Speaker, it affords me great pleasure to associate myself with the hon. members who have already spoken, in sincerely congratulate ing you on your re-election to the Speakership of this House. I have also another agreeable duty to perform as representative of the county of Temiscouata, it is to heartily extend my congratulations to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who was born in Temiscouata and does us great honour. I have known for a long time the hon. acting premier and I am bound to say that he has always proved himself equal to the task devolving upon him. I really believe that he has an important mission to fulfil. I met a person, to-day, who is outside the realm of politics, and he confided to me that the Minister of Justice had but only one fault: that of not having any. In fact, our leader, the leader of the Liberal party, the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, had a happy inspiration when he chose Mr. Lapointe to guide, during his absence from the House, the destinies of the party.
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Truly, it pleased me to hear him compliment his leader. It must ease the mind of the right hon. leader of the opposition in respect to all the intrigues which are imputed to those who surround him. I am sorry that the hon. member was not given the opportunity of making such an eloquent speech when he went to the county of Bagot; for it appears that he was there; however, he was not given the opportunity of addressing the electors of Said county; it is even said that had he spoken, it would in no way have altered the result.
We are debating, Sir, ait the present moment, a motion introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) This mo-

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
lion deals with the Department of Customs and Excise. I was somewhat astonished to note that the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Mbrand) bad not a word to slay on this matter. His speech touched on various Other questions, but not a word was said as regards the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Neither was a word uttered about the motion to adj oum the House; only a passing allusion was made. I heard a member on the opposition side make the remark that the House bad been called "for the despatch of business". This phrase, so to speak, is a ritual form which has been in use ever since Jonfedenation for the assembling of parliament. A number of notices appear in the Official Gazette of Canada in connection with the meeting of parliament; however, when the members meet in session each year, it is, according to the notice sent to them, for the despatch of business. Now, this year, what was the purport of this despatch of business? It was simply to assemble so as to ascertain Who was to govern the country. This was the only business for which parliament was called. The hon. members of the opposition taunt the government for not having prepared their programme; for being after all late in preparing the measures which will be brought down in the House. This is, Sir, quite natural; the government coulcl not possibly foresee what would happen. There were three parties facing each other. None of them had any clear cut majority. Our hon. friends on your left, Sir, had no clear cut majority; neither did we, on this side of the House, have an absolute majority. Why? Because the country had decided that the one group of members1 who are independent, should equally take their seats in this House. Naturally, this is a departure from the old traditions. It is not the same thing as in past years. In those days there were but two parties facing one another. It is most probable that if the Progressives had not existed, the votes which were cast in their favour would have gone to the Liberal party; and, this being the case, the Liberal party would have bad a clear cut majority.	This is a Supposition;
however, parliament had to be called, in order that the House Of Commons should decide who bad an absolute majority. What is the use1 of complaining? Is it not better to accept the 'accomplished fact and make the best of it.
Here is a House of Commons where there exists, really, a considerable opposition; on the other hand there are on the benches, on the government side, a large number of members who support the ministry and twenty-five to thirty independent members; whether
they are called Progressives, Labourites or Independents, the name matters little. It i3 the support of those parties which gives to the Liberals an absolute majority allowing them to govern. At present, this government, the one acknowledging the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King as its leader, has the support of a great number of independents, which give it an absolute majority in the House. Immediately following the general elections of October 29, last, this question arose: What is going to happen? Shall the right hon. leader of the opposition assume power or shall the right hon. Prime Minister retain the control of affairs? What is it going to	be?
What did happen, is that the Prime Minister followed the only course which was open to him; there was but one thing to do, that is to call parliament; to convene all the members of this Dominion, every one, regardless of their political allegiance, so as to submit to them the government's policy and then ask them to whom they wished to entrust their confidence. This was done and the government obtained a majority on each' vote cast up to this day. Now that the government has the assurance that the House of Commons-which represents the people's will-confirms its authority, it behooves the government to use this authority to prepare measures in the interest of the country at large, so as to ably administer our affairs.
In the present circumstances, the government's task is somewhat more difficult, be cause parties are divided and the majority is not a large one, however, I think it is necessary that we should have an adjournment so as to allow the government now that it knows that it has the confidence of the House-this no one can deny-to carry out the policy outlined in the Speech from the Throne. The opportunity will be furnished us to discuss this programme in due course.
It is quite difficult to understand why so many members, on the opposition side, charge the government with obstructing the business of the House, when they themselves, keep on repeating the same arguments and are largely responsible for the slow despatch of business. Those who complain the most of this motion of adjournment are, often, those who are most persistent in protracting the debate. I think they are responsible for the loss of a precious time in the House by making speeches which for the most part are not pertinent to the subject matter.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House much longer. May I be allowed, however, to point out one fact



'768 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
a short while ago, I heard a member, on the opposition side, speak of the propaganda that a party could be guilty of. In my opinion, I must confess that I have seldom seen such a shameful propaganda as that which consists in stating at length, all the charges made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre without mentioning one word of the reply so well to the point which was given by the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin). I think this is absolutely unfair, for I believe that the part played by a journalist must consist not only in publishing as accurately as possible, the speeches of his political friends, but also in giving fair play to everybody, and publishing to a large ejxtent the speeches delivered 'by both sides-even those contributed by the three parties-so that his readers may know exactly how the matter stands.
While on the subject-this may be a digression-allow me to tell you, Sir, that I was very much shocked to read in the newspapers that a number of members were receiving anonymous letters. It has created quite a stir. This reminds me of what took place in the course of my own electoral campaign, in 1924. My opponents were apt to exhibit anonymous letters of which they bitterly complained, these, however, were written by themselves, so as to draw the electors' sympathy. I do not wish to insinuate that it is the members of the opposition who write to themselves these anonymous letters; however, what I wish to convey is that there may exist an organization among their friends who address to them these kind of letters so as to win over to their side public sympathy. And this seems the more plausible as these anonymous letters have no bearing on the questions at present being debated in the House.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to make a few comments on the way the electoral campaign was carried on in my county. First, no one was willing to come out openly as the candidate of my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition. Our opponents were stating:	"We are as independent of
Meighen as of King." Those were their own words. Moreover, they discussed my right hon. friend's policy in respect to the export of pulpwood, the tariff on farming implements, protection, and, in the same breath, they set forth the policy of the leader of the Liberal party. Our opponents would answer me:	"You speak the whole time of
King, King, King, Meighen, Meighen, Meighen! Why have such regard for your leaders? It is just as well to have but two

leaders, one for each party-one naturally forgot to speak about the Progressives-let each party have but one leader and both will come to an understanding together so as to discuss the questions which will be brought up."
Furthermore, when Mr. Patenaude appeared in my county, in my native town, Riviere-du Loup, a friend of mine put to him a very legitimate question, a question that we have a right to ask of any person who makes a speech in public during a political com-paign:	"Who is your leader"? and do you
know what was his answer? Immediately, two powerful policemen came up and put him out. We had no right to know who was the leader of Mr. Patenaude. It was only after fourteen joint meetings that I finally had my opponent admit that my right hon. friend was the recognized leader of the Conservative party, the Tory party, and that he was his leader. Fourteen joint meetings were necessary to have him admit it, however, he admitted it so clearly that time, that he was unable to deny it at other meetings which we both held. A very odd campaign was carried on in my county! I asked my opponent:	Will you tell us what was the
vote that I cast and which you blame me for? I had sat but in one session of the House, and I was anxious to find out his views on my attitude in the House. My opponents answered me:	"There is but one
thing that we censure you for, it is for having voted1 in favour of a pension to Mr. Fielding." Why? Has not Mr. Fielding faithfully served his country? "Certainly, but he voted in favour of conscription." I was reproached for having cast a vote in favour of a pension to Mr. Fielding-when this pension was unanimously voted to him by the House-because he was charged with having cast his vote in favour of conscription. This, Sir, is the kind of campaign which was carried on in my county. I wish to make these few remarks to strengthen what my excellent friend for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) stated the other day in regard to the kind of campaign carried on in the province of Quebec.
The people of Quebec would fain know the why and wherefore of things. When they saw Mr. Patenaude travelling from parish to parish, from county to county in a special train, they wondered who was paying for all this. That is very natural. They knew that Mr. Patenaude was a lawyer with a good practice, who, however, had not the means to pay for a special train travelling from one county to another during the whole

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
course of an electoral campaign. They naturally wondered: who was paying for all this? They never found out. Mr. Patenaude never divulged it, nevertheless we have a right to have' our suspicions.
Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to tell the members of the opposition why the Tory party will not for a long time to come have any luck in the province of Quebec. It has nothing to do with conscription. Our people are not shirkers or cowards, they are fully aware that our country is Canada, that it is bounded by two oceans. It is our native land, we are attached to it. No one in our province would hesitate to defend our country, Canada, if it were attacked. More than that, our people are well disposed towards England. However, on the other hand they have a horror of coercion-not of conscription, of coercion-they like to be looked1 upon as free men not as slaves. That is the first reason. The second is that our people will not forget for a long time the loathsome campaign which was carried on against the province of Quebec, in 1917. They may reproach the Liberal party with whatever they please, but never has it stooped so low as the Unionist party in order to attack a whole race and to endeavour to rouse the whole country against a province. I see the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) in his seat, he is an expert as regards precedents. Never will he ever find in the parliamentary history of any country a single case where a political party, anxious to stick to power, has endeavoured to rouse part of the country against the other. There is no excuse whatever for such a campaign. I was recently reading a series of publications which were broadcast not by an individual, not by a lonely candidate, but by the committee of publicity of the Unionist party and by the Citizens' Committee of Publicity. And what do we find in those invectives against the province of Quebec? These circulars appeared during three weeks previous to the general election which took place on Dec. 17, 1917. Each day there was an insult and an expectoration flung in the face of Quebec by every Tory newspaper of the country, and all this was paid for from the funds of the committee of publicity of the Unionist party. I think it was a disgrace. The province of Quebec cannot forget these things because it knows that the Unionist party was but a mask for the Tory party and that those who were at the head' of that party were true Tories who had no hesitation in trying to rouse the prejudices of citizens of the English language of this country against the province of Que-14011-49
bee. I had the opportunity of glancing over the Toronto newspapers and those of certain other cities, on election day, December 17, 1917. Read for instance, the Mail and Empire and you will find that on that date it published an appeal wherein it is stated:
Quebec shall not rule Canada. A United Ontario can only defeat them.
This, Sir, was not merely signed by the committee of publicity of the Unionist party, this appeal was also signed by the Unionist candidates of the city of Toronto. Not only did the Unionist party endorse the responsibility of this insult, I would even add. of this seditious libel against the province of Quebec, but furthermore, there were members, candidates of the Unionist party who shouldered * the responsibility of this insult against the province of Quebec; what are worth these bonne entente pilgrimages after such insults? Had not the Unionist party vilified and insulted Quebec, in 1017;, there would be no need, to-day, of bonne entente pilgrimages, organized by the Eaton firm in order to sell their goods in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the H°use any further. I had no intention, this evening, of discoursing at length, however, I wanted to express the true feelings of the people of the county which I have the honour to represent in this House. I extend an invitation to the members of the opposition to visit my county. It will afford me much pleasure to introduce to them the good people of the county of Temiscouata, I shall be happy to have them meet our folks at home. I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition on the praiseworthy efforts he has made in order to learn our language. It is a great compliment to the French language. Let the members of the opposition come to my county, in that part of the county which skirts the shores of the St. Lawrence river, let them come below Quebec, and I shall be delighted to introduce them to the good people at home, with these words: "Evidently, you could not have known the people of Quebec, when you so grossly insulted them, in 1917."
Mr. Speaker, we have already had, in Canada, a Prime Minister who was a herald in radio matters. I am speaking of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden. When he said that he was listening to the voice of Toronto, he was speaking in the province of Ontario; while the present leader of the opposition speaks to the province of Quebec from Hamilton. The right hon. leader of the opposition was well advised in coming afterwards to the county of Bagot. He met upright people who
[Stage Direction]


Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
listened to him courteously. Let him come to my county and I can assure him of a reception just as cordial; he will, however, make no more converts. Every time that a prominent member of the opposition will visit the province of Quebec to play the well known "record'' O Rose-Marie I love you, I am always dreaming of you. The answer will be found on the reverse of the "record:" All alone.
The Liberal party, in Quebec, is not only assured of winning the 61 seats that we at present hold; but at the next general elections, to the great disappointment of the right hon. leader of the opposition, we shall give him proof that those of his friends who were elected under the patronage of Mr. Pate-naude will not be given another opportunity of being re-elected.
Mr. LESLIE G. BELL (Stj lAntoine): I wish, Sir, to congratulate you on the high honour which has been conferred upon you by this House. Being a native son of the good province of Quebec, I was indeed charmed that for this, the fifteenth parliament, you should be the unanimous choice as Speaker of this chamber. I must state, however, that I deem it a great loss to the House that it should be deprived of your eloquence, which on many occasions has swayed its deliberations, and I trust that you will again participate in our debates in a future parliament, although undoubtedly you discharge the high office of Speaker so ably and so impartially as to command the admiration of all parties.
It was not my intention to take part in this debate, but after listening to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) for upwards of two hours the other evening while he told the House of the crimes that were being perpetrated and the corruption practised almost in our very midst, in the very city of Montreal which some members, myself included, have the honour to represent, I decided to speak. The hon. member recited to us crimes of murder, smuggling, bootlegging and drug-peddling, and estimated that these gangsters, these criminals who were defying the laws, Were costing the country upwards of $31,000,000 a year. I would indeed be lax in my duty if I allowed such a speech to pass without comment. I come from the good city of Montreal-at least I presumed it was a good city until I heard the member for Vancouver Centre-and I feel that my fellow citizens in particular and the people of the Dominion in general owe a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. member for the pains that he took in gathering particulars of these sordid, gruesome crimes, 
and shameless corruption, and for the courage he displayed in rising in his seat and relating in such a masterly way what was being permitted to be carried on in that city.
Before taking up, Sir, the main points of my remarks, I would like to refer to one other matter. What I have alluded to was not the most amazing part of the speech to which we listened the other evening. We saw minister after minister rise in his place and say " I am not the guilty one. I am innocent. I know nothing about it." This, Sir, was indeed amazing. It is particularly astonishing to me as a young member of this House, because I read a portion of the debates last year and learned from them that it was then admitted that smuggling had been going on in this country for the past year. And yet, Sir, the ministers rise in their places and state that they know nothing about it. The minister most gifted in squirming out of the difficulty was the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin), and I intend to devote the remainder of my remarks to some parts of the speech he made in the House the other evening.
The Minister of Customs started his speech in defence of his department and of the government by referring to courtesy in debate. That is always an applicable and almost time-honoured plea of any week-kneed government. Courtesy and mercy are the last pleas of a condemned man going to hi3 fate, and in this case they were very applicable, Sir, because we are about to witness the spectacle of a government going to its fate through enraged public opinion -enraged, Sir, because apart from being law-abiding citizens we are burdened with taxes. On the eve of paying one of our numerous burdensome taxes, namely, the income tax, the citizens of this country are confronted with an exposure of frauds on the part of the Customs department alone totalling millions of dollars, far exceeding the amount realized annually from the income tax.
The second point raised by the hon. minister was the fact that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) had moved the adjournment of the debate because he had just made a rip-roaring speech for consumption in Prince Albert and did not want anyone to reply to it. This is strange reasoning in view of the fact that the Conservative party has placed no candidate in the field in opposition to Mr. King. We are looking for the speedy return of Mr. King. We have been courteous, kind and generous, we realize that the government is in dire need of

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
its bulwarks. They look in vain for consolation to the wide-open front doors, which have so far failed to disclose the majestic presence of their wandering leader.
The third plea of the Minister of Customs was that he was a new minister, having really had only three months' experience in his department, the files of which were not before him. He was, according to his statement, unprepared. Yet, Sir, when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre mentioned the disappearance o"f the filing cabinets from the offices of the department, the hon. minister had at his finger-tips information as to what these filing cabinets were: that they were boxes packed by certain employees, private correspondence of the late minister of the department. He even went further, to make sure that no blame could be attached to him and to show the efficiency of the late minister; he said that whenever he had reason to send to his predecessor for any correspondence the letter in reply was on his desk within forty-eight hours. That, Sir, he gave as proof of the efficiency both of the department and of the late minister whom the hon. gentleman succeeded. Then there was the question of the sale of some alcohol, and although the minister said he was taken by surprise he also had at his finger-tips all the necessary information regarding that 14,000 gallons of alcohol. He had the reason why it was sold for 36 cents a gallon. Thirty-four cents was offered with no bids; 35 cents was offered with no bids, but when it came to 36 cents the minister in a flash said " Sold." If it had not been sold they would have dumped it in the St. Lawrence river. That, Sir, is efficiency for you. The Minister of Customs, then by some mysterious process of reasoning, by some method of looking into the future, prepared a resolution which he was only waiting to place before the House, and he almost beat the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to it.
But I return, Sir, to the question of youth. Is this a reasonable defense before the bar of public opinion? Let us examine the facts, because I want to be fair. The young minister takes over this most important portfolio. He is immediately confronted with and obtains a wide knowledge of these frauds. Was it not the minister's duty, upon making the discovery, immediately to report the facts to a full meeting of the cabinet council and demand the co-operation and support of his colleagues in a full and complete investigation having for its object the suppression of this illegal traffic, the meting out of severe punishment to the criminals, and the saving to the country of millions of dollars? That, Sir, in 14011-491
my opinion was plainly his first and foremost duty. Was this course followed? The evidence does not support that conclusion.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, on Tuesday night I saw minister after minister rise and deny all knowledge of the astounding charges levelled at them by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Not only did they strenuously deny them,, but two or more wore smiles of satisfaction as the hon. member, to use his own words, "eliminated them from the ambit of his charges." The young Minister of Customs even looked to the experienced Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), aptly described as "a fiend for punishment," but he received no sympathy from that source. The Minister of Agriculture had long before deserted him in his hour of need and declared, "This is the first I have heard of it." Now, Sir, was the hon. Minister of Customs justified in keeping these facts from the knowledge of his colleagues? I submit that the vigorous house-cleaning urged upon the new Minister of Customs, as he stated to this House, by his political friends in Montreal, demanded that this situation be cleared up with the least possible delay. It remained for the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to force the government's hand, although the government should have been the first to act.
The hon. member in his plea asked the following question, as reported at page 705 of Hansard:
But I ask my hon. friend, is he going to hold this government responsible for those misdeeds-
The misdeeds of the Customs department which he was made acquainted with by his political friends of Montreal.
-especially when they were not brought to the attention of the government?
# Is not the hon. minister inconsistent? In one breath he states they were brought to his attention by his political friends; in the next that they were not brought to the attention of the government at all. Sir, I have in my hand a speech by the retiring president of the Board of Trade in Montreal, and I quote the following passage from it as reported in the Montreal Star of January 27, 1926:
The passage by parliament of amendments to the Customs Act providing heavy fines and imprisonment without power of remission for the offense of smuggling, or of keeping or selling goods unlawfully imported, encouraged manufacturers and merchants throughout the country to feel that the unfair and unlawful competition from which they had so long suffered would entirely disappear. Unfortunately smuggling operations are still being extensively carried on, and it is hoped that very definite and aggressive action will soon be taken by the government to properly make use of the power given them by parliament to stop this nefarious practice that has been so harmful to the legitimate trade of the country.
[Stage Direction]
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
This, Sir, is a passage from the speech of Mr. Dawson, who during the preceding year had been president of the Montreal Board of Trade. The government were apprised that smuggling was going on, but the ministers knew nothing about it, and as to the Minister of Customs, it was all new to him. He stated that he had not received any intimation of it, and that he was new in the department. He pleaded youth, he pleaded the fact that he had only just taken over the office.
Sir, is this a correct summary of the situation? Were not the ministers acquainted with these facts? H they have legislated on the subject have they not failed, as they have done in the case of other legislation, to meet the demands of the people of this country? I do not wish to be unkind, but I can refer the Minister of Customs to the debates of last session. Not only that, but after the Minister of Customs had spoken the leader of this government the Minister of Justice rose in his seat the following day and said he was very proud of the fact that the government had passed this anti-smuggling law last year. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre gave notice of his motion on December [DOT]5. The hon. Minister of Customs, according to his own statement, to be found at page 703 of Hansard, took charge of the department on November 1. On November 15 *he started a puerile investigation. In this investigation Mr. Duncan-known as an 'excellent public servant, we all agree as to that-was pitted against the most powerful criminal organization this country has ever known, a band of organized thugs, whose operations had resulted in losses to the country described by the Prime Minister last session as follows:
'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.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who by his splendid and enlightening speech in this chamber showed that he was well informed, estimates that the above figures should be supplemented by an additional figure of $200,000,000, representing goods smuggled into the country without the payment of duty, a defrauding of the exchequer of this country to an amount in excess of $30,000,000 annually. This is the bitter pill of the inefficiency of the Customs department that we are asked to swallow; sugar-coated, I will admit-at least it would have been sugar-coated if we had followed the suggestion of the Minister of Customs-but once bitten in two its odour is that only of corruption and 
graft. Perhaps, Sir, on second thought I have wrongly described it. It is what might be termed a sugar-coated Rip Van Winkle anaesthetic. Hon. members will remember that Rip Van Winkle retired to the Catskills, and after twenty years came back to his home town, only to find that none of his friends recognized him. I refer to the portion of the resolution as proposed by the Minister of [DOT] Customs, which says:
That the said committee should be empowered to secure the attendance of all persons and* examine all departmental files, records, documents and other papers that may be required to determine the methods employed and the procedure followed in dealing with all infractions of the customs laws for the past twenty years.
The twenty years having reference to the Rip Van Winkle part of the programme, ff we followed the suggestion of the Minister of Customs, and if this committee of parliament delved into t'he records of the Customs department for the last twenty years they would undoubtedly return to parliament, after completing their labours, and would find none of the members of this parliament here to recognize them. Sir, that is not the kind of committee we want. First of all we want a committee appointed at once-not in a few days, not in a few weeks, not in a few months, but immediately. Secondly, we want a representative committee, one with members who are not afraid of Mr. Bisaillon. or some of his friends, and might I add, possibly some of the friends of the government. Hon. members will remember that the Minister of Customs told us that when one of his friends wanted to bring Mr. Bisaillon to meet him he stated that he had no intention of ever meeting Mr. Bisaillon. I cannot for the life of me see what harm there could have been in meeting Mr. Bisaillon. I should think if I were minister in charge of a department I would want to know what my trusted employees were doing, and further, Sir, if they were not doing the right thing I would be the first to meet them and find out why they were not attending to their duties.
Thirdly, we want this parliament to keep pn sitting in order that this committee can get all the help that it requires. We do not want the committee, nor do we want ministers, to be carrying on long distance telephone conversations with Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, or any other part of this country. We want them here, and we want them to be in close touch with this committee to answer many questions that will come within the orbit of the committee's power. It is practically impossible for them to carry on otherwise. Hon. members of the government know it is

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
*impossible to draft a resolution which will not require this committee to be reporting to parliament from the time it is appointed. We might as well face the fact, Sir, that these crooks or gangsters will employ the best legal counsel obtainable and will pay the price. Every reason will be offered for delay; they iwi'll press their point on every occasion; every little technicality within the purview of that committee or from the resolution appointing it will be held up to light, and they will say, "You have not the power, it is not within the scope of your power." This parliament should not be adjourned for that one reason; this committee should meet at all times, next week or the following week or any other week, to investigate the sordid condition of affairs which certainly has been shown to exist, so that we can immediately take the necessary steps in the matter and give the commission what we should give them, the utmost support.
Are these three requests unreasonable? Is this fraud on the country no concern of the people? Are we as its representatives to be as helpless as the present government? Can we give our constituents the excuses which the present government have adopted, the same kind of unison chorus which they have been giving those of us in the opposition for the past few days? Can we go to our constituents and say, "We know nothing about it; we deny everything. We were just going to do such and such a thing, we had it under consideration. We are not ready; give us time. This is a big surprise." The new Minister of Customs is new to his department and knows it not; but the old Minister of Customs is an honourable man. Brutus was an honourable man but he murdered Caesar. Possibly the late Minister of Customs will be the Brutus of the present government. The hon. member for Northwest Toronto (Mr. Church) remarked the other day, "Beware the Ides of March." The government say in desperation, "It is not our fault; it is all the fault of the Civil Service Commission for promoting Bisaillon." Then they plead with us. They say "We are generous, we are kind, we are helpless, we are courteous. Be as generous, be as kind." That, Sir, is the pleading of the hon. minister opposite. Our answer is, were Bisaillon and his gang or the gangs of crooks kind? Were the smugglers kind to the business men of this country? Were the bootleggers, the grafters and the murderers kind to the taxpayers and the decent citizens of this country? When were these men courteous, kind and generous? When, further, did kindness enter into the
argument to save criminals? It may be the new policy of the Minister of Customs to investigate and dismiss. Did it ever occur to him that it is also his duty to punish, to prosecute, to uphold the criminal laws of the country, and to bend every effort to put those dangerous crooks, those debauchers of the exchequer, those liquor smugglers, those silk thieves and drug hounds behind prison bars? Does the Minister of Customs not realize that even as a new minister of the crown we expect of him a full measure of responsibility and fulfilment of his duties in erasing quickly, efficiently and, as no one doubts his ability, effectively, this stain on the government, and in plugging the leak which is causing an enormous loss of revenue to this country? We ask for the removal of this stain not only upon the efficiency of the Customs department-besmirching, as it does, all the present employees of that department -but, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre remarked, the business men of the city of Montreal, one of whose constituencies I have the honour to represent. This scandal is dragging in the mire the fair name of the city of Montreal, and it is doing more: through the government's procrastination that city is harbouring within its borders these gangsters, murderers, robbers and thieves. I warn the government that immediate action must be taken to clean the city of Montreal from the cesspool of vice, crime and corruption. Otherwise, the answer to this government will be, if public opinion has not already given its answer: Get you gone; you are protecting criminals within our gates; you shall be punished for shielding, by procrastination, a den of thieves. This is not government; it is maladministration.
The only course which I see open to me as a member of this House is to vote against this motion for an adjournment. I would like to see other hon. members back up the efforts of hon. members on this side and give us every ounce of support they can in regard to the grave and disturbing charge of inefficiency levelled by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre at this government, and particularly at the Customs department. Plundering, thieving and debauchery must be ended swiftly and surely, and we must act while the criminals are within our grasp.
Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the anxiety to avoid an adjournment and to go ahead with the business of the House is, I can assure my hon. friends to my right, not confined to their ranks alone. We in this section of the House have been just as much concerned about this as they

Adjournment-Customs In quiry
have been. We have all been through an election strenuous and expensive. We have spent a great deal of valuable time that we ought to have been spending in our own business. Indeed, of the last twelve months I have been less than two at home. Is it possible for any hon. member to attend to his private business under such conditions? But in considering this question among ourselves, we arrived at the conclusion that there were practical difficulties. We appreciated the government's difficult position. The government is in a very precarious position in this House. We appreciated the fact that if they wanted to open up two or three seats and have by-elections, they were taking a great chance of being defeated in the House. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was very frank about that yesterday. He intimated, in fact, that this was really the reason and the only reason, I presume, why the government wants this adjournment. I can, of course, appreciate that, and those of us in this section of the House, .in deliberating among ourselves, thought that, in the choice of the lesser of two evils, the proper course, perhaps, was to support the adjournment. The fact of the by-elections, of course, being carried on while the House is in session would naturally interfere with the proper conduct of business in this House. There would be a tendency on the part of members on both sides to rehash the election fights here, and we thought it would 'be better for all concerned and would, in the end, facilitate business, to permit and support this adjournment.
I must, however, admit that the situation has undergone some changes during the last thirty-six hours. Whether it was just a coincidence or whether it was good tactics on the part of my hon. friends to my right, they have at any rate succeeded in tying up this adjournment with the charges that are being levelled against- the government. These charges are very serious. It was obvious to anyone in this section of the House, watching the faces of the ministers a few hours ago, how serious these charges were. During the time I have been in this House I have never before seen so grave and serious faces on the government benches as I saw that night. I appreciated the fact that the government were taking the matter seriously, and I thought they exhibited very poor tactics, very poor generalship, in forcing the vote they did on that particular occasion, because, notwithstanding the offer of the Minister of Customs which, I think, was a very magnificent one-I believe he met the situation
fMr. Campbell.]
generously and fairly; I think there could be very little criticism levelled against him on that occasion-we must consider the psychological effect of this on the country, and that was what determined my vote and the votes of some of my colleagues that night. The government has a very attractive programme before us, something that we in western Canada have been waiting for for a generation. We are very much concerned about the success of that programme, and each and all of us are naturally prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt in order to get that programme enacted into law. But I think if the government want to carry on- and it is quite obvious they do-they do not want to fly in the face of Providence very often as they did the other night. They do not want to try any of those tilts against the windmill. I think the government was unfair, not only to themselves, but to hon. gentlemen in this section of the House who want to support them, when they forced a vote on a very unimportant matter the other night, because the psychological effect on the country was to make it appear that those of us supporting the government might be attempting to assist in covering up these scandals. That might be, I say, the effect on the public mind.
The official opposition give as their reason for opposing an adjournment the importance of carrying on the business of the country. That is the only reason I have heard advanced by them, coupled, of course, with the necessity of an immediate investigation of these charges into the operations of the Department of Customs. It seems to me, in analyzing the situation-and I want to be fair to both the government and the official opposition-that we are not very far apart after all. I think there is a very practical way out of the difficulty. The Minister of Justice intimates quite frankly-and I have a good deal of sympathy for him-that the government is not in a safe position under present conditions to open up several seats and have by-elections to elect their ministers. That, I assume, is the only reason of the government for demanding this adjournment. The official opposition, as I say, give as their reason the necessity of carrying on the business of parliament so as to wind up the session at an early date, and let us get home and attend to our private business, we hope, in the early spring. I want to make a suggestion both to the government and to the official opposition. It seems to me that the Conservative party might very well agree with the government to give pairs against the vacated seats so

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
that we mkht be able to go on with the business and maintain the status quo of this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Milton Neil Campbell: Hon. gentlemen laugh. Well, I suppose that if this suggestion were adopted it would be a violation of some precedent, one of those sacred traditions that we must not touch. But really 1 think .we attach too much importance in this House to precedents. We are always talking about what happened some time in the past, and I sometimes think that if our ancestors had always based religiously upon principle, everything they did, they might still be moving around in the water like wigglors-because I accept the evolution theory. I imagine that one of the first three dwellers who introduced the innovation of moving along the ground may have been driven out of his community When he assumed an upright position, for 1 presume that he was regarded as a radical! who was breaking some precedent. We should not be too much afraid of that sort of thing. . As a (matter of fact we are continually breaking precedents, and ll see no reason why the suggestion I have just offered should not be accepted by hon. gentlemen to my right. I assume that the government has no other reason for asking for an adjournment than to ibe enabled to hold the byelections, and if they and the official opposition could agree to what I have proposed we could go on with the business of the House. There is not much that they can agree on, but in the event of their being unable to make such an arrangement they might give to the .members of this group full information as to what their programme is to be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman's suggestion might more readily be adopted if he put it the other- way. Instead of the opposition pairing with 'the government, how would it do for the government to pair with the Progressives? Has the hon. gentleman any objection to that proposal?


Milton Neil Campbell: I fail! to see any force in the suggestion. The Progressives are being accused of supporting the government all the time and there would be no advantage in pairs between government and Progressive members. However, if the government is not able to make some arrangement with the official opposition, they might lay before the members of this group their legislative programme for the six weeks-assuming that they are supported on the Address and are
installed in office-and some gentleman s agreement might be arrived at whereby the business of the House could be (carried on, and they could go ahead with their by-elections. Notwithstanding the laughter with which some hon. gentlemen greet my suggestion, I hope that they will consider it. I know that they are all active business men who have many things to attend to at home and it would foe better for all of us and for the country generally if we (could proceed with the sessional programme. If we did that we should cease to make ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the people by holding up the business of the country. In this regard I am speaking collectively, because I take a share of the responsibility to myself. And 1 say that we (are .making ourselves ridiculous. Can we not adopt some such suggestion as I have made and allow the government to go on with the by-elections and simultaneously proceed with the business of the House?


Mr. H. M. HANNESSON (Selkirk):: As I
have sat here for a month now, with a patience that has not manifested itself in other quarters, I hope I shall be pardoned for saying a few words even if they do not add very much to the discussion. As member after member has taken the opportunity in his opening remarks to extend to you, Mr. Speaker, felicitations on your re-election to the high office you occupy, it has occurred to me that the custom is a graceful one, but I have since learned to appreciate the fact that the congratulations offered were both personal and sincere. I have come to this conclusion not only from observing the patient dignity with which you discharge the duties of your office but from the kindly consideration you show to younger members of the House when they transgress or threaten to transgress the rules of the House, and the gentle firmness with which you lead them back to the path of propriety. May I also say that I am sure the younger men all' appreciate the kindly reception given them by the older members on the occasion of their maiden speeches.
But although I have been impressed with the foregoing, as well as in other ways, I hope it will not be considered presumptuous of me to observe that I have not been impressed with what this House has accomplished. After the protestations of all parties to the electorate, the emphatic declarations as to policy, the promises of performance and the resounding demands for vigour in administration and for a courageous grappling, with the problems of this country, I should have thought that the people would have a right
77G

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
to expect that when the members of this House assembled they would proceed with despatch to implement their undertakings. But the proverbial mouse brought forth by the mountain assumes heroic proportions in comparison with what we have accomplished.
We have in this House a large number of new members and I think I may safely assume that they at least embody the protest on the part of this country against the vacillation, the inactivity and the failure to deal with the pressing problems of Canada which have characterised the government of the last three or four years. There is not the slightest doubt that the country is faced with grave problems, and candidate after candidate, every member in this House I believe, took the platform some time ago and assured the people that if elected they would see to it that there would be a vigorous performance in this House of the promises they then made. If, therefore, we agree to this adjournment, in the absence of any accomplishment whatever, I say that we are making ourselves accessories to a continuation of existing conditions. Even if we had not had1 the disclosure of the grave charges which have been made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), I would still say that we had too many things of importance to attend to to think of adjourning. But the charges made by that hon. member are so grave and serious, charges in the making of which he is taking his political life in his hands if he cannot substantiate them, that I do not think this House should consider for a moment any proposal to adjourn. I do not think that there is a single member here who does not believe that those charges are correct in toto.
But what of the other problems? You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister of this country stated to the people that there were pressing and important problems which demanded immediate solution, and those on this side of the House took the same view and outlined the policy which in their opinion should be adopted to solve those problems. Now the House is assembled and the government is undertaking to carry on, presumably for the purpose of putting into effect the things which they assured the people were necessary for the future prosperity of Canada. When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) made his want of confidence motion a good many members of the Progressive party intimated their disapproval of that motion because there was something in the Speech from the Throne which, according to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) , had certain attractions. I have listened

to addresses in this House from government and from Progressive benches; I have read the Speech from the Throne carefully and tried to analyze it; and I have read those speeches which I did not hear in person. I have failed completely to discover any single reason why the Progressives should be enamoured of even those things they say the government has promised. I have seldom seen a document so evasive in its terms, a document that promised so little and yet may be said to promise so much; that can be construed in one way in one section of the country and in another way in other sections. I hope I may have the indulgence of the House while I go very briefly through this wonderful Speech from the Throne.
The first clause is a boast by the government of the wonderful prosperity that Canada is enjoying. Now, I have faith in the Dominion. I believe that not even a succession of inefficient governments can in any way permanently hamper the advancement of the country. But I say to the gentlemen who occupy the benches opposite, that for them to make the time-honoured boast that every government makes and to claim credit for national prosperity is to be guilty of the most biting irony.
They boast of the growth in our exports. Where is that growth? In agricultural products and wood pulp. Is any policy of the government responsible for that increase? There is one item in the list of exports that I think they can claim credit for-six million and a half dollars of settlers' effects. Those were the effects of our young men, leaving Canada perhaps forever. I should like to know what profit the Dominion received from that exodus. Then they speak of the growth in our imports. An analysis of the substantial items of our imports will show how ridiculous is the claim that the government is responsible for the prosperity of the country. For instance, we imported
155.000.	000 worth of coal. Already this
session we have heard of the deplorable condition of the coal miners of Nova Scotia. We could produce every single pound of the coal we imported.	Another big item is
8140.000.	000 worth of steel and steel products -the direct result of the tariff changes made by the government opposite. We have in Selkirk, the leading town in the constituency that I represent, a steel foundry and a rolling mill. I know from personal experience the detrimental effect upon the business of those two plants from the changes made in the tariff by the government last session or the session before. An hon. member on the

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
opposite side remarked during the course of
the debate that the debit balance against Canada in our trade relations with the United States was growing less. It is still between $100,000,000 and $200,000,000. What consolation can the government derive from that state of affairs? Surely it is not because the Progressives believe that this government is responsible for any growth in prosperity that they desire to continue it in office?
Now I come to immigration. Although I heard a great many speeches delivered by Progressive candidates during the recent election, I have not heard that the Progressive party as a whole is ardently in favour of an active immigration policy, nor have I heard any very strong approval from the Labour group. This is a subject that I am keenly interested in, and I hope at some future time to have an opportunity to add something to the knowledge of the House respecting immigration. This, however, I wish to say now, that although I am in favour of a vigorous immigration policy, I think the first duty of the government is to have a policy that will keep at home our native born Canadians. There is no use bringing in settlers and putting them on the land without making adequate provision to enable them to remain there. In my constituency we have two lines of railway. Twenty years ago settlers were placed along those lines by the Dominion government. I refer to the Ruthenians. They have been augmented in number by some soldier settlers-also placed there by the federal government. You know, Sir, the province of Manitoba has not control of its natural resources. The title to all land, occupied or unoccupied is vested in the Dominion. Under such conditions it is impossible to finance those districts, to provide roads, and other facilities. Any provincial organization is practically impossible, and yet the government of Canada has been putting men on those lands, but has utterly failed to make any provision for the necessary services which would enable the settlers to derive any benefit from their work. Hundreds of families have left the district because they were flooded out or could not market their crops. A few days ago I received letters from three settlers asking that I obtain from the Department of Immigration assistance in moving their effects from their farms that they can neither use nor sell. Any policy of immigration that does not give settlers a proper start in life is a failure. A policy of vigorous immigration cannot appeal to our Progressive friends.


Milton Neil Campbell: We believe in the policy the hon. member has outlined, a policy that will keep the people who are here on the land, rather than bring more people in to take the place of settlers who have moved out.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I am quite aware that some members of the Progressive party have advocated a policy that will keep the people at home, but others have expressed themselves strongly against any policy of immigration at all. I believe the members of the party from Alberta are strongly of opinion that we should not inaugurate a vigorous policy of immigration.
The Hudson Bay railway is another matter that I am greatly interested in, and I hope I shall have the opportunity of discussing it later in the session. The Speech from the Throne contains a promise for "completion forthwith" of this railway. For what purpose? There is no question that the Hudson Bay railway as originally demanded by the west was to convey to tidewater the cattle and grain of the west and develop that northern country. Northern Manitoba has as much potential wealth as northern Ontario. We have there a wooded area as extensive as that of Sweden, and of much the same kmd. Sweden realizes for her people $100,000,000 annually; we realize less than a million dollars. There is a rich development possible in the fisheries both in the bay and in the rivers. The railway is necessary for that development. At the present time it seems to me that the real purpose of the Hudson Bay railway undertaking is to convey back to Ottawa the Prime Minister of this country. I want to say to our Progressive friends that there are as many sincere supporters of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway in this quarter as will be found in any other section of the House. But we favour real construction, construction that will mean something to the west; not a comparatively small grant of a million or less that will enable only a very inadequate amount of work to be undertaken. We will fight for the completion of the Hudson -Bay railway. I am sure that the Progressives know that they have stout friends of the Hudson Bay railway in this quarter; there is no western Conservative member who is not in favour of it. Our leader has promised that when means shall be found he will complete the road; and our Progressive friends know that a promise of the right hon. leader of the opposition means something.
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

The next matter dealt with in this wonderful Speech from the Throne is rural credits. The right hon. leader of the opposition has said that he is in favour of a sensible scheme of rural credits. We have had an unfortunate experience in Manitoba with rural credits. WTe do not want any rural credit scheme that will mean further loss to the province as1 well as to the Dominion. Any scheme should be based, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, upon the land bank system and an intermediate credit board. The government has neither expounded nor explained what it intends to do in this regard, but I am sure our Progressive friends know that if the rural credit scheme is upon a sound business basis it will receive unanimous support from this side of the House. It is not and cannot be that that is what makes' them feel that this programme is so attractive.
Then we come to that subject which has been so much discussed, the tariff. I may say at the outset that I am a convinced and confirmed protectionist. In my constituency are all kinds of people; it is a cross-section of Canada, with labouring people, market gardeners, mill-workers, fishermen, farmers, dairymen, lumbermen all there. From one end of that constituency to the other I talked protection, and I think I voiced the views of Manitoba on the question of protection. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Manitoba favours protection; there is no doubt that the Labour members of this parliament know that their constituents favour protection also, I have read the clause in the Speech from the Throne touching on that subject, and from the remarks of Progressives which I have heard I do not think they have considered or read the clause as it is found in that Speech. May I take up the time of the House for a few minutes to read the salient part of that clause:
They believe that in the interest of industrial development every effort should be made to eliminate the element of uncertainty with respect to tariff changes; that changes in the tariff should be made only after the fullest examination of their bearing upon both primary and manufacturing industries and that representations requesting increase or decrease of duties should be made the subject of the most careful investigation and report by a body possessing the necessary qualifications to advise the Ministry with respect thereto.
In the light of the declarations made by
the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill, what comfort can any free trader-if there is any such animal-now take from this clause in the Speech? If it is not a direct confession that the Liberal party is now converted to the policy of protection, I do not know what it is.


Mr CAMPBELL:: May I say to my hon.
friend that as a Progressive I am not under any delusions in that respect. Those of us who have been in this House for four years recognize the fact that the two national parties are both protectionist.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I am very glad to
receive that assurance, because I am sure the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) in his own heart knows that protection is the definite and settled policy of Canada. There never will be a departure from that principle, no matter what party is in power. Although an agitation against it went on for many years, Canada will not depart from that principle, which was essential to the making of this nation of ours. When Canada became a confederated dominion the principle of protection was not then adopted, but it became the policy in 1878, and since that time although there have been departures from it that policy has remained, and it was settled in this last election if it had not been settled before.
I have tried to analyse the principal statements in that Speech from the Throne, and I ask the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) which clause is so alluring that he wants to maintain in power a government which has lost the confidence of the country, *which does not possess the confidence of this House and which has not the ability to function.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I say to my hon.
friend that if the government had depended on my vote it would not have been in power to-day. In answer to his direct question I would say that the attractive items of legislation outlined in the Speech from the Throne are those referring to the Hudson Bay railway and rural credits. I am not interested in the other niceties about the weather, the prosperity of the country and so on.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I am satisfied that
the hon. member for Mackenzie will, when he comes to consider his vote, remember that the Hudson Bay railway has been dangled before the eyes of the Progressives before and that also applies to the rural credits measure. I am sure the hon. member has confidence in the leader of the opposition, and when he has heard assertions such as my right hon. leader has made on the floor of this House, I think he will be satisfied that those promises contained in the Speech from the Throne alone are not a justification for maintaining this government in office.
.Now I want to go briefly over the policy of protection as I understand it. The charge

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
has been widely made that the Conservative party is a high tariff party. I am sure hon. members of this House know that the right hon. leader of the opposition is quite capable of expressing himself with such clarity that there can be no mistaking his views. He moved in this House a resolution, which speaks for itself, and in it there is no word of high tariff. He promises that his party will carry out the principle of protection, that that will be the basis on which it will work, but the height of that tariff is a matter for the experts to determine, so long as they recognize the principle that all industries, including agriculture must be safeguarded. I want also to say that although there is a vague reference to the farming community in this tariff provision in the Speech from the Throne, it means little. I remember that the Liberal candidate for South Winnipeg, a gentleman who had the confidence of the leader of this government as few men had; a gentleman who was going to be one of his mainstays in this House, published in the papers in Winnipeg a statement something like this:	"If
Meighen is elected your food will cost you more." There never was any intention on the part of that man, who has always been considered friendly to the Progressives, to stand for a low tariff policy, yet there never was any intention on his part to give protection to the farmers of this country. The Conservative party1 has promised protection to the dairying industry, the fruit growers, the cattle men, the poultry men, and all those who produce in Canada. They will be considered when the tariff is framed.
Now I am asking my Progressive friends whether they have really considered what is happening in the west to-day. Last September and October potatoes were selling for twenty-five, thirty and forty cents a bushel, which was below the cost of production. Why? Because potatoes had come in earlier from the United States; the market was gone;
transportation costs were too high to allow them to ship to the markets of the east, and the market to the south was barred to them by the tariff. To provide for that and for the grain growers as well, the right hon. leader of the opposition promised to assist the transportation of the primary products of this country from the west to the consuming centres of the east. Progressive members must know that that problem can only be met by direct subvention by this parliament. With the railway losses we have sustained, it is a direct promise that while helping these industries of the west this party will, by subvention, give them relief. Is there any
Progressive member from the west who does not want to have lower transportation costs? Does any hon. member believe that result can be obtained without losses which will have to be borne by the country as a whole? If they are in favour of that plan, why should they not favour the subvention by tariff, if I may so call it? How can they be in favour of one system and not of the other?
The last speaker made a suggestion which caused some members amusement. I considered it to be an earnest effort to help himself escape and aid his brother Progressives to escape from their dilemma. There is not the slightest doubt that every member from the west who votes for this adjournment merely to help this discredited government will have to account for that act to the people of the west. Every Progressive member who votes against the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will likewise have to account to his constituents, and I for one would not like to be in his boots when he comes to do so. What possible reason can there be to maintain in office a government that many of the hon. gentlemen to my left, have declared they have no confidence in, and which itself has announced its impotence and inability to carry on? What possible purpose can there be in delaying the ousting of that government from office? If only the hon. members from the west had realized from the start that they are only wasting time in keeping this government in power, and that the sooner they put a Conservative government in power the sooner we could get on with the business of the country-there can be only one outcome to the situation- we could now be proceeding with public business under the leadership of a man possessing the courage to attack the problems awaiting solution, whose integrity no man can doubt, and who has a well-defined policy of his own and the backing of a loyal party from one end of Canada to the other.
I ask hon. members who belong to the Progressive party to consider carefully the result of an adverse vote on this amendment. I believe they would be serving the cause of Canada as a whole by voting for this amendment and against the resolution for an adjournment. I come from Manitoba, and I tell this House that that province in the past has refused baits dangled before it in the shape of local advantage when the interests of Canada as a whole were threatened. Manitoba to-day stands for a sturdier Canadianism. a Canadianism finer than that advocated by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) in his recent speeches here. The voice of

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
Manitoba calls upon all parts of Canada to unite and to put an end to divisions between provinces and different classes in this country. That is a work in which we should all be proud to engage. Let us all unite in that task so that as members of the Dominion parliament we may have the privilege of giving effect to the boast of Sir Wilfrid Laurier that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. I believe that if we do unite and go forward willingly on the course I have outlined we shall accomplish a more glorious destiny for Canada then even the Fathers of Confederation envisioned.


Mr. A. B. THOMPSON (East Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the privilege of saying a very few words in connection with the amendment now before the House. As I understand the situation, we on this side are asked to join with the government in granting an adjournment for six weeks, a demand which I believe, Sir, is without parallel, without precedent and without justification. Perhaps I should qualify the expression "without justification". There is no justification having regard to the good and welfare of the country; the only justification lies in the exigencies of the political fortunes of the so-called Liberal government that we have to-day. Sir, in times of warfare immediately a battle is over the first duty of the commander of every unit that has taken part in the fight is to assemble his forces and to re-form his lines. Well we had a political battle in this country on October 29, and although three and a half months have elapsed since that battle took place, this government have not yet been able to readjust their lines, and we are asked now to grant an adjournment of six weeks in order that they may assemble their forces and carry out that re-forming. What kind of reformers can these people be if they cannot get their line into shape in that time?
But, Sir, it appears that the government have received reinforcements; that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), in his capacity of commander-in-chief of the Progressive forces, has moved up his men and tried to align them on the side of the government. It -is to 'be hoped that there are still some independents in that so-called Independent group, and that not all the members of the Progressive party will be found subservient to the leadership of my hon. friend. How can the Progressives defend their support of this amendment? Not on the ground of convenience, because taken as a body, no other group in this House will be so much inconvenienced by an adjournment 
as they will, owing to the long distances their homes are from Ottawa. Should an adjournment be granted now, the weeks that will be lost will be tacked on to the far end of the session when time is more important to them than it is at present. Therefore they cannot defend their support of the government on the ground of convenience. Neither can they defend it on the ground of necessity, because so far as they are concerned there is no need or necessity for it. According to my understanding, one of the strong planks of the Progressive platform has always been that of economy, and they cannot endorse an adjournment on that ground. It has been said that this adjournment may cost the country from one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand dollars. If that be so, then if my hon. friends wish to be true to their platform they must oppose the government's proposal. But it appears that there must be some alliance or coalition between the Progressives and Liberals. W'hat the understanding between them is, of course we on this side do not know, but we can safely assume that the old expression "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours" lies at the very foundation of this alliance.
Soon after the first vote had been taken in this House I met a very prominent reformer, whose father had occupied a high position in the Senate on the reform side. In conversation he told me that he regretted the Liberal party had been sustained in the vote in question. He said "I remember well what happened in the province of Ontario twenty-two or twenty-three years ago, when the late Hon. G. W. Ross endeavoured to hold on to power after having lost the confidence of the people. As a reformer I fear that history will repeat itself, and just as the reform party, by reason of Mr. Ross hanging on to power, lost the confidence of the people; just as our party in Ontario, nearly twenty-five years after that happened, is a mere shadow of what it used to be, so too I fear that our party in the Dominion, by reason of our leaders trying to hang on to office after they have been defeated, will leave us in the same unhappy plight, so far as Dominion matters are concerned."
Now, Sir, this government may with the help of the Progressives wiggle through this session.


An hon. MEMBER:: No chance.


Alfred Burke Thompson: Well, they may wiggle through this session, but if they do, a reckoning is bound to come sooner or later. They must sooner or later submit themselves to the

Customs Inquiry Committee
judgment of the electors of this Dominion, and when they do I am satisfied that the pronouncement of an indignant electorate will not be "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." On the contrary the pronouncement will be similar to that made on the unjust steward of old, and they will be cast into outer darkness.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: After the statement made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) that he proposed to suggest the appointment of a committee to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), I had been expecting to-day that this motion for a committee would have been brought in by the government. But apparently there has been some difficulty in the wording of that motion, and it has not been brought in.
I wish to say that we are not prepared to alter in any way the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre until the motion for this committee has been brought in by the government and passed by the House. At the same time we on this side of the House do not wish to press the government unduly in a matter of this kind, and I rise to move the adjournment of this debate until to-morrow, in the hope that this motion may then be brought in by the government. If this proposal for the adjournment of the debate is not satisfactory to the government, we on this side of the House are prepared to proceed now with a division on the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to the motion for the extended adjournment.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Alexander Robb: In moving the adjournment of the House for this evening, I wish to say on behalf of the government, in respect to the statement made by the hon. member for Argenteuil, that I understood the Minister of Customs had a conference this morning with my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition and that they were getting along toward the basis of an agreement as to the resolution and a committee. The Minister of Customs is not now in his seat, but he will be here tomorrow at three o'clock and will be prepared to make a statement. I move the adjournment of the House.


Arthur Meighen: It is understood that we go on as usual to-morrow with this debate, in any event?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to add to what
the acting leader of the government said, that we are adjourning the debate only in order to give time for the government to make its motion. So far as we are concerned we are prepared to divide, as the hon. member for Argenteuil stated, at any minute.


James Alexander Robb: I quite appreciate that. I
do not know what difference existed between my right hon. friend and the Minister of Customs. I want to say we are most anxious to have a committee appointed and to have the fullest investigation.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, February 5, 1926